22 replies to this topic

[lonelym]

Is Democracy the really best kind of government?

(This is the view of a fourteen year old, so don't react too much)

I would think that a democratic government is a better government than the other ones (Like the one wherein there is only one ruler, and what he/she says goes) because it respects everyone's right of speech. We are allowed to voice our opinions, give our suggestions and make comments about how the government is run. Seeing as the whole population is given a chance to say what they feel about it makes them feel more of a community rather than being slaves to a person who abuses his/her power.

Democratic governments however, has its own problems. If the president of the government implemented a law which he/she did not explain what it is for, or if it is fair, then that would show that the president is gripping his/her power, and he/she is not letting the people who he/she govern a chance to speak.

Most problems with these kinds of governments are the people who help the president. People who help the president should be people who are really trust worthy. People who you could give a buck and you'd be sure he/she would return it. Most democratic governments are filled with greedy, power-hungry officials who bend laws to their personal wishes.

I don't think that's what supposed to happen. These things mostly happen when there aren't too much love for your country (Inang-bayan?), or when people care more about themselves than they care about thousands of thousands of other people who has to work 8 hours a day to put food on the table for his/her family. We need to be able to select proper officials for a better government.

The problem with other countries' governments is the one ruler thing that I was explaining a while ago. The probability of the person being a corrupt, greedy, and power-hungry ruler and being a loving, kind, thoughtful, and generous ruler would be 50-50. Now, if he became good, hurrah! We have a very kind ruler. BUT, if we fall with a bad ruler, he might order the soldiers to go off and kill a lot of people just for his whim, and make laws that would prevent him from being over-thrown from the crown/position.

Overall, I think that Democracy is the best kind of government.

[Aniki]

Personally, I think direct democracy is the best kind of government. Direct democracy is where there is complete and absolute rule by the people. There are no political figures, no senates, no presidents, etc. Want to go to war? Have a national vote! Anything related to the country? Vote!

The good thing about this is there can't be any corruption, as everyone is completely equal. I suppose you could get into the system and mess with the votes, but that's inevitable. Also with no political figures, assassination is useless! With millions of equal politicians, you could never assassinate all of them.

If there were even just a few countries that were direct democracies, I think that if people didn't agree with what their country was doing, they could move to another country that fit their opinions better. Countries would take on the quirks of their population, heh.

Anyhoo, I don't like government very much, but out of all those existing, I think direct democracy is the best.

[lonelym]

Yes, once I understood what you were explaining I thought it was a really great idea. But having no one to be the judge of what acts are good or bad or having no one to send people in jail might be a pretty big problem.

[Alegis]

I'm more or less opposed to the thought thinking that the collective mass of citizens knows whats best for them. Politics, especially here in Belgium, have become a popularity contest. A German teacher of mine used to say, "to think an uninformed regular citizen has the right to vote, is similar as to how a butcher should have the right to perform surgery".

The vote of the bulk people of the country is uninformed and influenced mostly by which faces they happen to see, or usually propaganda/superficial thoughts. As Aristotle (or some other greek of his age) said, 'the majority isn't necessarily right' when they introduced citizen voting in ancient Greece. And in this case I believe the majority today is unfit to make a decision on how the government should work.

Edited by Alegis, 22 June 2007 - 02:00 PM.

[muztagh]

I also believe that direct democracy is the best kind of government. But you have to educate the people first to run a government with democracy, if people are less educated they can be easily manipulated by some greedy leaders with lies and some short time benefits for the people so they can win their vote in the the debate, and he can do eventually many things which is bad before people start voting against him/her.

[ruled_paper]

Democracy has its pros and cons. By giving responsibility to the people, we are avoiding dictatorship and an oppressive government. Power is balanced out equally in a society. But through a democracy there can be a lot of conflict between non-agreeing parties. Also, some people do not vote for the right reasons. We can not always tell if a person's vote is truly showing what they want.

[Chesso]

Ok so I am not really to clued into politics, let alone the word "democracy".

But would Asutralia be considered to have this, with how our Government works?, is it maybe a half-half, or a bit of this and a bit of that perhaps?

