Log in

View Full Version : Is Democracy the way to go?



Rhyfelwyr
04-22-2008, 22:50
I study Politics at Uni, and all we ever hear is the benefits of democracy. We write essays or whenever or not there's hope for the world outside the west to become democratic. We hear debate after debate on whether there is a democracy deficit in the EU. We must consider which type of democracy is the best. They would have you think democracy will solve all the world's problems.

And yet it seems there is very little meaningful choice within many of todays democracies when it comes to election time. Take a look at Britain for example. We have New Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats. Traditionally there have been substantial differences between these parties, but it seems now they have all merged into one horrible party group, with Labour and the Conservatives closing in from both sides and the Lib Dems always being in the middle anyway. And what sort of insults do they hurl at each other? Not long ago Labour were accused of stealing the Conservatives policies. Whether or not they sneaked into the office and photocopied them, it is a sad fact that they are exactly the same. And yet as far as I can see the average person does not support the Thatcherite policies of either of these parties. And yet they are lied to and tricked and conditioned into keeping up their old voting patterns. The result - a government which wants to disproportionally tax the poor, and in no way represents the people.

Plus there is the usual swapping of insults between MP's. Its so pathetic it makes me sick. I can't remember exactly what it was but I recall Wendy Alexander making some comment on some insignificant policy matter. So how did the SNP MSP reply, he said her career was "utterly ruined", and "in tatters". They fight like children in a playground and yet these guys are supposed to run the country?:wall:

Ah well, maybe its just as Winston Churchill said, its the best of a bad bunch."

*Well he said something along those lines anyway

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-22-2008, 22:55
I chose indifferent. Not because I don't care about what system of government we have, but because I prefer a combination of democracy with an autocracy, carefully balanced to ensure that neither side can assume complete power, and governed by a constitution. I've spent a long time working out various parts in the machinery, but I'm confident that it could work, given the chance.

EDIT: For the name of it, see <.

Craterus
04-22-2008, 22:57
Ooops, I voted for Strong No, but probably meant the one up from that. Under the right conditions, it could work. I think there would need to be variety among the parties and a politically-minded population with high voter turnout.

The way things are though, elections aren't representative and I think it's fair to say that the mass (as a collective unit) doesn't know what's best for it.

:hide:

Rhyfelwyr
04-22-2008, 23:02
I think it's fair to say that the mass (as a collective unit) doesn't know what's best for it.

That's why we Bolsheviks need to do things for them!

I'm happy with the responses so far, I was worried the Democratic Bereau for the Protection of Free Speech was going to send a SWAT team to my house.:sweatdrop:

EDIT: I'm just a 'No' BTW.

Louis VI the Fat
04-22-2008, 23:04
Ah well, maybe its just as Winston Churchill said, its the best of a bad bunch."

*Well he said something along those lines anywayNonono. That quote is always misquoted. What really happened, is that an MP said to Churchill: 'Democracy may be bad, but if you are a democrat at the age of eightteen, I'd poison your tea'. To which Winston replied: 'Well if my wife was still a democrat at forty I'd fight her on the beaches and in the hills'.

Something like that. Yeah.

Tratorix
04-22-2008, 23:04
I voted indifferent. :shrug:

I think for democracy to truely flourish the general population has to take an interest in how the government does things. Which usually doesn't happen.

Louis VI the Fat
04-22-2008, 23:16
I think for democracy to truely flourish the general population has to take an interest in how the government does things.Mwah. I'll content myself with the default of modern Western democracies: a mostly uninterested electorate and governments of somewhat reasonable and somewhat competent politicians who get the boot every few years.

God help us all when the general population starts to take an active interest in politics and demands a fair say.

Was it Churchill again? The one who said that 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter' ? :yes:

Adrian II
04-22-2008, 23:18
God help us all when the general population starts to take an active interest in politics and demands a fair say.Yeah, we all know what that leads to.

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6959/auxarmesxe2.gif (https://imageshack.us)

Louis VI the Fat
04-22-2008, 23:36
Yeah, we all know what that leads to.

https://img257.imageshack.us/img257/6959/auxarmesxe2.gif (https://imageshack.us)Haha. Great one, Adrian. Very amusing. http://matousmileys.free.fr/aua.gif


Now you've done it.

It will not come now. It may not come tomorrow. But my vengeance will come, and she will be horrible and merciless...

seireikhaan
04-22-2008, 23:48
I think it can depend a bit. We've seen many occasions in which democracy simply fails, due to any number of reasons. However, I'd as a general rule say democracy is the most reliable form of government to best serve the masses.

Ice
04-23-2008, 00:08
This question amusing especially because it comes with a poll.

Democratic elements of government are always good, but like others have said, I don't believe in a pure democratic society, but more of a republican one.

Drisos
04-23-2008, 00:35
It isn't ideal, but because of weaknesses of us humans it's the best option. ~:)

Justiciar
04-23-2008, 01:13
Speaking as a fellow British citizen, Caledonian, I'm ardently indifferent. Democracy in this country is thoroughly flawed. Party politics is infuriating at times, and laughable at others. And the often inept civil service do their utmost to ruin things (intentionally?). But can I offer up a suitable alternative? Noop.

Care to share the structure of "Authoritarian Democracy" with us, EMFM?

LittleGrizzly
04-23-2008, 01:16
Dictatorships are much more effecient and if we could get leaders who were not power hungry and greedy but was a big supporter of human rights, a great administrator and roughly reflected the populations wishes.

But because we don't live in a perfect world democracy is the best of a bad bunch.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-23-2008, 02:05
I think it can depend a bit. We've seen many occasions in which democracy simply fails, due to any number of reasons. However, I'd as a general rule say democracy is the most reliable form of government to best serve the masses.

I think it depends on the country. Some countries are, IMHO, more "culturally suited" to democracy, and some need time to evolve. Sometimes the people themselves don't prefer democracy (Bhutan).


Care to share the structure of "Authoritarian Democracy" with us, EMFM?

Well, a basic outline (I don't have a lot of typing time):

There are two sections to the government - an unelected portion, headed by a monarch or an appointed council (depending on the will of the people - referendums), is counterbalanced by a directly elected Parliament with proportional representation - the balance of power is roughly equal. The constitution would protect the integrity of the system.

Simply.

Ice
04-23-2008, 02:07
I think it depends on the country. Some countries are, IMHO, more "culturally suited" to democracy, and some need time to evolve. Sometimes the people themselves don't prefer democracy (Bhutan).



Well, a basic outline (I don't have a lot of typing time):

There are two sections to the government - an unelected portion, headed by a monarch or an appointed council (depending on the will of the people - referendums), is counterbalanced by a directly elected Parliament with proportional representation - they balance of power is roughly equal. The constitution would protect the integrity of the system.

Simply.

That sounds eerily similar to how our system was set up minus the President. I like.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-23-2008, 02:11
That sounds eerily similar to how our system was set up minus the President. I like.

The only major differences are that my system, the way it was intended, has a monarch that doesn't change every four/eight years (unless he abdicates - I'm considering adding in an "impeachment" clause in the constitution I drafted, but I'm still looking into that), and a directly elected parliament (America's system is rather odd, IMHO).

EDIT: And a frequent use of referendums.

Tuuvi
04-23-2008, 02:17
I almost voted indifferent but ended up voting yes. I think that democracy is the best we have right now, but that doesn't mean it's not without it's flaws and we couldn't come up with something better.

SwordsMaster
04-23-2008, 02:27
Strong No here. Not for any particular reason, except for the fact that every political system tried in the past was "the best" until a new one came along, from the Greek city state democracies, the formalised Roman republic, and every other form of government that has existed so far.

In the same way that it was inconceivable for Henry the VIII to grant voting rights to peasants, there must be some form of government that seems inconceivable now but will be perfectly normal in 60-70 years.

Or maybe it'll be the opposite way around, and people will tire of freedoms, and demand strong leaders, and an autocratic government will come back into power. People are liberals until they have something they want to keep. Then they become conservatives.

In continuing with the quotations : "If voting changed anything they'd make it illegal." Don't know whose that was, but i fundamentally agree.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-23-2008, 02:29
Or maybe it'll be the opposite way around, and people will tire of freedoms, and demand strong leaders, and an autocratic government will come back into power. People are liberals until they have something they want to keep. Then they become conservatives.

:yes:

It's a cycle, and we're on the right hand turn.

TevashSzat
04-23-2008, 02:44
Nope, simply because the masses are too dumb and gets manipulated too easily. Seriously, ask the common man deep questions about various political issues and he'll not give you very smart and thought out answers, just the ones they've heard from the so called political pundits on the media all the time

Ice
04-23-2008, 03:34
The only major differences are that my system, the way it was intended, has a monarch that doesn't change every four/eight years (unless he abdicates - I'm considering adding in an "impeachment" clause in the constitution I drafted, but I'm still looking into that), and a directly elected parliament (America's system is rather odd, IMHO).

EDIT: And a frequent use of referendums.

We have a directly elected parliament, the house of representatives. What I was referring to with the monarch was the fact that the senators in the upper house use to be appointed by state governments and were not chosen directly by the people.

Devastatin Dave
04-23-2008, 03:41
Republics are the way to go. Mob rule is foolish and thank God the Founding Fathers understood this.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-23-2008, 04:02
We have a directly elected parliament, the house of representatives. What I was referring to with the monarch was the fact that the senators in the upper house use to be appointed by state governments and were not chosen directly by the people.

I see. I was referring to the Presidential Elections. I like a mix of proportional representation, rather than first past the post in every district. It gets more variety in terms of parties.

Call it a "traditionalist Republic" if you like. :laugh4:

Redleg
04-23-2008, 04:11
Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-23-2008, 04:21
Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now.

I prefer Parliamentary Democracy.

Redleg
04-23-2008, 04:30
I prefer Parliamentary Democracy.

Representive Republics allow the people to have a direct voice into the government, and have a clear cut seperation of powers between the different branches of government.

Parliamentary Democracies run a very close second, but without a clear cut seperation of powers its hard for it to beat a representive democracy.

Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch.

I would prefer the United States Congress to actually exercise its authority and responsiblity but their lack of doing so does not negate the overall benefit of the ability to do so.

Adrian II
04-23-2008, 05:38
This question amusing especially because it comes with a poll.:beam:

HoreTore
04-23-2008, 07:03
In the same way that it was inconceivable for Henry the VIII to grant voting rights to peasants, there must be some form of government that seems inconceivable now but will be perfectly normal in 60-70 years.

