Manx

Again, no.

First of all, the majority of Iraqi's are this "radical fundamentalist" you speak of. So that they voted does not mean they support pseudo-democracy, it means they support "radical fundamentalism", potentially a tyranny of it.

But really, the simply want anything but what they currently have. If the only means of getting anything else is to cast a vote is a pseudo-election, that is the action any rational person would take. It does not mean they support the concept of pseudo-elections.

Your conclusions are clearly not based on any evidence.

Manx

I think most people do not care.

Most people want food to feed their kids, clean water and less violence. If it takes a "benevolent" dictator to achieve that, most people would be more than satisfied. If it takes "democracy" to achieve that, most people would be more than satisfied.

stevo

But, you still proved my point.

Manx

The only thing I have done with your point is to prove it false.

stevo

I don't know what point you are talking about, but I'm referring to the one I stated earlier about, "whether you believe a democratic-type government is the best type of government for all people and whether you believe that most people want to rule themselves through a democratic governement. If you do, then you probably agree with bush, if you don't, then you probably have a problem with him."

You said yourself that you don't, on all counts. Thats the only point I was trying to make.

If you are a fan of democracy and think it should be spread, you are probably with bush.

If you don't think democracy is for everyone, you are probably not with bush.

Manx

Oh that point.

I never responded to it in anyway, in agreement or not, because this thread doesn't have a definition of democracy.

You might as well have said:

If you are a fan of detrio and you think it should be spread, you are probably with Bush.

If you don't think detrio is for everyone, you are probably not with Bush.

At which point, we could discuss or argue over the definition of the term "detrio".

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

stevo

...And I wonder why it is so hard to talk politics with liberals...

I thought that the consensus of this board was that there is no country that is a pure democracy, and when we talk of democratic states, we mean the ones with an elected legislature and head figure. Mostly we speak in reference to american-style democracy.

Why does everything have to be so gosh-darn complicated?

Manx

It's not complicated, well, it is, but that's the way the world is.

I don't like American-style democracy. Nor do I consider it in any way "democracy", so let's call it something else - how about Blindly-supported-corruption-disguised-as-freedom?

I am not a fan of blindly-supported-corruption-disguised-as-freedom and I don't think it should be spread, so I am therefore not with Bush.

Yakk

You forgot "and so much want democracy, they are willing to give up clean water/have themselves killed/etc in order to get it".

Remember, this is about forcing democracy.

I'm a fan of democracy. I think it should be spread. I suspect that many people would enjoy it's fruits.

I don't think invading nations, blowing up cities, using false evidence, institutionalized torture, and having abysmal reconstruction plans is the best way to do it.

War is neither the only nor the best way to move to democracy. I know the myth of the revolution is in the hearts of Americans, it isn't the only way. You can take those in power in non-democratic societies, and threaten them with death and destruction -- or, you can convince them that democratic capitalism is benefitial to both them as well as to their people.

Leave war as the last resort, not the first.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

stevo

fair enough. And you still managed to prove my point.

Manx

Once I replaced your terminology with mine, yes.

stevo

ok. you can get the last word.

Manx

no no, it's all you

stevo

You speak as if the US left the UN in 1990. What the hell was going on there for 14 years? War planning?

alansmithee

Democratic capitalism is usually NOT the best for those in power in non-democratic countries. That's why it oftem seems it must be forced, there's no other way to get a ruling power to go against its self interest.

And I personally don't believe it's always best for the people, either. If you have some very centralized power, it is much easier to react swiftly to changes in a country. Democracy ensures that people have a say, but usually at the cost of efficiency.

Again, if there isn't a democracy in place the general population is totally at the mercy of the ruling power. If they are benevolent, the people will thrive. But as far as I know, there has never been a benevolent rulership sustained for any meaningful sort of time.

retsuki03

its and it's

Usage Note: Its is the possessive form of the pronoun it and is correctly written without an apostrophe. It should not be confused with the contraction it's (for it is or it has), which should always have an apostrophe

Lebell

Don't be a spelling/grammar Nazi.

This isn't Fark.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Yakk

It can be. Democratic capitalism generates a hell of alot of money and wealth.

I'd rather bribe a dictator than blow up the city he is hiding in. Its cost, in terms of lives, wealth and currency, is so much cheaper it isn't funny.

As an example, look at GB's royal family. They are richer now than they where at the height of their pre-constitutional monarchy power.

I don't understand what your statement means. I suspect it may be referring to the first gulf war?

Even a benevolent dictator isn't smart enough to run a society nearly efficiently enough to develop the amount of wealth a democratic capitalist society can.

Unless, of course, the benevolent dictator chooses to run the society as a democratic capitalist one, or some reasonably close approximation thereof.

I don't know of a means of motivating people that works as broadly (on as many people) and as accurately (towards the 'common good') as the profit motive. Both Democracy and Capitalism give people with the lust for power something not completely destructive -- and usually productive -- to do.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

alansmithee

There can be alot more wealth generated, but what wealth there is will be more heavily spread out. In most dictatorships, the majority of the wealth is either in the hands of the dictator or his supporters. ANd if enough of the supporters have sufficient wealth, you will usually have more of a oligarchy situation.

And the main reason the royal family can be considered richer is because they are no longer footing the bill for the country, and have become more like an amusement park. If the royals hadn't squandered their wealth on building their army, they probably would have had more pure material wealth.

The dictator wouldn't have to run his country like a democracy, just keep capitalist principles. Make sure that the citizens get enough of the pie to not be too discontent, but not enough to ever challenge your authority. This can be seen in Nazi Germany and somewhat in communist China.

