|
This forum: Pool our thoughts (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Aquarian |
| There goes the intelligent discussion. |
|
|
| shaolin_Z |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
There goes the intelligent discussion. |
what intelligent discussion? |
|
|
| metalgearsolid |
| quote: | | Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac. |
George Orwell |
|
|
| Subey |
Ah well, no worries. I'll skip over the morality of the american invasion of iraq and address Arbiter :)
Arbiter. I see nothing wrong with your analysis of the current view of democracy. It's valid though it ignores the approach to change of the masses crystalizing around a movement for change (i.e. Civil Rights movement)
However that's not really the contribution i'm interested in, in the sense that to some extent the purpose of this thread is a "sandbox" one. Assuming that the reigns of power were transfered (either internally through a trojan horse method or externally through a crystalized movement) what changes would you want to institute? |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by Subey
Joe Voter decides that he wants to take the "Basic Foreign Branch Test". Joe studies a guide (like a driver's licence road test booklet) and learns some of the basics about geopolitics, passes the test and now his vote for the Foreign Branch is worth 1.25 |
Only problem with this suggestion is that it's undemocratic.
It would result in the subordination of "the people" to the educated and politically elite classes, further concentrating the power in the hands of those, presumably, you don't want in power. Your idea can even be said to be anti-democratic, since it outlines the machinery for a privaledged oligarchy (which is basically what we've already got):
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
The whole idea of 'all opinions are equal' is great to get little kids in the schoolyard to get along, but it holds no reality. The fact is, when two opinions differ, they cannot be equal. One of them is always more truthful or more intelligent than the other. If you keep considering the inferior opinions, then you don't get anywhere, and that's the problem with democracy. |
Of course, the whole point of democracy (parlimentarism?) is to control and make responsible the people that will rise to the upper echelon; and "democracy" does assume, unlike e.g. Communism, that an upper echelon must exist. This is because, no matter what the various shades of pinkos think, a classless society is totally impossible because people with like credentials, or pedigree, or success, or even opinion always do and always will congregate:
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
I can see why you think it might devellop into somesort of class system, which is why I think that, like communism, this a good system on paper, but due to human nature it would be near impossible to implement. |
One of the funniest things about Communism was the layers of social strata and privaledge it contained, largely based on one's occupation and political connections, while claiming to be "for the people." It was in practice anything but. A classless society is also impossible because:
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
...education doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. Education is nessessary to make the decision, but the idea is that the most intelligent make the decisions, not just the most educated. Trust me, I've known people who were extremely knowledgable about a great number of things, and at the same time they were some of the biggest idiot's i'd ever known. |
...So there will always be a ruling elite strata (decision making strata if you like), no matter the ideological form of government.
So how do you measure the merit of someone's vote in a modern "democracy?" (no such thing?):
| quote: | Originally posted by kush paintings
Testing wouldn't be fair. Although I like the idea, you have to realize no test can provide an unbiased assesment of intelligence. This problem has been proven with the ACT and SATs in America, and of course would be present in a test to determine how informed you are. How do you score certain topics? What questions to include? What if you weighed Healthcare more importantly than Education not intentionally, but because you included more questions that tested Healthcare knowledge. |
Democracy was originally, ideologically and philosophically interested in all *localized* citizen-opinion, but understand that democracy was never meant for large-scale governing. Demokratia must be considered within the context of the regional self-interested city-states, their regional geo-strategic situations vis-a-vis other city states and/or non-Greek opponents, and specifically within the context of the requirements of citizenship of a city state in ancient Greece, in order to qualify to partake in local "government."
The idea of democracy was meant to govern small bodies on a regional scale, where all those bodies had mutual ties of family, land, and military interdependence, and thus compatable, basic outlook.
Democracy can't be meaningfully applied to the modern world in the manner the Greeks envisioned it. Running "democracy" under such conditions was manifestly different in basic goals and scope then trying to apply similar conditions to the disparate world of today.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
At least now a Middle-eastern country will see it's first chance at Democracy as a result! |
Don't kid yourself. All of those installed to govern Iraq "were installed", hand-picked, for their pro-Western behaviour. Anyone that tried to demonstrate independent thinking fell out of favour and lapsed into obscurity.
You seem to be of the belief that the Iraqis, if they wanted, could elect an extremist and put him in power which the Western powers would permit because it was done democratically. I say again: don't kid yourself.
There is no democracy going on in Iraq.