Took the words right out of my mouth.

Viking
04-23-2008, 08:22
The weaker and the more democratic the governemnt, the better. No one need a state to tell them what to do.

Conradus
04-23-2008, 08:41
Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch.


Now I might not understand your definition of parliamentary democracy, but they do have a system of "checks and balances" not? Parliament to control both judges and goverment, while the goverment does make most of the laws and is mostly formed by the majority of the parliament. Particraty ruins the systems though.

SwordsMaster
04-23-2008, 08:52
The weaker and the more democratic the governemnt, the better. No one need a state to tell them what to do.

And yet that's what's been happening for the last 7-8000 years. At each stage people have the government that fits their general needs. Ish.

Viking
04-23-2008, 10:06
And yet that's what's been happening for the last 7-8000 years. At each stage people have the government that fits their general needs. Ish.

Which tells us nada.

Husar
04-23-2008, 10:50
I'm indifferent, I'm part of the stupid masses which don't care about politics too much. I couldn't even name the difference between a democracy and a republic. :shrug:

In the end someone won't be satisfied anyway and you can screw up any system.

CountArach
04-23-2008, 11:08
Democracy is great and I think the more direct it is, the better.

SwordsMaster
04-23-2008, 11:25
Which tells us nada.

Just pointing out that for the last 7-8000 years we had governments that were powerful enough to tell the people what to do.

Pannonian
04-23-2008, 12:12
The weaker and the more democratic the governemnt, the better. No one need a state to tell them what to do.
Yay for the Red Army circa 1918-20, utterly democratic. And also bloody useless. There is a need for representative democracy because, most of the time, people don't want to be bothered with everyday government, and would prefer volunteers to do the work for them.

Furious Mental
04-23-2008, 12:49
Generally speaking authoritarian governments are alot more dysfunctional and corrupt than democratic ones, so I don't see what their advantage is.

"Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch."

That is a generalisation. A parliamentary democracy can have oversight by a separate branch, that is the purpose of Taiwan's Control Yuan and the EU Court of Auditors. But in any case there is only a need for this if the electoral system always gives the party with a plurality of votes a majority of seats. Generally however, the best check on executive power is an administrative law system.

Redleg
04-23-2008, 12:57
"Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch."

That is a generalisation. A parliamentary democracy can have oversight by a separate branch, that is the purpose of Taiwan's Control Yuan and the EU Court of Auditors. But in any case there is only a need for this if the electoral system always gives the party with a plurality of votes a majority of seats. Generally however, the best check on executive power is an administrative law system.

And generally speaking it is correct since it comes from an established definition of Parlimentray democracy. Seperation of powers is one of the key elements of a Representive Republic, which is also a generalization but fits with the definition.

If you want specifics one can look at each and every form of Representive Republics and Parliamentary democracies and find minor variances form the establish definition.

Check and balance is indeed present in both types - but seperation of powers is clearly present in the Representive Republic, not always so with a Parliamentary democracy.

Your going to have to do better then claim a generalization.

macsen rufus
04-23-2008, 12:58
I generally go with the Churchillian view, that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except all the others :yes:

What I consider to be the most important elements: representation of the wishes of the electorate, the rule of law, and separation of powers.

Kralizec
04-23-2008, 13:06
I voted for "it's pretty good".

Bear in mind that I think representative democracy is pretty good. Classical, direct democracy isn't possible in this age. Any good "democracy" will necessarily have to be a somewhat oligarchic administration wich is dependent on popular approval for its continuing existence.

That said, I think that the current system in the UK is an abomination.

Furious Mental
04-23-2008, 13:30
"
Your going to have to do better then claim a generalization."

No I don't think so- pointing out that it is far too general to be valid is perfectly adequate. I live in a parliamentary democracy and the quality of oversight is high, no less, from what I can tell, than it is in a republic like the US or France. The same can be said about plenty of other parliamentary democracies. In fact in the state I live in there is literally no formal separation of powers, the courts are established by an ordinary Act of parliament, the written constitution itself can be amended or repealed in the same way, and the practical functioning of the executive is based almost entirely on political convention. Yet no one here feels insecure in their rights. On the other hand I could go to many presidential republics with codified and entrenched constitutions and bills of rights longer than the Bible, and get thrown in gaol for holding up a flag the government considers subversive. The constitutional system is of minor importance; it is the political system that is crucial.

Redleg
04-23-2008, 13:43
"
Your going to have to do better then claim a generalization."

No I don't think so- pointing out that it is far too general to be valid is perfectly adequate. I live in a parliamentary democracy and the quality of oversight is high, no less, from what I can tell, than it is in a republic like the US or France. The same can be said about plenty of other parliamentary democracies. In fact in the state I live in there is literally no formal separation of powers, the courts are established by an ordinary Act of parliament, the written constitution itself can be amended or repealed in the same way, and the practical functioning of the executive is based almost entirely on political convention. Yet no one here feels insecure in their rights. On the other hand I could go to many presidential republics with codified and entrenched constitutions and bills of rights longer than the Bible, and get thrown in gaol for holding up a flag the government considers subversive. The constitutional system is of minor importance; it is the political system that is crucial.

LOL - especially given you just acknowledge that my generalization is correct in even your nation's form. A generalization by the way does not have to be perfectly adequate to be valid - only has to be adequate.

Now in the Representive Republic I live in one can even burn the flag of its own nation without going to jail. Even though every now and then some knucklehead tries to make it unconstitutional.......Since neither the President or the Judiciao Branch operates under the privilidge of the sitting congress such an act can easily be revoked if made. Does it work perfectly every time - no but the seperation and checks and balances are the key element in a Representive Republic. Not so with parliamentary democracy, so while you might disagree that the generalization is perfectly adequate - your going to have to have a better arguement to discount it, given that the generalization I used is found in just about every Political Science source out there.

Furious Mental
04-23-2008, 13:49
I don't acknowledge that a representative republic is an inherently superior constitutional system, because as I have explained the claim makes too many presumptions about both and in the real world is of no practical consequence anyway.

"A generalization by the way does not have to be perfectly adequate to be valid - only has to be adequate."

I didn't say your generalisation has to be perfectly adequate. I said that pointing out that a generalisation is too general to be valid is perfectly adequate (to discredit it). The two words are referring to the criticism of the generalisation.

Redleg
04-23-2008, 13:55
No, I don't acknowledge that a representative republic is an inherently superior constitutional system, because as I have explained the claim makes too many presumptions about both and in the real world is of no practical consequence anyway.

Good thing I didnt say you have to acknowledge it as an inherently superior constitutional system now isn't. Your having a reading comprehension problem now.......:oops: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Furious Mental
04-23-2008, 14:03
"Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now."

Maniac: "I prefer Parliamentary Democracy."

"Representive Republics allow the people to have a direct voice into the government, and have a clear cut seperation of powers between the different branches of government.

Parliamentary Democracies run a very close second, but without a clear cut seperation of powers its hard for it to beat a representive democracy."

That is the context for the statement to which I replied, and I think it quite clearly establishes that you were arguing that a presidential republic is superior.

Redleg
04-23-2008, 14:07
"Representive Republics are about the best form of democracy going right now."

Maniac: "I prefer Parliamentary Democracy."

"Representive Republics allow the people to have a direct voice into the government, and have a clear cut seperation of powers between the different branches of government.

Parliamentary Democracies run a very close second, but without a clear cut seperation of powers its hard for it to beat a representive democracy."

That is the context for the statement to which I replied, and I think it quite clearly establishes that you were arguing that a presidential republic is superior.

Again where does that say I said you have to ackownledge its clearly superior..... Are you having a reading comprehension problem again?

Your just so fun to mess with......

Redleg
04-23-2008, 14:11
I didn't say your generalisation has to be perfectly adequate. I said that pointing out that a generalisation is too general to be valid is perfectly adequate (to discredit it). The two words are referring to the criticism of the generalisation.

LOL - a generalization that is the definition has to be more adequate. Rather a mix of words you are using.

Now I find you very amusing to mess with because you clearly don't understand the nature of what you claim is a generalization of Parliamentary Democracies happens to be the definition.



Democratic form of government in which the party (or a coalition of parties) with the greatest representation in the parliament (legislature) forms the government, its leader becoming prime minister or chancellor.

Executive functions are exercised by members of the parliament appointed by the prime minister to the cabinet. The parties in the minority serve in opposition to the majority and have the duty to challenge it regularly. The prime minister may be removed from power whenever he loses the confidence of a majority of the ruling party or of the parliament. Parliamentary democracy originated in Britain (see Parliament) and was adopted in several of its former colonies.


http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9374600


A parliamentary system, also known as parliamentarianism (and parliamentarism in U.S. English), is distinguished by the executive branch of government being dependent on the direct or indirect support of the parliament, often expressed through a vote of confidence. Hence, there is no clear-cut separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches, leading to a differing set of checks and balances compared to those found in a presidential republic.

From Webster's - " a system of government having the real executive power vested in a cabinet composed of members of the legislature who are individually and collectively responsible to the legislature."

So have fun with that one.....

Rhyfelwyr
04-23-2008, 20:09
That said, I think that the current system in the UK is an abomination.

Agreed. And something has got to change. But how?

Viking
04-24-2008, 08:39
Yay for the Red Army circa 1918-20, utterly democratic. And also bloody useless. There is a need for representative democracy because, most of the time, people don't want to be bothered with everyday government, and would prefer volunteers to do the work for them.

To restate: I'm all in favour of a representative democracy, but undemocratic elements as those suggested earlier in the thread, such monarchs, and et cetera, should be removed.

Furious Mental
04-24-2008, 13:40
"
Again where does that say I said you have to ackownledge its clearly superior..... Are you having a reading comprehension problem again?"

As I said, you explicitly stated that a presidential republic is superior. If you will deny that you might as well say that up is down.

"
Now I find you very amusing to mess with because you clearly don't understand the nature of what you claim is a generalization of Parliamentary Democracies happens to be the definition."

