i was just wondering if there was any real Democracy in man's world?
we have always talked about Freedom, and invented/discovered Democracy or even Communisn or Socialism or .. i dont know Islam/Christianism ideologies?.. to realize it -Freedom.
but how many unfair wars, decisions (big ones), sanctions, decrees.. have been issued for the reason of Democracy?
is the equation Democracy = Freedom totally right?
i guess US system is supposed to be democratic, i know it went to iraq breaking that same international system.
i can see now that: Democratic + strength = Freedom may b the more logical equation.
then, the use of STRENGTH must b a democratic mean to just achieve Freedom?
the conclusion here is that WE SHOULD USE POWER DEMOCRATICLY TO APPLY FREEDOM (?)
again, how can we apply Freedom when threating others' Freedom IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY??
i guess Democracy is not that simple, nor innocent?
Originally posted by Dialademocracy does not produce freedom.
i was just wondering if there was any real Democracy in man's world?
we have always talked about Freedom, and invented/discovered Democracy or even Communisn or Socialism or .. i dont know Islam/Christianism ideologies?.. to realize it -Freedom.
but how many unfair wars, decisions (big ones), sanctions, decrees.. have been issued for the reason of Democra ...[text shortened]... g others' Freedom IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY??
i guess Democracy is not that simple, nor innocent?
the voter is free to vote for whatever is on offer, for example, the palestinians recently voted for hamas.
if a majority vote for terrorism, supression, censorship, more restrictions, that is moving away from freedom.
Originally posted by DialaA democracy in nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
i was just wondering if there was any real Democracy in man's world?
we have always talked about Freedom, and invented/discovered Democracy or even Communisn or Socialism or .. i dont know Islam/Christianism ideologies?.. to realize it -Freedom.
but how many unfair wars, decisions (big ones), sanctions, decrees.. have been issued for the reason of Democra ...[text shortened]... g others' Freedom IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY??
i guess Democracy is not that simple, nor innocent?
Thomas Jefferson
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.
Anon
Originally posted by Silver SlayerParaphrasing a famous quote:
A democracy in nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.
Thomas Jefferson
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep arguing over whats for dinner.
Anon
Merely having the power to choose a new master every term does not make a slave less of a slave
Quotes do not make a debate but there's not much of a debate going on here anyway.
"To include freedom in the very definition of democracy
is to define a process not by its actual characteristics
as a process but by its hoped for results.
This is not only intellectually invalid, it is,
in practical terms, blinding oneself in advance
to some of the unwanted consequences of the process."
-- Thomas Sowell
"And what sort of philosophical doctrine is this -- that numbers confer unlimited rights, that they take from some persons all rights over themselves, and vest these rights in others. ... How, then, can the rights of three men exceed the rights of two men? In what possible way can the rights of three men absorb the rights of two men, and make them as if they had never existed. ... It is not possible to suppose, without absurdity, that a man should have no rights over his own body and mind, and yet have a 1/10,000,000th share in unlimited rights over all other bodies and minds?"
-- Auberon Herbert
(1838-1906) English author
And some scathing satire from Mencken;
"The only kind of freedom that the mob can imagine
is freedom to annoy and oppress its betters,
and that is precisely the kind that we mainly have."
-- H. L. Mencken
(1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor, Essayist, Linguist, Lexicographer, and Critic
The answer is a constitution (The US very nearly had one but it get's another piece whittled out of it every year, which is a great shame) so binding in it's protection of 'rights' that it dosen't matter how the pollies get into their office they can't do too much damage.
Originally posted by WajomaPonderous, but Sowell gets it about right (for a change).
Quotes do not make a debate but there's not much of a debate going on here anyway.
"To include freedom in the very definition of democracy
is to define a process not by its actual characteristics
as a process but by its hoped for results.
This is not only intellectually invalid, it is,
in practical terms, blinding oneself in advance
to some of the unwanted consequences of the process."
-- Thomas Sowell
I like John Calvin (who suppressed both freedom and democracy): "So long as opinions are counted, rather than weighed, the better part will be overcome by the greater."
Originally posted by DialaThe term "Democracy" has little real meaning. In the vernacular, it has come to mean that a "representative" type body governs a nation.
i was just wondering if there was any real Democracy in man's world?
we have always talked about Freedom, and invented/discovered Democracy or even Communisn or Socialism or .. i dont know Islam/Christianism ideologies?.. to realize it -Freedom.
but how many unfair wars, decisions (big ones), sanctions, decrees.. have been issued for the reason of Democra ...[text shortened]... g others' Freedom IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY??
i guess Democracy is not that simple, nor innocent?
This can be seen as a validation of nations.
I would propose that the following test be given:
"Does nation x have leadership that is limited in TERM AND SCOPE of power dependant upon the tally of the masses?"
If yes, then I would say that the specific "representative" form can loosely be called "democratic" or "elected" by the people. If no, then I would hold that we are discussing an illegitimate usurpation of power in the form of a "dictatorship".