Factor in that most Iraqis will have no concept of democracy, which is a system alien to, and incompatable with, Islam.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
But at least at the core of Democracy is the most powerful tool in it's arsenal; The Vote. With this power, people can truly govern themselves...it shouldn't be qualified in any way. |
You also seem to have an odd belief that your individual vote somehow factors in who's going to become the President of the USA. You seem to be quite disconnected from reality, and keep talking theory. E.g.:
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
There's already a really well designed example of a functioning Democratic Country out there, one that also happens to be the #1 successful Democracy in the world.................it's called the "USA". ;) |
Huh? Well, this, if anything, is a perfect example of the poor education system... You need to know this:
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I'm sorry to be the one to have to break the news to you, but the USA is a miserable failure. Our democratically elected leaders squander lives and resources in ridiculous conflicts around the globe from which we have nothing to gain, and while blatantly lying about their motive for doing so. Our population becomes more ignorant and bigoted with each successive generation as our education system's old wounds continue to fester. The private resources of our population are constantly pillaged by an overgrown behemoth of a bureaucracy which then squanders them all while also accruing a titanic debt and yet failing to make significant progress on even the most simplistic social issues. Our prisons are overflowing with individuals guilty only of poor judgment and who pose no threat to society whatsoever. But rather than attempt to provide assistance or at the very least to just not cause further harm, we strip them of their freedom and their dignity at tremendous cost to ourselves. Our government tramples upon our individual freedom as if it means nothing and justifies itself with paranoid delusions and 2000-year-old children's stories. What's even worse - the people are so misguided and blind that most of them don't even see anything wrong with it.
If that's the best democracy has to offer then I say: democracy. |
Well said.
The USA is not a democracy. It's a pseudo-representative semi-parlimentary, oligarchic Republic.
I don't know that a true democracy exists in the world today, and I'd be surprised if someone could produce an example. The word is merely used in catch-phrases now; also used to delineate, to differentiate between people that share our (Western) ideals and to divide us from those that don't. Its context is currently that of a curse or smear word to be hurled as a weapon at those one wants to alienate.
No one's really interested in democracy anymore, they haven't been in a hundred years, and I can't say I blame them.
Cheers,
-N |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: |
Don't kid yourself. All of those installed to govern Iraq "were installed", hand-picked, for their pro-Western behaviour. Anyone that tried to demonstrate independent thinking fell out of favour and lapsed into obscurity.
You seem to be of the belief that the Iraqis, if they wanted, could elect an extremist and put him in power which the Western powers would permit because it was done democratically. I say again: don't kid yourself.
Factor in that most Iraqis will have no concept of democracy, which is a system alien to, and incompatable with, Islam.
You also seem to have an odd belief that your individual vote somehow factors in who's going to become the President of the USA. You seem to be quite disconnected from reality, and keep talking theory. E.g.:
|
:haha:
Of course they were hand-picked! And of course they can put another extremist Dicatator in power...but do you really think the Iraqi's were happy under extremist Saddam? It won't happen.
And will the U.S. allow an extremist power in Iraq in the future anyway? Likely not...especially considering most illecit powers that come to be do it via illicet means, hence a legal and genuine "Election" of such a government seems un-likely. And why would Iraq's do this by choice anyway? Once they get a taste of Democracy and keeping their money for themselves, holding their officials accountable via a vote, etc., I can't see why they would want to create a situation whereby their government wold get them in to another war because they put an expansionist government or Dictator in office...it could happen, but hoepfully, they will use their new-found freedoms to ensure that it doesn't.
Sure there will be growing pains as the old and the new ways clash, but in the end, individual freedom and recognition is a "Natural" right that everyone can indentify with. If I recall, the turn-out of the first vote in Afghanastan was HIGHER than it was (in terms of percentage) than it even is in this country! And from everything we've seen, freedom and voting is going pretty damn good right now in the even MORE extremist country Afghanistan, right? ;)
And what makes you think each vote doesn't count? That's one of the most ignorant and irresposible things I've ever heard! Have you seen how close an election can come in this country? "Gore/Bush 2000" ring a bell? I don't know what goes on in your country, but in this one, each vote is PARAMOUNT! Just how exactly do you think the President gets in office if he's not voted in? And please don't tell me it's because you think we're all "Brain-washed" by the powers that be to vote the way they want, or because Republicans "Steal" elections...that's just lame if that's your answer. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| i find the well-articulated & intelligent arrogance of you anti democracy people to be very disappointing. a very very good reason for the intellectual elite NOT to inherit the reigns of nations. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
The USA is not a democracy. It's a pseudo-representative semi-parlimentary, oligarchic Republic.
I don't know that a true democracy exists in the world today, and I'd be surprised if someone could produce an example. |
While true, governments have been looking into voting from home for the last couple of years now via home computers.
It has already been proven successful in some instances; see http://iballot.com/ as an example.
Then we would have a true democracy and not the representative democracy we have now.
This should give governments a true demographic as slug-bait-couch-potatoes would then have a say...
Hmmm....huge swing vote potential...?
Considering the abysmal voter turn out in the last few votes (at least here in Canada) this will be a good thing.
...runs to create new, "Potato-chip Party" :p |
|
|
| TheNobleEu |
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
Of course they were hand-picked! And of course they can put another extremist Dicatator in power...but do you really think the Iraqi's were happy under extremist Saddam? It won't happen. |
If you were to go into the streets in Kirkuk, or Mosul, or Fallujah, and ask the Iraqis (regardless of religious affilitation) whether life was better when Saddam was in power, most would respond with an overwhelming "yes."