First of all, it is a generalisation, as I have demonstrated. If the definition states that a parliamentary democracy invariably cannot have oversight by a separate branch of government it is wrong. Second of all, you are interpreting the definition you cite in a silly way. It is explicit in the definition that the part of the legislature that comprises the executive may be overseen by the rest of the legislature, which may be the Opposition in the lower house, or other parties in a coalition Government, or an upper house. Third of all, as I have said it is of scant practical import in reality; what counts is the political culture of the polity. Both constitutional systems have the potential for effective oversight if civil society will rigorously use the means provided for.

SwordsMaster
04-24-2008, 16:45
To restate: I'm all in favour of a representative democracy, but undemocratic elements as those suggested earlier in the thread, such monarchs, and et cetera, should be removed.

Consider it this way: You need 4 years experience to become minimally competent at something, right? This is why college degrees last 4 years.

So you elect someone who has (mostly) never been in charge of a country before for 4 years, and when they start to get comfortable with their responsibility and get to know their job you replace them with someone else? Isn't that stupid?

Now, also, the emphasis on corruption is much higher. With their situation not secured, people in power, try and accumulate as much wealth as possible while they are in power, unless, like in GWB's case they have enough of a personal fortune already. Which begs another question, aren't we ruled by an aristocracy of old money? If that is so, then a monarchy is not much of a stretch.

That being said, with a high turnover rate, it is more likely that a competent president will come up every now and again. But there is nothing guaranteeing that his good work won't be undone by his successor looking exclusively to fill his and his friends' pockets.

Viking
04-24-2008, 17:31
Consider it this way: You need 4 years experience to become minimally competent at something, right? This is why college degrees last 4 years.

So you elect someone who has (mostly) never been in charge of a country before for 4 years, and when they start to get comfortable with their responsibility and get to know their job you replace them with someone else? Isn't that stupid?

What's stupid to support to someones ruling position if you do not at all agree with their politics.


Now, also, the emphasis on corruption is much higher. With their situation not secured, people in power, try and accumulate as much wealth as possible while they are in power, unless, like in GWB's case they have enough of a personal fortune already.

Yeah that's what laws are for.



Which begs another question, aren't we ruled by an aristocracy of old money? If that is so, then a monarchy is not much of a stretch.

A functioning democracy gives the option to change who's in charge. If they do bad it's just to kick them out. In a monarchy the same idiot can stay as ruler no matter how incompetent he is.

atheotes
04-24-2008, 18:38
Nope, simply because the masses are too dumb and gets manipulated too easily. Seriously, ask the common man deep questions about various political issues and he'll not give you very smart and thought out answers, just the ones they've heard from the so called political pundits on the media all the time

Does it have to be a deep question :laugh4:

i voted "indifferent" as i feel it is the best of the bunch we have.

Vladimir
04-24-2008, 19:04
I love it how people disparage the "common man" here. :laugh4:

SwordsMaster
04-24-2008, 20:26
What's stupid to support to someones ruling position if you do not at all agree with their politics.

And yet if a candidat gets elected that you didn't vote for, you still have to bite your tongue and accept it. Isn't that just the illusion of control?



Yeah that's what laws are for.


Yeah, well. Tell that to Silvio Berlusconi, Bertie Ahern, and any number of latin american presidents.



A functioning democracy gives the option to change who's in charge. If they do bad it's just to kick them out. In a monarchy the same idiot can stay as ruler no matter how incompetent he is.

Realistically, how many presidents have been kicked out of power? So how effective is the system?

Rhyfelwyr
04-24-2008, 22:05
Democracies are completely inefficient.

They force governments to take short-term steps to stay in power, regardless of their long-term effects. They force parties to make unrealistic promises to compete in elections, then cause a big backlash when they are not kept. They cause constant bickering between politicians who seem to think they are God's gift to the earth (Tommy Sheridan and Alex Salmond you are looking guilty) and are too busy furthering their own careers to represent the people. Plus they do not allow consistency because as soon as one party fails to create a utopia in its four year term the people want better and then kick them out.

There has got to be a better way to get things done.

Adrian II
04-24-2008, 22:08
Democracies are completely inefficient. [..] There has got to be a better way to get things done.Bring it on. :coffeenews:

Craterus
04-24-2008, 22:09
Remove the other parties and one might have a chance to get somewhere.

I like your thinking. ~;)

Rhyfelwyr
04-24-2008, 22:15
Bring it on. :coffeenews:

Unfortunately I don't know the answer yet.:sweatdrop:

I'm just being hypothetical.

Adrian II
04-24-2008, 22:18
I'm just being hypothetical.Is that what they call it nowadays? :coffeenews:

Rhyfelwyr
04-24-2008, 22:21
Is that what they call it nowadays? :coffeenews:

You've lost me.

Adrian II
04-24-2008, 22:41
You've lost me.Alright, alright. I meant you were talking out of a certain bodily aperture and calling it hypothetical.

Look again at your list of shortcomings of democracy. Every known dictatorship suffers from all of them, bar one: the rulers can not be kicked out after four years.

Rhyfelwyr
04-24-2008, 22:55
Well I wasn't meaning to suggest a dictatorship as the ideal alternative. Democracy is probably the best form of government the world has seen so far.

All I did was list its shortcomings to try and trigger a little debate. Is it that unthinkable that there might possibly be a better alternative?

EDIT: Also it was a bit slow of me not noticing that.:embarassed:

Adrian II
04-24-2008, 23:20
Well I wasn't meaning to suggest a dictatorship as the ideal alternative. Democracy is probably the best form of government the world has seen so far.

All I did was list its shortcomings to try and trigger a little debate. Is it that unthinkable that there might possibly be a better alternative?

EDIT: Also it was a bit slow of me not noticing that.:embarassed:Democracy is the best answer to the darn shortcomings, not the reason for them.

Have you ever been to a dictatorship? I mean a real one like Vietnam, Togo, Greater London?

Redleg
04-24-2008, 23:44
"
Again where does that say I said you have to ackownledge its clearly superior..... Are you having a reading comprehension problem again?"

As I said, you explicitly stated that a presidential republic is superior. If you will deny that you might as well say that up is down.


Yes I said that a presidential republic is superior. Did I say you have to acknowledge it? So try a different approach since you are clearly not able to understand the simple statement as it was written.



"Now I find you very amusing to mess with because you clearly don't understand the nature of what you claim is a generalization of Parliamentary Democracies happens to be the definition."

First of all, it is a generalisation, as I have demonstrated. If the definition states that a parliamentary democracy invariably cannot have oversight by a separate branch of government it is wrong. Second of all, you are interpreting the definition you cite in a silly way. It is explicit in the definition that the part of the legislature that comprises the executive may be overseen by the rest of the legislature, which may be the Opposition in the lower house, or other parties in a coalition Government, or an upper house. Third of all, as I have said it is of scant practical import in reality; what counts is the political culture of the polity. Both constitutional systems have the potential for effective oversight if civil society will rigorously use the means provided for.

Actually go back and read what I said - ""Now you might prefer a Parliamentary demoncracy it lacks a key seperation of powers to insure no abuse and oversight by a seperate branch."

You claim it is a generalization - which I never said it wasn't. By definition the Parliamentary democracy does not have to have a key seperation of powers by a seperate branch - it can all be done through the Legislature.

Ie the generalization fits within the accepted definition of Parlimentary democracy. Yes there are other forms of Parlimentary Democracies some actually better then others - but the generalization does indeed fit the definition. So unless you are a Political Science Doctor with published papers your arguement is over specifics that does not discount the base premise of the generalization.

Now what I find funny is you are arguing spefics here, when even the definition taken from different sources demonstate that my generalization is indeed in line with the definition.

BananaBob
04-25-2008, 04:32
Democracy is an inherently flawed and faulty system. The very definition of democracy is suppression of the minorities. I remember hearing a quote of Benjamen Franklin saying "Democracy is like two wolfs and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner". On top of this the will of the masses is often wrong, misguided and destructive to society as a whole. How can everyday people possibly be qualified to decide the welfare of their neighbors?

The concept that the west in any freer because of democracy is an odd an untrue statement. We all still live in a feudal system, with me/a serf working for my manager, who works for his boss, who is owned by another boss et etc until we have at the very top a king/ceo. The alternative to being a serf or baron? starve and die on the streets. wage-slavery

As for an alternative to democracy? A completely Libertarian society with a night watchman state/anarchism. Every person free to pursue any action of their choice with a governing body to ensure that no ones pursuit interferes with anyone else's.

my :2cents:

Tratorix
04-25-2008, 04:51
The concept that the west in any freer because of democracy is an odd an untrue statement. We all still live in a feudal system, with me/a serf working for my manager, who works for his boss, who is owned by another boss et etc until we have at the very top a king/ceo. The alternative to being a serf or baron? starve and die on the streets. wage-slavery

Yes, but in a democratic society, you have the ability to move up that ladder. It may be difficult and unlikely, but theres really not much to stop someone from rising from a mailroom clerk to a CEO if they are determined and have the skills. The working class is also a lot better off in a democratic state. Can you imagine if a group of feudal serfs had joined together and told the king they wanted better wages and weren't going back to work until they got them? Mr. Head, meet my dear friend Mr. Pike.

Adrian II
04-25-2008, 09:22
As for an alternative to democracy? A completely Libertarian society with a night watchman state/anarchism. Every person free to pursue any action of their choice with a governing body to ensure that no ones pursuit interferes with anyone else's.So who is going to lead and staff that night watchman state?

Redleg
04-25-2008, 11:40
Democracy is an inherently flawed and faulty system. The very definition of democracy is suppression of the minorities. I remember hearing a quote of Benjamen Franklin saying "Democracy is like two wolfs and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner". On top of this the will of the masses is often wrong, misguided and destructive to society as a whole. How can everyday people possibly be qualified to decide the welfare of their neighbors?

The concept that the west in any freer because of democracy is an odd an untrue statement. We all still live in a feudal system, with me/a serf working for my manager, who works for his boss, who is owned by another boss et etc until we have at the very top a king/ceo. The alternative to being a serf or baron? starve and die on the streets. wage-slavery

As for an alternative to democracy? A completely Libertarian society with a night watchman state/anarchism. Every person free to pursue any action of their choice with a governing body to ensure that no ones pursuit interferes with anyone else's.

my :2cents:

Anytime someone claims that we still live in a feudal system has a distorted view of the current systems of democracy that are in place. In a feudal state one can not progress beyond one's place of birth, unless they are extremely lucky and catch the eye of the ruling lord.