I think that any power invested in such a "representation" is inherited from the notion of individual rights over states rights. If such a "democracy" acts, it is through the continuing will of the electorate as opposed to the will of a dictator.
The complexity of "democracy" is indeed tied up in the details of "personal liberty" and "personal freedoms" granted or tolerated by the form of government. Again, in the vernacular, I think that I would allow the usage of "democratic" if said governance allows ownership of property, freedom of speech, a free press, freedom of religious conviction or lack thereof ... etc.
Examples of what I would allow as "democracies" are the nations of Denmark, Sweden, UK, Canada and the US etc. This isn't a full list, but only a sample. They have a leadership that can be replaced by the will of the masses. "Royalty" is another matter. It exists at the grant of passage issued by the true form.
Examples of what I would allow as "not democracies" are the nations of China, Cuba, Iran, Syria etc.
Iran had elections, but only the anointed candidates were allowed. I included it to add complexity to the definition.
For what it's worth,
Mike
Here is a post i wrote a while ago asking wether democracy and freedom were a myth.
I was thinking about this the other day and formed the opinion that in Australia, it is to a certain degree, but in America I feel that it is to a greater degree.
With recent developments in recent times it seems that the whole "Democracy" thing being championed by the USA is less and less relevant as the media takes a stronghold over the people.
Now democracy as I see it is a President or Prime Minister being elected to by the people to represent the voice of the people. But with the recent un-lawful invasion of Iraq, the people who are supposed to be represented by the President were deliberately misled into a war by the use of Government controlled (whether directly or indirectly) media. Claims that Iraq had WOMD and claims that they were a threat to “Democracy” and our “Freedom” were broadcast to homes even when it was known by the people in power that it was all false. Therefore a country went to war which had uncertain motives, uncertain goals, and uncertain tactics. One certain result though, was profit for the rich in America, profit for the people who financially backed Bush, and profit for his associates. It is quite ambiguous as to why we were led into a war, and certainly, this was not the voice of people who entrusted democracy and freedom to one man. But nonetheless, through media, the people were manipulated into believing that the war was justified.
Also, as it stands, the USA have had Bush elected in as the President by the courts, not by the people. There is also strong evidence that the election was manipulated to a fair degree in order to influence the votes that could be counted. But the media initially did not report this…
One thing that scared me was the after 9/11 a flurry of new laws were passed in order to invade privacy and keep a close eye on people who spoke out about the government. These people were then defined as a terrorist. Using the media generated hysteria around the incredibly vague threat of more terrorist attacks, these laws were passed with little or no opposition. Since when has democracy been about not being able to speak out against a Government?
Now that the general population IS speaking out, Bush and his government still are not listening to the majority, and are staying in Iraq. It is quite clear that they cannot win this war and the people have decided that the cost of lives is simply too much. Last time I checked, 34% of the American people are pro war. This is by far, not a majority. But now they are in, it is easier to stay in.
So who does the President of America and the Prime Minister of Australia representing? The people? The Majority? To me it doesn’t seem that way.
On another note I was recently watching some NBA matches which I got on DVD from the USA, and I was astonished at the amount of advertisements there were for useless things…. Pharmaceutical companies scaring the hell out of the public, hair colour products that target grey hair, beauty products for men, liposuction ads, plastic surgery blah blah blah. These were all bombarding the watcher and manipulating their self image into a negative so as to by their products. It seems that advertising has gone from finding people who need a product, to making a product and making people feel they need it. Freedom? To me freedom is not having to be reminded about all the negatives in my life. To me it not about having “holes” in my life created by the media, in order to fill it with products I really don’t need.
One thing that irks me about America and their media, is that it proclaims ad-nauseam about their nation being the land of the free. Meanwhile they have the highest homicide rate in all the developed countries, are involved in an unlawful invasion of Iraq in which soldiers are being sent to and dying in, they have fostered a culture that anyone who does not support the government is a "Terrorist Supporter" or "Saddam Supporter", and they are the poster child for Consumerism. So why is the land of the free so hypnotised and at the mercy of media?
So I come to my point. In this environment of media manipulation, is democracy and freedom a myth? Care to discuss?
Originally posted by EsotericWhat left-wing professor did you convince to write this rubbish, and how did you convince him, or "persuade" him?. NBA matches?....you can see better matches on outside courts in Compton, Atlanta, Detroit, or any urban city in the U.S. The NBA is for suckas..........
Here is a post i wrote a while ago asking wether democracy and freedom were a myth.
I was thinking about this the other day and formed the opinion that in Australia, it is to a certain degree, but in America I feel that it is to a greater degree.
With recent developments in recent times it seems that the whole "Democracy" thing being championed by ...[text shortened]... this environment of media manipulation, is democracy and freedom a myth? Care to discuss?
Originally posted by chancremechanicI'll still whoop your arse on the court gramps.
What left-wing professor did you convince to write this rubbish, and how did you convince him, or "persuade" him?. NBA matches?....you can see better matches on outside courts in Compton, Atlanta, Detroit, or any urban city in the U.S. The NBA is for suckas..........
Got anything intelligent to say numbnuts? Nope? Thought so. Go away.