[Arbitrary]

I'm more or less opposed to the thought thinking that the collective mass of citizens knows whats best for them. Politics, especially here in Belgium, have become a popularity contest. A German teacher of mine used to say, "to think an uninformed regular citizen has the right to vote, is similar as to how a butcher should have the right to perform surgery".

The vote of the bulk people of the country is uninformed and influenced mostly by which faces they happen to see, or usually propaganda/superficial thoughts. As Aristotle (or some other greek of his age) said, 'the majority isn't necessarily right' when they introduced citizen voting in ancient Greece. And in this case I believe the majority today is unfit to make a decision on how the government should work.

Indeed, that is true. (Like in the inauguration of Andrew Jackson, or the transformation from the "snobs to the mobs"). The uninformed citizen is mob rule, more or less. But do we really have a system that is better than this one? Sure, you could say that your average citizen lacks the brain power to vote accurately, but would having a few educated people make all decisions be better? Obviously these few educated people (the "snobs") would not consider the needs of your average citizen, and many of them would end up in poverty.

If you are in favor of something akin to the "electoral college" so that elected officials vote for the president instead of the average citizen, then there is much evidence of its problems. Sure, this "electoral college" is supposedly educated (in fact, its original purpose was to prevent the rule of the uninformed citizen mob), but it definitely won't act in the best interests of the country. It was this electoral college that managed to get Bush elected even though Gore had won the direct vote. This group of officials could obviously care less for the well-being of their country and its citizens--they'd rather take advantage of their power.

I rather agree with ruled_paper when he says the democracy has its pros and its cons. You have to give something before you can take. Looking at all the forms of government in action in this world though, it seems that democracy is the best choice for now. Unless some brilliant thinker can concoct a new form of government, an autocratic form of government would most certainly not be better.

[Network]

Personally, I think direct democracy is the best kind of government. Direct democracy is where there is complete and absolute rule by the people. There are no political figures, no senates, no presidents, etc. Want to go to war? Have a national vote! Anything related to the country? Vote!

The good thing about this is there can't be any corruption, as everyone is completely equal. I suppose you could get into the system and mess with the votes, but that's inevitable. Also with no political figures, assassination is useless! With millions of equal politicians, you could never assassinate all of them.

If there were even just a few countries that were direct democracies, I think that if people didn't agree with what their country was doing, they could move to another country that fit their opinions better. Countries would take on the quirks of their population, heh.

Anyhoo, I don't like government very much, but out of all those existing, I think direct democracy is the best.

This is kind of like communism, works very well in theory, but in reality, someone would abuse it.
Socialism was probably the only real way to go, but margrette thatcher ****ed that up, eh?

Just to add, that idea of votes to the people, it would become a nightmare, because of propoganda (influance from the media)

Edited by Network, 30 October 2007 - 12:48 AM.

[Arbitrary]

Just to add, that idea of votes to the people, it would become a nightmare, because of propoganda (influance from the media)

Indeed, but if we give votes to a special class of voters (the electoral college in the US, say), there's

1) These people are most likely the people who control media in the first place. By giving them and only them the right to vote, we're not making the situation any better. If they controlled the masses before, they have a very tight hold on the populace now.

2) No guarantee that these people aren't influenced by the media

I still say direct democracy's the best, since there are other ways for people to get informed (internet, anyone?). On the other hand, there's no way you can force electors to vote for candidates in the majority's interest--they'll stick to their own selfish interests--even worse than the media.

Edited by Arbitrary, 30 October 2007 - 01:59 AM.

[ChrisAF07]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
- Benjamin Franklin

[tudor]

Democracy involves "majority rules" - meaning put it up to a vote, who ever gets the most votes wins. While we use that for elections, we do not use that for every thing. We believe in *individual* freedom, which means in most cases minority rules. Therein lies the difference. If one person believes abortion should be legal - then abortion is legal because other wise her rights are infringed upon. If ten people follow one particular religion, they cannot be denied that because their rights would be infringed upon. Doesn't matter what the majority thinks in cases of freedom and rights.