Even at its worst in a democracy every individual has a chance to advance themselves through their own hard work.

can you name one such state that ever existed and how long did it survive that operated as you envision as an alternative?

Beirut
04-25-2008, 11:46
A completely Libertarian society with a night watchman state/anarchism. Every person free to pursue any action of their choice with a governing body to ensure that no ones pursuit interferes with anyone else's.


Sounds like those great parties my buddy threw in high school when his parents were away in England. ~:smoking:

Viking
04-25-2008, 13:22
And yet if a candidat gets elected that you didn't vote for, you still have to bite your tongue and accept it. Isn't that just the illusion of control?

Yeah for four years. An illusion? Well, it is clear that my vote alone matters nada, but if I really want control I could start a political campaign and/or become a politician. In a dictatorship or similar that isn't much of an option. No matter what you say's bad about democracy, dictatorship will usually do worse.



Yeah, well. Tell that to Silvio Berlusconi, Bertie Ahern, and any number of latin american presidents.

Democracy is not the problem here.


Realistically, how many presidents have been kicked out of power? So how effective is the system?

Not counting sore buttocks, but presidents that have lost their elections.


Democracies are completely inefficient.

They force governments to take short-term steps to stay in power, regardless of their long-term effects. They force parties to make unrealistic promises to compete in elections, then cause a big backlash when they are not kept. They cause constant bickering between politicians who seem to think they are God's gift to the earth (Tommy Sheridan and Alex Salmond you are looking guilty) and are too busy furthering their own careers to represent the people. Plus they do not allow consistency because as soon as one party fails to create a utopia in its four year term the people want better and then kick them out.

There has got to be a better way to get things done.

But a state is ment to serve the people. If the state is there to serve itself, the whole system becomes a parody (look to NK).


Democracy is an inherently flawed and faulty system. The very definition of democracy is suppression of the minorities. I remember hearing a quote of Benjamen Franklin saying "Democracy is like two wolfs and a sheep voting for what to have for dinner". On top of this the will of the masses is often wrong, misguided and destructive to society as a whole. How can everyday people possibly be qualified to decide the welfare of their neighbors?

..and here you contradict yourself, IMO:


As for an alternative to democracy? A completely Libertarian society with a night watchman state/anarchism. Every person free to pursue any action of their choice with a governing body to ensure that no ones pursuit interferes with anyone else's.

Who's going to be the watchmen? Who's to decide what's right and what's wrong? It's no different than a democracy or a dictatorship.

Even with anarchy, there's always someone that is going to group up and ultimately take control over an area. That is because humans are social beings that seek together. But hey, maybe we just need someone that can enforce anarchy. :beam:

Rhyfelwyr
04-25-2008, 13:31
Democracy is the best answer to the darn shortcomings, not the reason for them.

Have you ever been to a dictatorship? I mean a real one like Vietnam, Togo, Greater London?

Well those shortcomings are all very evident in the UK today. Or would you put that down to a lack of democracy in Britain? The system we have here today is probably less democratic than PR systems, to be fair.

Although I'm not sure its fair to compare the likes of Vietnam and Togo to western countries and blame all their problems on a lack of democracy. Although I doubt dictators do them much good either.

One of the themes at my Uni has been the advantages/disadvantages of democratic/authoritarian systems, and I don't think its ridiculous to compare them, regardless of what conclusion you come to. There's no single answer for the whole world anyway, its very much dependant on regional circumstances.

BananaBob
04-25-2008, 15:27
Anytime someone claims that we still live in a feudal system has a distorted view of the current systems of democracy that are in place. In a feudal state one can not progress beyond one's place of birth, unless they are extremely lucky and catch the eye of the ruling lord.

The parallels to feudalism remain.


Even at its worst in a democracy every individual has a chance to advance themselves through their own hard work.

I think we have confused democracy and capitalism.



can you name one such state that ever existed and how long did it survive that operated as you envision as an alternative?

Does that matter? I image capitalism and democracy had its detractors as well when it had not been implemented. Every political/economic reality that we have today started off as a theory.

Pannonian
04-25-2008, 16:27
The parallels to feudalism remain.

Feudalism is a very specific type of society, one which has been seen in many areas across the world and through history, but one which has very specific features. Instead of nitpicking at details though, I'll concentrate on perhaps the most important aspect that virtually defines feudalism.

Who is your liege, or superior? What authority do you hold, that is granted by him from his own area of interests? Then who is his liege, or superior, and what authority does he hold from his superior, and so on? Backtrace the successive delegation of authority, until you reach the top of the pyramid. Who is at the top of this pyramid, and what authority does he hold, that he progressively grants to those below him? Note that in a feudal society you shoudl be able to go back down the pyramid again and find a group of barons directly below him, holding interests granted by him, and in turn granting interests to a group directly below them, etc.

Can you trace such a pyramidal structure? If not, then any description of a society as feudal is merely hyperbole, unworthy of serious consideration.

Adrian II
04-25-2008, 16:28
Well those shortcomings are all very evident in the UK today.They are in evidence everywhere around the world. All governments have a tendency to

take short-term steps to stay in power
make unrealistic promises
cause a backlash because of them
think they are God's gift to mankind
are too busy with their own careers to represent the people
inspire their peoples to want better
Only in democracies you are

allowed to say so
able to kick the perpetrators out of power if you can muster a majority, and
able to make sure that their successors heed the fate of the former and do not get out of line
If you are not satisfied with the available choices, parties and policies, you can (and will have to) go out and create new ones by applying successively rule 1, 2 and 3. The downside of democracy is that it's DIY, meaning you get the leaders you deserve. Your disappointment reflects primarily on you and your fellow citizens, not on your Prime Minister and the rest of the Westminster rabble.

My question about real dictatorships was meant as a genuine question. I daresay you haven't been to one yet, otherwise you would immediately understand the corollary. There is no reasonable alternative to democracy, broadly understood as popular sovereignty exercised by a free people through majority rule and with due regard for the rights of minorities. That's a handful, I know, but we can handle it.

BananaBob
04-25-2008, 18:16
Feudalism is a very specific type of society, one which has been seen in many areas across the world and through history, but one which has very specific features. Instead of nitpicking at details though, I'll concentrate on perhaps the most important aspect that virtually defines feudalism.

Who is your liege, or superior? What authority do you hold, that is granted by him from his own area of interests? Then who is his liege, or superior, and what authority does he hold from his superior, and so on? Backtrace the successive delegation of authority, until you reach the top of the pyramid. Who is at the top of this pyramid, and what authority does he hold, that he progressively grants to those below him? Note that in a feudal society you shoudl be able to go back down the pyramid again and find a group of barons directly below him, holding interests granted by him, and in turn granting interests to a group directly below them, etc.

Can you trace such a pyramidal structure? If not, then any description of a society as feudal is merely hyperbole, unworthy of serious consideration.

Ill trace one right now, lets go with McDonalds (although many other corporations follow this same layout). In one store around 20 employee are under the supervision of 3 or 4 managers. Each of these managers reports to a head manager, who is in control of the store. Each of these store-controlling managers reports to a regional owner, who is in control of all of the franchise in his region (say 10 or 15 stores). Now, every state/province is divided into many different regions, and each region has its own franchise owners, and each of these franchise owners would report to someone in charge, and all of the districts make up the countries McDonalds. Each of these reports to McDonalds headquarters in the States, which follows a similar management system, except at the top their is the CEO. CEO is king, and he wants to be guaranteed that the company (him) will make a profit.

Most franchises operate the same.

Rhyfelwyr
04-25-2008, 18:51
The downside of democracy is that it's DIY, meaning you get the leaders you deserve. Your disappointment reflects primarily on you and your fellow citizens, not on your Prime Minister and the rest of the Westminster rabble.

I think the term 'conditioned and constrained' that one lecturer used pretty much sums up the British electorate. The only fault of the British people has been to be too trusting. The electorate are constantly lied to and as a result do not get what they tried to elect. Which pretty much defeats the purpose of democracy.

Take for example the New Labour MP's who ranted in the latest Scottish Parliament elections that they would be dedicated to socialism. Naturally this was their strategy in some of the poorer areas of central Scotland, elsewhere they were happy to rant about Trade Union's etc. So of course the Scottish people in these areas elected New Labour MP's hoping that they would look after their interests. Any did they? Will they vote for another party next time - probably not because they still view the other options as worse.

And no I have not been to Vietnam or Togo on indeed anywhere outwith Europe. But it seems to me that the pretty dire socioeconomic states these countries were in have often been the factors that have led to them adopting dictators, who then tend to accentuate the problems. I do not see how that is relevant to a strong leader in a modern, wealthier nation.

Pannonian
04-25-2008, 20:04
Ill trace one right now, lets go with McDonalds (although many other corporations follow this same layout). In one store around 20 employee are under the supervision of 3 or 4 managers. Each of these managers reports to a head manager, who is in control of the store. Each of these store-controlling managers reports to a regional owner, who is in control of all of the franchise in his region (say 10 or 15 stores). Now, every state/province is divided into many different regions, and each region has its own franchise owners, and each of these franchise owners would report to someone in charge, and all of the districts make up the countries McDonalds. Each of these reports to McDonalds headquarters in the States, which follows a similar management system, except at the top their is the CEO. CEO is king, and he wants to be guaranteed that the company (him) will make a profit.

Most franchises operate the same.
So call the company or corporation feudal. Now how is your society feudal?

BananaBob
04-25-2008, 21:43
Because almost every company and organization in the west operates this way?

I think were drifting off topic to capitalism, not democracy.

Pannonian
04-25-2008, 22:01
Because almost every company and organization in the west operates this way?

I think were drifting off topic to capitalism, not democracy.
But you're free to move to serve another lord, if your current one isn't to your liking. IIRC feudalism broke down in England because peasants were suddenly scarce while the work remained constant, meaning they could move to another fief to find work, thus breaking the classical pyramidal structure of feudalism. The next level up no longer had absolute, or near-absolute power over the next level down, or those at the very bottom. Instead, the peasants had the power to bargain with their employers over their wages and working conditions, and choose to work for the one that offered the best package.

Redleg
04-25-2008, 23:56
The parallels to feudalism remain. Parallels exist with communism aslo - but does that make it communism? Sorry many things have similiarities in how they work. And your comment does not address the main significance of a democracy - that one can advance beyond their status of birth. Especially if one is capable.



I think we have confused democracy and capitalism.