This is not because the people condone Saddam's regime exactly: it is because under Saddam they had jobs, they had electricity, they had running water, they had some form of relative political stability. They knew where they lived, where they belonged in the social hierarchy, and what was expected of them. They had something resembling a regular routine.
Now they don't, and they associate that with the coming of the Western powers. Hence the rage and hate against the US.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
And why would Iraq's do this by choice anyway? Once they get a taste of Democracy and keeping their money for themselves, holding their officials accountable via a vote, etc., |
You don't understand (and hence are not factoring) that the Iraqis have no idea what democracy is or how it works, so the above mindset you claim the Iraqis will have is impossible, currently. You're projecting your own perspective onto people that simply don't have your experiences.
A basic fact needs to be understood: desperate people looking only for stability are willing to overlook brutal, murderous, dictatorial regimes if they are capable of preventing general social and political anarchy. When that erupts, and brutal dictators seize power and begin putting anarchy down, the people don't care about the means by which the new dictator reasserts order. Order is *all* they care about. The people want to try to live with what they have, and are otherwise incredibly "forgiving" and quite willing to look the other way if left alone. This doesn't apply only to Iraq.
The Iraqis however, if they had the choice, would install Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, while others would install Muqtada al-Sadr. IOW, the religious leaders that have and do wield the primary religious authority over Iraqi hearts and minds.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
And what makes you think each vote doesn't count? That's one of the most ignorant and irresposible things I've ever heard! Have you seen how close an election can come in this country? "Gore/Bush 2000" ring a bell? |
Oh.... my... gawd.
| quote: | Originally posted by donnybrasco
I don't know what goes on in your country, but in this one, each vote is PARAMOUNT! |
LMAO! Arbiter, this guy still doesn't get it and needs you to sort him out re: "Gore/Bush 2000" and how his vote had dick all to do with it.
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
i find the well-articulated & intelligent arrogance of you anti democracy people to be very disappointing. a very very good reason for the intellectual elite NOT to inherit the reigns of nations. |
I'm not anti-democracy, exactly.
Democracy, for the brief reasons I and others outlined above, just doesn't and can't work the way it was initially conceived as a localized, small-scale political system (pay close attention to the comments of Aquarian).
Not even the Democrats believe in Democracy. Democracy is just universally perceived as the least of the evils, and Democracy is simply used as a tool by some parties to attempt to constrain certain other parties. That's all.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
While true, governments have been looking into voting from home for the last couple of years now via home computers.
It has already been proven successful in some instances; see http://iballot.com/ as an example.
Then we would have a true democracy and not the representative democracy we have now. |
No it wouldn't.
A system that simply involves people voting does not a democracy make (as you well know). More couch-potatoes voting doesn't somehow magically transform the mechanism of government away from its pseudo-representative, bureaucratic Republican-parlimentary quality.
And technical access to voting, in this case access to, knowledge of, and ability to use a computer would serve only a very small demographic of the population, so wouldn't overwhelmingly boost logged voting (I know lots of 40-50 somethings that don't know what email is or how to use it, and/or are violently anti-computer. Some of my colleagues still use typewriters).
I daresay most people that don't vote do not for some silly ideological reason, not out of sheer laziness (although that is undoubtedly the case sometimes). Those with the saavy to use computers to vote would probably be those that are voting all the time anyway. For many it would probably be a novelty.
Cheers,
-N |
|
|
| Subey |
| A question for someone in BC (or elsewhere), I was wondering what your personal experience with "a single transferable vote" was. |
|
|
| donnybrasco |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
LMAO! Arbiter, this guy still doesn't get it and needs you to sort him out re: "Gore/Bush 2000" and how his vote had dick all to do with it.
-N |
Why does he have to spell it out? You're the one who made this ignorant claim, why don't you explain yourself?
Tell me EXACTLY how Presidents are elected in this country if the individual vote doesn't count? :crazy: |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by TheNobleEu
Only problem with this suggestion is that it's undemocratic.
It would result in the subordination of "the people" to the educated and politically elite classes, further concentrating the power in the hands of those, presumably, you don't want in power. Your idea can even be said to be anti-democratic, since it outlines the machinery for a privaledged oligarchy (which is basically what we've already got):
|
There are many different ways to look at the current situation. Each exemplifies one aspect or another.
If I had to describe governance of a nation then I would apply the following analogy:
The nation is a ship. Every election the people choose to turn that left or right of its current course.
The issue for me then, isn't one of concentrating power at the top of the pyramid, but rather to transform the pyramid into its next evolutionary shape, that of a pear.
That by raising the quality of the conversation at the bottom that the top must respond. To analogize again: is it easier to control illiterate slaves or literate ones? In other words, a more politically literate population by its very nature naturally reshapes the pyramid into a pear. |
|
|
|
|