So finaly i don`t think we live in a true Democracy....Please corect me if i`m wrong but this is my opinion(i`m from romania and some thinks don`t match but in my country democracy doesn`t exist....)

[herenistarion]

Direct Democracy would really be the best ype of government. But with 6billion people in the world, its almost impossible to have this. Its origins are from athens i belive where the people directly participated in decision making.

[Lupo]

Any form of representation, without proportional representation, is not a democratic representation.

[slowalk]

I suppose it comes down to needs and requirements for people, and in effect, what the people want. That is the core of democracy - letting the people decide for themselves, and thereby maintaining a just and fair system. So yes, if democracy is enabled to work, I believe that it is the best system. However, every system has its flaws, and there are always arguments over different facets of the same word.

Like tudor said, I don't think we live in a fair democracy. But who's fault is that? Ours.

[Quatrux]

I agree that we don't really live in a fair democracy, and sometimes I hate the elections, because there really aren't anyone for whom to vote, they all seem to be the same politicians, even though sometimes it can get different, a lot of times happens that a popular guy gets into the government, I mean an actor, musician or tv show artists, something like that, so..

[pumbles]

Democracy: Say what you like, but do as you are told.

That may sound cynical, but it is true. Our politicians don't ask us what we want when they are electioneering, they tell us what they propose to do once elected. Once elected they then do as they want anyway.

Not only that, when there is an important moral vote, they vote on partisan lines, they do not vote according to the wishes of their constituents.

True democracy can only be carried out by the use of committees, beginning at ground level where the wishes of the people are paramount, those wishes being passed to those in power. Something which would never work just because of the sheer scale of work involved, and different people wanting different things.

[docduke]

Direct Democracy would really be the best type of government. But with 6 billion people in the world, it's almost impossible to have this. Its origins are from Athens, I belive, where the people directly participated in decision making. with light editing

The origins indeed go back to the distant past. The original Democratic city-states did not survive. That is an indication of problems with it.

Democracy: Say what you like, but do as you are told.

That perspective has been changing. Most countries that hold elections now have "speech codes", Human Rights Laws or governments that arbitrarily enforce restrictions on free speech.

The U.S. has been an exception. If polls are correct, that is about to change. Democracy depends on voting. The vote process in the U.S. has been increasingly corrupted over recent decades. It became more obvious with the passage of the Motor-Voter Law, shortly after the first Democratic President in a decade (Bill Clinton) was elected.

The process is now blatant: The Complete Guide to ACORN Voter Fraud. The "authorities" have been notified, and they have no interest in addressing it: Contacting the Justice Department. Basically, the U.S. Federal Government has been taken over by a large number of people who are hostile to democracy.

Note that Barak Obama, the candidate whom polls predict will win the Presidency, has been deeply involved in training ACORN personnel. His campaign committee funds ACORN. So does the Democratic Congress, which has inserted "earmarks" for them. Obama is himself a student of Marxists, and is actively supported by them, both from inside the U.S. and from outside (which is illegal, but ignored, like ACORN).

There was an attempt to insert another earmark for them in the very recent Financial Bailout Bill. I have read that it was removed. I have not verified this, but it is actually small change compared to previous earmarks. The process is discussed at Public Markup.org. [search on ACORN]

The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund [search on "Housing Trust Fund"] sets aside a portion of the expenses on every mortgage financed in the U.S. to pay into this "Trust Fund," whose primary use is to finance ACORN!

By the way, if you think the Presidential challenger, John McCain, is against ACORN, read this: McCain and his friends at…ACORN.

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.

attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville, but I believe a similar quote can be found in a Roman Empire document.

The U.S. was established as a republic. It was converted to a democracy in stages by politicians who resented the constraints on their power. Its finances were taken over by external (and some internal) forces in 1913 by the establishment of the Federal Reserve. Now it appears that the same financial cabal is engaged in a carefully-planned takeover of the U.S. financial system and its government, quite possibly with the intention of taking over the world economy as well.

Prepare for a bumpy ride!