The second you compared democracy to fuedalism you comment that error. Capitalism does indeed have several revelant parallels to fuedalism - and some very key differences.



Does that matter? I image capitalism and democracy had its detractors as well when it had not been implemented. Every political/economic reality that we have today started off as a theory.

Yep because several state/anarchism societies have been attempted, probably pretty close to what you think you invision it to be. So yes it does matter because it provides a historical model concerning the political/economic theory.

HoreTore
04-26-2008, 00:00
In a feudal state one can not progress beyond one's place of birth, unless they are extremely lucky and catch the eye of the ruling lord.

Yes you can, since feudalism is different from a caste system. There are some limits, a commoner can only reach certain positions(until later, when rich merchants could buy their nobility). But there was certainly room for a lot of progress for them all, noble or not.

Take Cardinal Richelieu, for example. He wasn't born into the position of first minister, he started as a priest and worked his way up.

Redleg
04-26-2008, 00:45
Yes you can, since feudalism is different from a caste system. There are some limits, a commoner can only reach certain positions(until later, when rich merchants could buy their nobility). But there was certainly room for a lot of progress for them all, noble or not.

Take Cardinal Richelieu, for example. He wasn't born into the position of first minister, he started as a priest and worked his way up.

You did notice this part of the statement "unless they are extremely lucky and catch the eye of the ruling lord."

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-26-2008, 00:47
I think we're going from one extreme to another here. My first statement was for a constitutional monarchy with a little more power, not a feudal society.

HoreTore
04-26-2008, 00:53
You did notice this part of the statement "unless they are extremely lucky and catch the eye of the ruling lord."

Like now, where we need to catch the eye of our boss?

Redleg
04-26-2008, 01:42
Like now, where we need to catch the eye of our boss?

Not at all. One can make their own way without catching the eye of the boss.

Unless of course you wish to believe that its always someone's else's fault that you have a mirsable existance.

Or you can strive to improve yourself. Its your choice, not mine.

That is the main benefit of capitialism - you can strive to improve yourself. Its not always successful, nor is it even guarnateed to be successful. But the oppurnity is there.

BananaBob
04-26-2008, 16:09
Parallels exist with communism aslo - but does that make it communism? Sorry many things have similiarities in how they work. And your comment does not address the main significance of a democracy - that one can advance beyond their status of birth. Especially if one is capable.

Again, democracy simply means that a citizen chooses his own master. Just because a person lives in a democracy does not mean they are free.



Yep because several state/anarchism societies have been attempted, probably pretty close to what you think you envision it to be. So yes it does matter because it provides a historical model concerning the political/economic theory.

Can you point me in the direction of these? If its only one example, I cant see how it would be relavent. After all, Hitler was elected.

Banquo's Ghost
04-26-2008, 17:04
Again, democracy simply means that a citizen chooses his own master. Just because a person lives in a democracy does not mean they are free.

Can you point me in the direction of these? If its only one example, I cant see how it would be relavent. After all, Hitler was elected.

That old saw. ~:rolleyes:

The power of democracy lies not in the ability to choose one's "master" but to reject him once he no longer satisfies. And to do so peacefully.

By definition, that franchise creates freedom. Hitler deprived his people of the choice to remove him peacefully, and so there was no democracy, nor freedom.

Redleg
04-26-2008, 22:28
Again, democracy simply means that a citizen chooses his own master. Just because a person lives in a democracy does not mean they are free.

The ability to chose or not to chose is one of the most fundmental freedoms a person can have. Your are seeming to say that with any form of government one does not have freedom. In this you are only partially right, but you are also partially wrong.

The guarntee of rights and freedoms by the people through the government is the fundmental principle of the democracy (IMO). Through a democracy the government has to answer to the people or it losses its creditiblity and its ability to govern. So yes democracy is the best form of government to ensure freedoms exist.

Governments that answer to the people is what ensure's one has freedom. Anarchy means that each individual is solely responsible for themselves. This does not necessarily equate to freedom either. Since without some sort of authority who is responsible to enforce that no-one violates the freedom of another. You mention a watchman to ensure this violation does not happen. You have just placed a restriction on everyone. Democracy allows for those restrictions to be agreed upon through a legislative process. Is it perfect - hell no, but its the best system going now regardless if its a social democracy, paralmentry democracy or my personal favorite the Representive Republic.

{quote]Can you point me in the direction of these? If its only one example, I cant see how it would be relavent. After all, Hitler was elected.[/QUOTE]
look into the Spanish Civil War - one citry state during that conflict was an anarchist state if I rember correctly

Rhyfelwyr
04-26-2008, 23:22
Not everyone can choose to be succesful. And after the first generation that lived under the system, capitalism loses its main benefit - equality of opportunity.

I do not think it is coincidence that people from poor backgrounds are not as successul as those from middle-class or upper-class/rich backgrounds. They simply do not have the same opportunities in life. Bad areas have bad schools, they can't afford to take their education beyond school etc. Plus being born into an environment of poverty does tend to breed apathy, so its more down to socioeconomic factors than an individuals own attitude. Everyones attitudes are shaped by their experiences, I doubt certain people are born with much different attitudes from others.

But this thread isn't about capitalism...

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-27-2008, 05:18
But this thread isn't about capitalism...

Well said. I am of the belief that a dictatorship, or at least my version of a combined government (authoritarianism combined with democracy) can coexist quite peacefully with capitalism. ~;)

Redleg
04-27-2008, 13:49
Not everyone can choose to be succesful. And after the first generation that lived under the system, capitalism loses its main benefit - equality of opportunity.

Completely and totally wrong. Everyone has choices that they can make in a free society which democracy enables. If one can not chose thier course of life they often are not living in a democracy. This is a cop out of the highest order because it seemly says that everyone has to accept the lot in life. And that is as Tribesman says complete and utter bullocks.

The second part of your sentence is also complete bullocks - capitalism does not lose its main benefit of equality of opportunity after the first generation. If it did try explaining the millioniars that developed every year from using capitialism. Then one would have to explain why people fail under capitalism also. Capitialism never loses its equality of opportunity based upon the first generation that lives under it.



I do not think it is coincidence that people from poor backgrounds are not as successul as those from middle-class or upper-class/rich backgrounds. They simply do not have the same opportunities in life. Bad areas have bad schools, they can't afford to take their education beyond school etc. Plus being born into an environment of poverty does tend to breed apathy, so its more down to socioeconomic factors than an individuals own attitude. Everyones attitudes are shaped by their experiences, I doubt certain people are born with much different attitudes from others.

But this thread isn't about capitalism...

Again statements of pure bullocks - born into provety does not breed apathy - this is like saying that an individual born into an abusive household will alway commit abuse themselves. Attitudes are indeed a learned experience, if one lets their situation defeat them mentally then of course they decide to give up and let their situation control them. However what seperates man from the animals is that we have the ability to reason, learn beyond our environment and improve our situation as a continous process. Only those who wish to blame their situation on thier circumstances give up and become apathic.

Opportunities in life is what you make of them regardless of your born into income bracket of your parents. In a free society everyone has the ability to improve themselves regardless of their background. I can attest to this from personal experience having paid my own way through a college education. So I dont by this crutch arguement of a person born into provety has little to no opportunity to improve their positon. History is full of exambles of this not being true.

Unfortunately for you a form of capitalism is present in every successful country because it allows for the growth of the country, some countries provide state controls on capitalism, some use a form of socialism along with the capitialism market system, but all have a form of it. Just like every free society has some type of growth because of the form of democracy they have installed regardless if its form.

Then again one can not talk about democracy without discussing how the market is utilized in that nation. Look at how one has attempted to equate Capitialism to Fuedalism. Economic and politics are often hand in hand.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 17:06
So it is just coincidence that people born into an atmosphere of poverty and apathy tend not to escape from it? Is it surprising they see that as their lot in life when they see everyone around them failing to advance or improve their situation?

Redleg
04-27-2008, 17:40
So it is just coincidence that people born into an atmosphere of poverty and apathy tend not to escape from it? Is it surprising they see that as their lot in life when they see everyone around them failing to advance or improve their situation?

I dont assume that an individual born into poverty is apathic. Apathic is a condition one learns, not a condition one is born into. This is why your arguement is such bullocks - one can be poor and still want to improve their condition. It might not be to the upper class it might not even be to the middle class - it might just be an improvement of who they are.

Your going to have a hard problem with your arguement - since I was born in poverty, my father was a construction worker for highway crews, I watched him improve his life. I come from that background and worked my way through college. So to claim a person born in poverty is apathic is just bullocks.

Now do people born in poverty come apathic about their condition when they see no escape from that condition? Sure they do, but once they become apathic they throw all their chances for success down the drain and accept that they will never raise above their born into status in life.

This condition has nothing to do with capitalism or democracy - but of human nature. Plently of individuals from poor backgrounds have risen above poverty so I dont accept your crutch of an arguement that because one is born poor that they will be apathic.

But then again I have worked all my life often with others that come from a similiar background as myself, many from even worse conditions, since my father would of been classified as the working poor. I find arguements that the poor must be apathic to be such a crock of bullocks because frankly that is exactly what it is.

Apathy is a human condition one develops - no one is born into a condition of apathy. Your statement once again would say that everyone born into an abusive condition is prone to commit that same abuse. This is not the case.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 21:01
Apathy is a human condition one develops - no one is born into a condition of apathy.

Yes and people develop those attitudes when they are children, and they often stick even when they are adults.

Of course not every poor person suffers from apathy, please stop portraying my agrument in extremes. But a lot more poor people suffer from apathy than their wealthier counterparts. And if a certain section of society is clearly progressing at a much slower pace than the rest, then clearly the system is not truly fair.

You have to look at the whole picture, not just the success stories.

And you can't just dismiss apathy as a problem of human nature, if the capitalist system intensifies the problem then clearly that is an issue.

I suppose I count as middle-class, and like your father, my father came from a working-class background. But he was lucky, he was clever and he was encouraged to work hard, and he got lucky breaks when he needed them. There is no denying it is far harder for those living in poverty to improve their conditions, and in reality, in some cases its all but impossible. Thankfully those laissez-faire attitudes declined in Britain a long time ago, before Thatcher and her cronies restored them within a portion of the population.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 21:55
Yes and people develop those attitudes when they are children, and they often stick even when they are adults.