I think you might be linking democracy too closely to capitalism. I'm not saying this ideal non-democracy has ever existed, or even will ever exsist. But it just seems logical that if a government was run by one or a small group of people with absolute authority, they could react more effectively to any problems faced by their nation. The flipside is that if they are wrong on a decision, the consequences could be much worse as well.

Janey

well... because EVERYBODY knows that Canadian Democracy is the only right way to do it.

that's not complicated eh?

korovadroog

I'm of the belief that socialism is the ideal form of government, but it is something that human beings cannot succeed at. The people in charge of these communist regimes always end up hording the wealth while everyone else lives "equally". Its's human nature to take advantage of power, and that's why socialism fails. Castro is a man I admire very much for standing up to the US government, but i don't like the fact that he's wealthy. Seriously, practive what you preach! He's extremely rich, but his idealogy insists on everyone living equally? come on. Communism can only thrive on the integrity of those who practice it.
But, we really haven't given communism a fair chance, have we? Afterall, America has been trying to crush communism wherever it springs up since the Russian revolution.
So until coummunism can be used correctly, we're stuck with the immoral capitalist insitution called the United States. Look at where capitalism has us as a society: we have a corporate lacky as a president who is willing to wage unjust war for oil, the mass marketing of sexuality for the purpose of profit, and media brainwash.
Don't get me wrong, I love this country and wouldn't want to live anywhere else. I'm just frustrated with how may problems need to be addressed.
I'm rambling now. wanna discuss more?

korovadroog@hotmail.com

later

Willravel

The problem does not lie in the government as much as it lies in those responsible for the government. Socialism could absolutely work, if it wasn't for a few very selfish people. The same can be said of Democracy. It's a shame that selfish people seem to be the most ambitious. Perhapse there is a link between ambition and selfishness....Everyone is either frustrated or blind. That's the way it's always been and I think that's the way it will always be. If you aren't disapointed at your government at all, you need to pay better attention. I don't see anything as much worse now than it was 5 or 10 years ago. Right now we're in a part of the socio-political cycle. We are coming from liberty and headed towards authoritirian. After a time of being under authoritarian rule, we will rebel and return to liberated. Then it'll happen all over again. I hope my daughter get's to see the liberated part, it's wonderful.

Rigor

if im not mistaken mr putin put his political opposition in jail! thats not right... is it? hes taking away peoples freedom, he tried to rig and election, that is not moral. in democracy the PEOPLE hold the morals not one man. the people dictate what is wrong and right through who we elect.

everyone should have the right to govern themselves and not rely on one person for food water clothing shelter etc.

Rigor

if im not mistaken hte soviets were fighting us as well, it was called the cold war. why is it always america who did wrong, it gets old.

alansmithee

Why do you admire him for standing up to the US goverment? What has he ever stood up for other than things that benefit himself?

America had really little to do with the USSR until after WWII. And it should be obvious that the only reason that the US tried to "crush communism" was because we were jealous. We saw the utopian state that was soviet Russia and didn't want anyone else to experience those joys .

I don't understand, is it capitalism that is immoral, or the United States, or both? Are other capitalist countries moral? Or does only true morality spring from communism? We aren't stuck with immoral communist countries like China?

Where's the proof? I thought the "no blood for oil" was 2003 propaganda. Most liberals seemed to realise that there was no direct pipeline of oil from Iraq to the White House, and changed their tune. But I will admit, it was a catchy line while it lasted. I could see how it would be hard to let go of.

What would you consider the "liberated" part? And What is the authoritarian? Is it merely dependant on what party is in charge? Because I personally notice no difference between now and 10 years ago in what is or isn't allowed. I would actually say that because of the growth of different communication mediums (one of which is the internet) there is more allowed and being challenged at this time than most others. That hardly seems to me to be authoritarian.

And on a more abstract note, assuming that this is truly a more authoritarian time, do you believe that authoritarianism has it's place in society?

Willravel

Think a lot bigger than ten years as far as the cycle. Poltical parties are nice and all, but they don't have any real meaning in the long run. Platforms change. Motives change. The democrats and republicans are entirely different today then they were before the world wars.

The authoritarian/libertarian cycle is one that has continued since human communities evolved from packs. It is not a matter of right and wrong - authoritarian can be right, and libertarian can be wrong, and visa versa - it is simply a matter of political change, political philosophy, and social motives. Like I said before, the real test of a government, and even a society, is when selfish people take power. If they are allowed to stay in power, he society has failed. If they remove the selfish people from power and try to fix the system so as to prevent similar problems in the future, it has evolved.

To address the thread, democracy isn't bad or good. It is simply a tool that can be used as the user sees fit. The problem is that when a system is forced on a people who do not want it, it is not so much the form of government that is detremental, but those who force it. America has 'given' Iraq a democracy so that trade and possible economic and political domination will be much easier.
Absolutely. I am a libertarian right now because those who seek to shift us to authoritatians are doing so for clearly selfish reasons. If someone had the good of all people in mind in moving towards authoritarian rule, then it is fine. Motives play a strong part in how I see people.

questone

Anything that is not based in some sort of democratic principle will tend toward "evil". It's the whole power corrupts thing.

biznatch

If I erase some words and fill in the blanks, you get a funny result.
BTW, remember the 9/11 terror thing thing. Afterwars, Bush vowed to "defeat terrorism". Since then, he's done nothing except seize more oil and lessen citizen rights, all in the name of fighting terror. Does that trouble you? It troubles me, and it apparently troubles the rest of the world enough to speak up about it.

Just Kidding, guys.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

jorgelito

It's stll a good point and something to think about.