[OpaQue]

Basically, we are more interested in our personal benefits and peace when it comes to choosing our system of Govt. and a leader. When it comes to Politics, no matter who you are, you are forced to support some xyz leader. Regardless of what system of Government we like, we know one thing for sure, either of the system is going to use one primary weapon. MEDIA.

If you ask my opinion about MEDIA, I hate it. Its this media which prevented the World War 3 in first place and the fear which should had been done and over with,say years back is still pressed in all of us. If Media had not shown all the poor and innocent people dying to win sympathy, We would had been quite peaceful. Because Nuclear energy does bring peace in the end. So, regardless of the choice we make about the type of Govt, its in the people we put our faith and trust in who make things work.

Talking about People and Media, I must include, Govt. guys should release their right to material ownership if they have to be the president/minister.. anything. Now, out of the population which scales in Millions & Billions, thinking about the person who is self-less is the key. This guy has all the right for a good pension + a good family but anything more than this... NO.

Laws are put in place to make a human independent. Not, make him more dependent on thousand other people in society. Laws (and media as well) must support God's divine plan.. it must help the growth of wisdom, peace, knowledge, spirituality, respect for all, pure truth and if possible, Media should be directly under Government.

Lets not talk about people and managing others and running a nation. Let's talk about our own selves, fortunately born as humans. Every human is born as a DOG. A Dog is filled with pure-love (atleast, mine is..) and is completely guided by its instincts. All needs like food, water, procreation are satisfied by this human/dog without much of any higher intelligence. In Humans, the ego is slowly building with the growing mind and he usually defines things as good which are good to him (& vice versa).

He starts enjoying the choices of life and learns the power to reason. Once mastered the power to reason, a man no longer jumps on food as soon as he sees it. He looks, observes, thinks if it is edible etc. and then takes a step forward. Humans are the only animals who have such great power of reasoning and this must be used by every human regardless of what he learn't from his past... every other HUMAN you met including MOM/DAD are humans who kept teaching you and answering you directly or indirectly. Being a human, you couldn't help but LEARN and SCULPT your being. So why the Politicians are STAMPED BAD! Is he/she not a DAD or a MOM? Regardless of what we say, the opposing TEAM of any politic struggle has MORE CoRe information that us sitting here and discussing. If its faults we gotta say and talk, we have it all in BULK from the same MEDIA behind which we sit and watch.. usually enjoying our pop-corns.

My point is, Every human, including his Mom, his Dad, his relatives etc. were/are doing their respective DUTIES. Its us who always missed the RIGHT QUESTION at the RIGHT TIME to get real understanding of ourselves. There is no point in arguing why things are the way they are.. However, we know one thing. Everything is fine as it is. Bill Gates as well as Bush, both are rich, both are blessed with fame... so is Paris Hilton. They got their set of problems and they are doing their duties of entertaining, administrating etc. so that you are me can enjoy. Ofcourse, they want to be noticed and remembered as well, as yes.. humans do mistakes.

Whats the REAL use of "Power of Reasoning"?
What is the limit of "Power of Reasoning" and who/what defines those limits?

Every humans "power of reasoning" must be used for a good cause of SELF REALIZATION and SELF-KNOWLEDGE. Its this place where True knowledge lies... Well, I dunno about today's world thinking, but Jesus definately agrees with me.. And so does Allah and Krishna.

WHAT WILL I GET BY USING MY POWER OF REASONING? WHERE SHOULD I BE USING MY FIGHTING SKILLS? AGAINST WHOM?

Yes, once a human starts to REASON.. he finds issues and by going further deep into subject, he gets solutions as well. Realize your REASONS and find the answers using your own will. Truth never changed for anyone and never bill be.. your inner voice kept giving you right answers then, now and will do forever. Its time, you turn your attention off the world and give it a ear :-)

Its now when one successfully learns his/her REAL NATURE, he uses his will, strength and courage to find against his own issues/problems. A human for. eg. shall fight with his addiction to drink and sleep very late at night. Its a human of this nature I call a TRUE WARRIOR or FIGHTER.

Once you get successful in your fight from being a DOG to attain the glimpse of the real "you", you are now eligible for the title of "Man" (who is truly a reflection of -> God) :-)