Again your statment was people are born into poverty and apathy. So do you now agree that you took an extreme form of the arguement and that people are not born into apathy?



Of course not every poor person suffers from apathy, please stop portraying my agrument in extremes. But a lot more poor people suffer from apathy than their wealthier counterparts. And if a certain section of society is clearly progressing at a much slower pace than the rest, then clearly the system is not truly fair.

If you don't want your arguement portrayed in the extreme form maybe you shouldn't use an extreme form when arguing. Now do the poor progress at a slower pace then the rest, never said that they didn't. Only that the opportunity to progress exists for them just as much as it does for someone from the middleclass. Now if your comment is geared toward the 1% who are the extreme wealthy - that exists in all economic systems. To point it out as only a flaw of capitialism is a false arguement, its a flaw of all systems. The difference between capitialism and all other economic systems is that everyone has the opportunity to improve their economic status through their own hard work.



You have to look at the whole picture, not just the success stories.

Try living in an area with a heavy immigrantion influence - I saw success stories of people working theirselves out of poverty every day. Millions of immigrants come to the United States - over 10 million legal and illegal immigrants in the United States over the last 10-15 years - not everyone is successful - but a significant portion of them have indeed worked themselves out of poverty to at least the lower end of the middle class. To claim people born in poverty are by definition apathic is a bad generalization, and deserves to be treated as an extreme arguement because in general it is.



And you can't just dismiss apathy as a problem of human nature, if the capitalist system intensifies the problem then clearly that is an issue.


All political/economic systems create and often intesify the problem of apathy. Communism in the Marxist form surely did as demonstrated by the situation in the former USSR.



I suppose I count as middle-class, and like your father, my father came from a working-class background. But he was lucky, he was clever and he was encouraged to work hard, and he got lucky breaks when he needed them. There is no denying it is far harder for those living in poverty to improve their conditions, and in reality, in some cases its all but impossible. Thankfully those laissez-faire attitudes declined in Britain a long time ago, before Thatcher and her cronies restored them within a portion of the population.

Now I never said it was easy to improve one's positon in life, what I have stated is that the opportunity exists for one to improve their economic well being in a capitialist system.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-27-2008, 22:27
Now I never said it was easy to improve one's positon in life, what I have stated is that the opportunity exists for one to improve their economic well being in a capitialist system.

Wait a minute. It's easy to improve your status in a communist society, if by improving status you mean stealing another sheep.

Craterus
04-27-2008, 22:32
Yes and people develop those attitudes when they are children, and they often stick even when they are adults.

I think I disagree with you here. Not to say that I agree with Redleg.

I'd say that, for some children, growing up poorer can be the extra incentive to work hard and succeed. As long as they're treated right and get decent support at school.

Middle and upper class kids, on the other hand, can be lazy and take certain things for granted.


Communism in the Marxist form surely did as demonstrated by the situation in the former USSR.

That wasn't Communism in the Marxist form. That was Leninism, Stalinism etc. A Marxist state has never existed.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 22:35
If you don't want your arguement portrayed in the extreme form maybe you shouldn't use an extreme form when arguing. Now do the poor progress at a slower pace then the rest, never said that they didn't. Only that the opportunity to progress exists for them just as much as it does for someone from the middleclass.

Unless poor people are inferior to everyone else, then those last two sentences clearly contradict each other. Why are the poor so slow at progressing?

And I wasn't taking my argument to extremes, I made a generalisation which is well enough founded according to all the patterns.

And I'm not arguing for communism, I just think its silly to suggest that capitalist systems (at least how they exist in any country today) are completely fair and provide everyone with equal opportunities from birth.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 22:37
I'd say that, for some children, growing up poorer can be the extra incentive to work hard and succeed. As long as they're treated right and get decent support at school.

The issue lies in the second sentence there. Poor areas have bad schools, children have bad rolemodels (or just a lack of them) growing up etc.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 22:45
Unless poor people are inferior to everyone else, then those last two sentences clearly contradict each other. Why are the poor so slow at progressing?

Nope poor people are not inferior at all. Now why are poor people progressing slower - could it be as a percentage they represent a larger portion of the population? Could it be that some of them subscribe to your arguement that because they are poor they should be apathic? Could it be that they are progressing in the same manner as the middleclass as a percentage income? Not a social scientist so I haven't studied it all that much. However I do know that just because an individual is born poor does not mean they dont have an opporunity to succeed in life.



And I wasn't taking my argument to extremes, I made a generalisation which is well enough founded according to all the patterns.


A generalization that discounts the success of millions of immigrants? Not much of a well founded generalization now is it? Then again I haven't seen the pattern that states an individual born in poverty is apathic either.



And I'm not arguing for communism, I just think its silly to suggest that capitalist systems (at least how they exist in any country today) are completely fair and provide everyone with equal opportunities from birth.

LOL - read what I wrote - I capitialism provides equal opportunity for all to succeed or fail - I never claimed it was fair. Life is hardly fair, its a struggle that one must face everyday to maintain their growth. Only the deluded believe life should be fair in all things. I expect justice to be fair, I expect the government to treat everyone equally and fair, and I expect capitalism to provide everyone with the opportunity for growth. To claim that it doesnt provide equal opportunity for growth is a incorrect arguement since you are focused on the human condition not the market.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 22:47
That wasn't Communism in the Marxist form. That was Leninism, Stalinism etc. A Marxist state has never existed.

Actually the root of Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism forms of communist comes from Marx's communist manifesto. So while the sentence is not completely correct the root of all three systems was indeed Marx's document.

Craterus
04-27-2008, 22:49
LOL - read what I wrote - I capitialism provides equal opportunity for all to succeed or fail - I never claimed it was fair. Life is hardly fair, its a struggle that one must face everyday to maintain their growth. Only the deluded believe life should be fair in all things. I expect justice to be fair, I expect the government to treat everyone equally and fair, and I expect capitalism to provide everyone with the opportunity for growth. To claim that it doesnt provide equal opportunity for growth is a incorrect arguement since you are focused on the human condition not the market.

'LOL'! You sure like the word 'equal', but I'm not sure you understand its meaning.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 22:50
The issue lies in the second sentence there. Poor areas have bad schools, children have bad rolemodels (or just a lack of them) growing up etc.

That is a social condition - not necessarily anyother condition. As before one can look at situations where poor immigrants do not suffer from this condition and they are often from even worse poverty then the intercities of the United States and Western Europe.

The poor un-educated Mexican immigrant who works hard often can find himself out abject poverty into the working poor or even the middleclass.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 22:53
It doesn't do the market a lot of good when people get a crap education, no qualifications, so that all they can do is accept a minimum wage job or live off benefits or whatever. Let's be realistic, you won't get far without basic qualifications nowadays.

As for the immigrants, well they tend to come from a pretty different background and set of values than someone living on a crappy council estate. But even then they can be succesful, or they can end up in poverty. People should not be left to such a fate.

Is it their fault? I doubt hard work alone achieves the 'American Dream'.

EDIT: You seem to be counting the ability to improve your condition as the main element to equality. So one middle-class man moving into the upper-classes, and one poor Mexican immigrant moving up into the working poor counts as equality, right?

Craterus
04-27-2008, 22:57
Actually the root of Stalinism, Leninism, and Maoism forms of communist comes from Marx's communist manifesto. So while the sentence is not completely correct the root of all three systems was indeed Marx's document.

I'm aware of that, but none were the Communist states that Marx had envisioned. All involved a lot of pragmatism (and thus, a shift away from Marxism) in their attempts to create the Communist utopia.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:02
'LOL'! You sure like the word 'equal', but I'm not sure you understand its meaning.

yep I understand it - can you claim that a poor person does not have the same opporunity to grow in a capitalistic system?

The opporunity exists weither an individual has a wealthy parent or a poor parent.

IT seems you want to count how much cash a person has on hand as the primary weight for measurement. This does not equate to equal opportunity

From Websters.

1a (1): of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another (2): identical in mathematical value or logical denotation : equivalent b: like in quality, nature, or status c: like for each member of a group, class, or society <provide equal employment opportunities>
2: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial
3: free from extremes: as a: tranquil in mind or mood b: not showing variation in appearance, structure, or proportion
4 a: capable of meeting the requirements of a situation or a task b: suitable <bored with work not equal to his abilities>

Now many use definition 1 as the primary definition when wanting to speak of equal. In the method I am using it in my arguement is definition number 2.

Capitalism provides equal opportunity for all to grow in economic status - ie it regards or affects all objects (social class) in the same way: impartial.

One makes an income by providing a supply for the demand. So if you believe I don't understand the way I am using the term - you might want to try actually understand that the term has several meanings.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 23:03
I'm aware of that, but none were the Communist states that Marx had envisioned. All involved a lot of pragmatism (and thus, a shift away from Marxism) in their attempts to create the Communist utopia.

I can't stand it when people point to Stalin and say - "that is why communism cannot work!" :no:

I don't agree with everything Marx says, but at least some of those who tried to put to practise his writings had good intentions.

Stalin was a maniac, Lenin I think meant well at first though he lost sight of his original principles as he resorted to increasing authoritarianism. Mao was the best meaning of the lot, unfortunately he just got some things badly wrong. We should still be thankful the nationalists did'nt take control of China.

EDIT: Redleg, you are still only accounting for the economic elements of capitalism, we have to accept there are social and psychological factors caused by economic inequalities (pretty much from birth) that reduce people's ability to improve their situation.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:03
I'm aware of that, but none were the Communist states that Marx had envisioned. All involved a lot of pragmatism (and thus, a shift away from Marxism) in their attempts to create the Communist utopia.

Then you have not successful counter the postion that I hold. All three take their root in Marxism.

Craterus
04-27-2008, 23:08
No, it doesn't.

Here's an 'off-the-top-of-my-head' list of advantages that richer children have over poorer children.

1. Possible access to 'better' schools, better education.
2. Private tutors, if they find themselves struggling.
3. A larger house. Bear with me here. There's likely to be more room for a desk and I'd bet that a study has been conducted somewhere to show that a child who has a place to do his/her homework is much more successful at school.
4. Bullying? School can be unpleasant if you're not wearing the latest stuff. And that costs money.

Capitalism isn't as equal as you think. Sure, there's opportunity for anyone to become what they want (ah, the American Dream, filling so many childhoods with false hope), but I would never say it's an equal opportunity.

Craterus
04-27-2008, 23:12
I can't stand it when people point to Stalin and say - "that is why communism cannot work!" :no:

When did I say that?


Then you have not successful counter the postion that I hold. All three take their root in Marxism.

You're saying Marxism would have the same 'apathy effects' as any other economic system. I'm saying Marxism has never been fully put into practice.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-27-2008, 23:12
Mao was the best meaning of the lot, unfortunately he just got some things badly wrong.

Like the twenty-plus million he offed?

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:13
It doesn't do the market a lot of good when people get a crap education, no qualifications, so that all they can do is accept a minimum wage job or live off benefits or whatever. Let's be realistic, you won't get far without basic qualifications nowadays.

Tell that to the poor immigrant that creates his own lawn business and actually becomes highly successful because he captures the market. Again who's fault is it that someone doesn't pursue a better life? Is it societies or is it the individual? or is it a combination of both? Education requires two things - the desire to learn and the opportunity to learn. Last I saw is even in the bad areas in the United States the opportunity to learn is present.



As for the immigrants, well they tend to come from a pretty different background and set of values than someone living on a crappy council estate. But even then they can be succesful, or they can end up in poverty. People should not be left to such a fate.

LIke I said - it makes your generalization false because you discount this important factor in your statement.



Is it their fault? I doubt hard work alone achieves the 'American Dream'.


Apathy is a condition one develops, so in essence a person can control it, if they so desire. Being born into poverty is a circumstance one can not control.



EDIT: You seem to be counting the ability to improve your condition as the main element to equality. So one middle-class man moving into the upper-classes, and one poor Mexican immigrant moving up into the working poor counts as equality, right?

Read the definiton of equal opportunity - 2: regarding or affecting all objects in the same way : impartial. Its an adjective not a noun.

I have never bought into the arguement of being poor means one can not have growth in terms of economic or personal. Being poor is only an economic condition one finds themselve in. People have the ability to improve their lives under a democratic and capitalistic system. They also have the ability to improve their lives under a democratic and socialist system. My claim is not that capitialism is better then socialism - only that capitialism by definition provides equal opportunity for growth regardless of which economic condition one is born into.

Rhyfelwyr
04-27-2008, 23:14
Then you have not successful counter the postion that I hold. All three take their root in Marxism.

They all failed to meet Marx's preconditions for the revolution he proposed, therefore while they shared some of his ideas, they were clearly not Marxist states from the beginning of their revolutions.

Its a bit like comparing their attempts to install communism as those to create democracy in England during the 'Godly Reformation'. The country was not ready for such social changes, and so the government resorted to increasingly authoritarian methods to impose its ideals.

Or for a more modern example maybe the rise to power of the New Order government in Indonesia (just wrote an essay on it). That country happened to not be ready for democracy at the time - does that mean democracy should be discredited to the rest of the world?

Yay talking about the actual topic again!

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:19
No, it doesn't.

Feel free to disagree - but attempting to deny that all three take their root from Marx's communist manifesto would take a serious re-write of history.



Here's an 'off-the-top-of-my-head' list of advantages that richer children have over poorer children.

1. Possible access to 'better' schools, better education.
2. Private tutors, if they find themselves struggling.
3. A larger house. Bear with me here. There's likely to be more room for a desk and I'd bet that a study has been conducted somewhere to show that a child who has a place to do his/her homework is much more successful at school.
4. Bullying? School can be unpleasant if you're not wearing the latest stuff. And that costs money.


Do these thing mean an individual does not have the equal opportunity to better themselves by getting an education. Are the millions who paid their own way through college then an expection because they did it without this list of so called advantages?



Capitalism isn't as equal as you think. Sure, there's opportunity for anyone to become what they want (ah, the American Dream, filling so many childhoods with false hope), but I would never say it's an equal opportunity.

If everyone has the opportunity to become what they want - ie that is what there is opportunity for anyone means - then you can not claim that is not an equal opportunity.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:25
I can't stand it when people point to Stalin and say - "that is why communism cannot work!" :no:

Good thing my implication is that the Marxist form of Communism doesn't work. The form the Israeli's used for their farming communities is a great examble of a working communism.



I don't agree with everything Marx says, but at least some of those who tried to put to practise his writings had good intentions.

Only Lenin can that be said of. All others were tyrants using communism as a cause.



Stalin was a maniac, Lenin I think meant well at first though he lost sight of his original principles as he resorted to increasing authoritarianism. Mao was the best meaning of the lot, unfortunately he just got some things badly wrong. We should still be thankful the nationalists did'nt take control of China.


You should read a little more on Mao. The Nationalists were just as bad as Mao.



EDIT: Redleg, you are still only accounting for the economic elements of capitalism, we have to accept there are social and psychological factors caused by economic inequalities (pretty much from birth) that reduce people's ability to improve their situation.

Capitialism is an exonomic element. Social and psychological factors are controled by the form of government one uses. One has to intermix economic and political discussion into the equation. Democracy is the best form of government to control the economic inequalities created by capitalism - which is exactly what I have stated several times.

BananaBob
04-27-2008, 23:28
Nope poor people are not inferior at all. Now why are poor people progressing slower - could it be as a percentage they represent a larger portion of the population? Could it be that some of them subscribe to your arguement that because they are poor they should be apathic? Could it be that they are progressing in the same manner as the middleclass as a percentage income? Not a social scientist so I haven't studied it all that much. However I do know that just because an individual is born poor does not mean they dont have an opporunity to succeed in life.

Your missing the point entirely man. Lets make an example:
Me. Upper middle class, 18 years old, parents have money, I don't have to pay for college since they are. I have unlimited opportunity: all I have to do is put effort in and any college/university education that I desire is mine. I realzed this, got 70s and 80s and I enrolled in a graphic design program. If i was smart enough I could be going to any university I desire.

Now lets take Bob and Joe. Like me, both want to be graphic designers. Joe is born into a poor family. His family can barely put food on the table. He too gets 70s and 80s, but is unable to attend college because he cannot afford it. He has two choices:
a) join the working class
b) take a student loan and be crippled economically for 20+ years

Bob however, is much worse off. He does not even get the chance to get 70s or 80s. Due to the fact that his single parent family and 2 little sisters are starving, he drops out of high school to feed them. He had two options, but obviously chose the former
a) feed baby sisters
b) let family starve

Capitalism creates positive feedback (note: positive feedback in this system is NOT positive:laugh4: ), the population will be polarized between extremely rich and extremely poor. Capitalism will inevitably eat up the middle class: Average rich people can have any education they wish for, genius poor people can also (in the form of scholarships), but average rich people are set, and average poor people get poorer.



LOL - read what I wrote - I capitalism provides equal opportunity for all to succeed or fail - I never claimed it was fair.

:inquisitive: :juggle2: :inquisitive:

Doublethink?

I'm going to make a thread on capitalism as soon as I am done eating so we can go back on topic.

Craterus
04-27-2008, 23:38
If everyone has the opportunity to become what they want - ie that is what there is opportunity for anyone means - then you can not claim that is not an equal opportunity.

How does that follow? Richer kids clearly have better opportunities and a much better start which makes it a lot easier. That means the opportunities aren't equal.

Think of a 100m race. I start 50m in front of you. Who has the better opportunity to win? Sure, you could win, if you work hard and put your mind to it and all that ****, but you probably won't.

Redleg
04-27-2008, 23:53
Your missing the point entirely man. Lets make an example:
Me. Upper middle class, 18 years old, parents have money, I don't have to pay for college since they are. I have unlimited opportunity: all I have to do is put effort in and any college/university education that I desire is mine. I realzed this, got 70s and 80s and I enrolled in a graphic design program. If i was smart enough I could be going to any university I desire.


Now lets take Bob and Joe. Like me, both want to be graphic designers. Joe is born into a poor family. His family can barely put food on the table. He too gets 70s and 80s, but is unable to attend college because he cannot afford it. He has two choices:
a) join the working class
b) take a student loan and be crippled economically for 20+ years

Bob however, is much worse off. He does not even get the chance to get 70s or 80s. Due to the fact that his single parent family and 2 little sisters are starving, he drops out of high school to feed them. He had two options, but obviously chose the former
a) feed baby sisters
b) let family starve


Those are exambles of condition that an individual has to face because of social and economic conditions. That does not mean that Bob does not have the opportunity to improve his economic condition. While he has a major hurrdle to overcome - you have not address his opportunity to be successful under capitalism.

For examble Bob while working captures the market for flipping pizza's and becomes the most saught after pizza flipper in the market place and is able increase his economic status.

Ie he has an equal opportunity to increase his wealth and status under a capitialist system.




Capitalism creates positive feedback (note: positive feedback in this system is NOT positive:laugh4: ), the population will be polarized between extremely rich and extremely poor. Capitalism will inevitably eat up the middle class: Average rich people can have any education they wish for, genius poor people can also (in the form of scholarships), but average rich people are set, and average poor people get poorer.


Again your addressing social/political conditions - capitalism still provides the opportunity for the poor to increase thier own personal wealth. Now if you wish to discuss the best way for a capitalistic society to spread the wealth - other then trough democracy by all means discuss it - but you have not demonstrated that the opportunity for growth does not exist.



:inquisitive: :juggle2: :inquisitive:

Doublethink?

I'm going to make a thread on capitalism as soon as I am done eating so we can go back on topic.

As before you might want to look at the definition - Capitalism provides equal opportunity for all to grow in economic status - ie it regards or affects all objects (social class) in the same way: impartial.

Fair implies something else entirely. For instance just because I have the opportunity does not mean I will succeed. I could fail because I make a mistake, that I have the wrong supply, or even could not create a demand. Nothing fair in that now is there.

Redleg
04-28-2008, 00:03
How does that follow? Richer kids clearly have better opportunities and a much better start which makes it a lot easier. That means the opportunities aren't equal.

The opportunity for success is equal.




Think of a 100m race. I start 50m in front of you. Who has the better opportunity to win? Sure, you could win, if you work hard and put your mind to it and all that ****, but you probably won't.

Incorrect assumption - opportunity for success does not equate to only one winning the race - only that both have the same opportunity to finish the race.

Caius
04-28-2008, 00:08
Capitalism provides equal opportunity for all to grow in economic status
Lol. Incorrect.

Capitalism doesn't provides equal opportunity, why does not a poor has even, a proper house. Don't come with that argument that we all know its not true at all.

Redleg
04-28-2008, 00:30
Lol. Incorrect.

Capitalism doesn't provides equal opportunity, why does not a poor has even, a proper house. Don't come with that argument that we all know its not true at all.

It seems your have deluded yourself to thinking that for capitalism to be of equal opportunity that everyone must start from the same starting positon.

THat is not what I have stated - I have clearly stated that capitalism provides the equal opportunity for everyone to grow. I have yet to see a counter to that postion that disproves my premise.

So I did not have the same starting status as George Bush - but I sure did finish college by paying for it myself. I have increased my own personal wealth at least threefold over what I started with when I left my parents house.

Are you attempting to state that because I come from a lower class that I did not have the same opportunity to succeed in economic growth as someone born with more money?

Capitalism allows for this equal opportunity of economic growth - this does not mean that everyone achieves it.

Rhyfelwyr
04-28-2008, 15:29
First of all can I make a couple of points from earlier posts:

1. @Craterus - I wasn't pointing my finger at you over the Stalin remark, it was aimed at Redleg's more general remarks about communism.
2. @Redleg - I know the nationalists were just as bad as Mao, that was my point.:inquisitive:

Back to the argument now...

Redleg, in every post you make you seem to be giving two very contradictory statements over what it is to have equal opportunity. You say there is equality in that everyone can theoretically improve and that people of different backgrounds can advance to the same level in society. But you are not achnowledging the fact that it is far easier for some people to improve than others, and that this is clear through the failure of the vast majority of poor people to escape from poverty. So clearly all people do not have equal opportunities, and the reality is unless you are a talented and lucky person it will be extremely difficult to move up from the lower levels of society. So where is the equality there?

And we must accept that economic systems have social and psychological impacts that can alter their performance, don't they form the backbone of the argument against communism?

Caius
04-28-2008, 21:43
Capitalism allows for this equal opportunity of economic growth - this does not mean that everyone achieves it.
If some don't, then there aren't equal chances.


Are you attempting to state that because I come from a lower class that I did not have the same opportunity to succeed in economic growth as someone born with more money?
Yes. Because you can't do a lot more than other born with money, thats why the richer are more richer and the poor are still poor.


THat is not what I have stated - I have clearly stated that capitalism provides the equal opportunity for everyone to grow. I have yet to see a counter to that postion that disproves my premise.
Then, why the hell did Phil Collins wrote and sang this song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftlYLcEW_I4&feature=related

No, he was smoking and he wrote this song. Everyone can't grow. Capitalism DOESN'T allow to achieve it, and you must be asking why?

Some people can't grow, because they win cents (yeah, cents). And you are claiming that everyone can achive better economical growth?

Its not equal, why does a woman earn less than a man in the same job? ITs called discrimination, and the fact that discrimination exists mean that capitalism isn't equal, because no one is equal to other. Some are discriminated, and they cant grow at the same pace.

I know I'm disorganizated to tell something, even in English and when I found this statement which annoys me because it's (to me), a lie.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-28-2008, 21:50
If some don't, then there aren't equal chances.


That's not what he's saying. He's saying everyone in a capitalist system can reach the finish line, but for a variety of reasons, some don't.

For example, you're running a race, and you're close to the finish line, and you see the alcohol table next to the course. Instead of ignoring it, you go and drink, and don't finish the race.

Craterus
04-28-2008, 22:07
The opportunity for success is equal.



Incorrect assumption - opportunity for success does not equate to only one winning the race - only that both have the same opportunity to finish the race.

But they don't have equal opportunities to finish the race. One is a lot closer to the finish line.

Rhyfelwyr
04-28-2008, 23:12
And there's only room for one winner.

It is ridiculous to argue that capitalism gives everyone equal opportunities in life.

And you said I was talking bollocks. I'm starting to realise the Yanks have a tendency to attack everyone else rather than put together a sensible argument for capitalism. Get by the initial barrage of cursing and insults and then its easy to break their system down.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-28-2008, 23:20
Capitalism, in my not-so-humble opinion, has flaws, but communism has more. I don't think pure capitalism is the best solution, however.

Rhyfelwyr
04-28-2008, 23:32
Capitalism, in my not-so-humble opinion, has flaws, but communism has more. I don't think pure capitalism is the best solution, however.

IIRC you came out pretty much down the centre line in that political leanings thread you made? I was surprised how far to the left I was, since I'm not a communist.

At least we're both authoritarian anyway (apparently). I bet your constitutional monarchy would soon degenerate into absolutism.:wink:

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-29-2008, 00:14
IIRC you came out pretty much down the centre line in that political leanings thread you made? I was surprised how far to the left I was, since I'm not a communist.

Yes. I believe social programs need to exist, but I'm rabidly anti-SPD.


At least we're both authoritarian anyway (apparently). I bet your constitutional monarchy would soon degenerate into absolutism.:wink:

I'm only slightly "to the north". :laugh4:

That's why my authoritarian democracy/constitutional monarchy needs a constitution - because of people like me. :laugh4:

Redleg
04-29-2008, 00:15
And there's only room for one winner.

Incorrect - capitalism deals with finishing the race - everyone can finish the race under capitialism. If your attempting to measure a win by who achieves the most then that is your opinion - I have not stated that. Everyone has the opportunity to gain under capitalism. Ie I will finish the race maybe with only a narrow marginal of growth - but I still increased my assets.



It is ridiculous to argue that capitalism gives everyone equal opportunities in life.

You might want to learn to read - I said capitalism gives everyone the opportunity to grow in wealth - said nothing about giving an individual an equal opportunity in life. To different concepts as far as I am concerned



And you said I was talking bollocks. I'm starting to realise the Yanks have a tendency to attack everyone else rather than put together a sensible argument for capitalism. Get by the initial barrage of cursing and insults and then its easy to break their system down.

Not at all - claiming people born into poverty are born into apathy is indeed bullocks. I see you still haven't successful countered the fact that capitalism provides everyone with an equal opportunity to grow in wealth.

I will even give you an additional issue to tackle - can you name one successful nation that does not use some form of capitalism within its market system? And by successful I mean a nation that has demonstrated real growth over the last 10 years.

Redleg
04-29-2008, 00:17
But they don't have equal opportunities to finish the race. One is a lot closer to the finish line.

Incorrect - both have the same opportunity to finish the race. Especially since the race is not a sprint but a long distance run that lasts your whole life.

You ever studied the number of wealthy individuals who end up more destitute then some of those born into poverty?

Capitalism provides an equal opportunity for failure also.

Adrian II
04-29-2008, 23:09
The power of democracy lies not in the ability to choose one's "master" but to reject him once he no longer satisfies. And to do so peacefully.

By definition, that franchise creates freedom. Hitler deprived his people of the choice to remove him peacefully, and so there was no democracy, nor freedom.Interestingly, he could do so because he controlled the streets and public life with his own militias, large well-armed gangs made up of disgruntled soldiers and civilians which hadn't been sufficiently outlawed and disarmed in the years before. Goes to show what can happen if you allow citizens to constitute private militias and 'protect' their own from the evils of democratic government. :inquisitive:

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-30-2008, 00:23
Interestingly, he could do so because he controlled the streets and public life with his own militias, large well-armed gangs made up of disgruntled soldiers and civilians which hadn't been sufficiently outlawed and disarmed in the years before. Goes to show what can happen if you allow citizens to constitute private militias and 'protect' their own from the evils of democratic government. :inquisitive:

The situation at the time also applied to the far left. There were two large evils at work in Germany, and it was unfortunate they weren't both destroyed by 1923.

On the other hand, the DNVP, that I could have gone for.

Adrian II
04-30-2008, 00:31
On the other hand, the DNVP, that I could have gone for.Um, they worked so closely with the NSDAP and its militias that they merged with the NSDAP altogether in 1933? Is that the DNVP we're talking about?

Yeah, sounds like a great outfit. :dizzy2:

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-30-2008, 00:34
Um, they worked so closely with the NSDAP and its militias that they merged with the NSDAP altogether in 1933? Is that the DNVP we're talking about?

Yeah, sounds like a great outfit. :dizzy2:

Because it was the only way they could get any sort of power. If the NSDAP was crushed in 1923...

Adrian II
04-30-2008, 00:41
Because it was the only way they could get any sort of power. If the NSDAP was crushed in 1923...But it hadn't been, and it wasn't to be. If anything, the Harzburg Front helped to make Hitler look respectable. By the time the DNVP backed Hindenburg, it was too late.

Why would you, supposing you could travel back in time, even have considered an alliance with that scum? I can imagine several reasons if I try to put myself into the shoes of a Prussian landowner with a territorial grudge or something. But for a lively young lad like our Martian Maniac with 20/20 hindsight?...

Evil_Maniac From Mars
04-30-2008, 02:16
Why would you, supposing you could travel back in time, even have considered an alliance with that scum? I can imagine several reasons if I try to put myself into the shoes of a Prussian landowner with a territorial grudge or something. But for a lively young lad like our Martian Maniac with 20/20 hindsight?...

Communism or Fascism? Probably the two most evil governments in this world. In hindsight, the democratic government was the best. Obviously, in the view of many at the time, communism or fascism were - the two worst choices, incidentally.

I remain a constitutional monarchist, and I think that whole mess was extremely unfortunate. I'd go a little deeper with my thoughts, but I think that's enough from me for now.

Navaros
05-14-2008, 11:53
Nope, democracy is not the way to go. Democracy leads every society that embraces it to become an immoral cesspool sooner or later.

The most respectable and moral societies, the ones that are not a disgrace to mankind as a race, are Theocracies.

CountArach
05-14-2008, 12:58
Thank you Navaros you just made my day :laugh4:

Banquo's Ghost
05-14-2008, 13:18
The most respectable and moral societies, the ones that are not a disgrace to mankind as a race, are Theocracies.

Iran FTW. :shocked2:

Ironside
05-14-2008, 17:44
Iran FTW. :shocked2:

Yes, I'm sure that Navaros would love to move to the nose-job capital of the world. :laugh4:

That's Teheran FYI

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
05-14-2008, 17:58
No.No One in a Demortic Goverment cares about the people, if they did, they would be listening to us rgiht now.

Banquo's Ghost
05-14-2008, 18:13
No.No One in a Demortic Goverment cares about the people, if they did, they would be listening to us rgiht now.

This makes perfect sense. If I understand the roots of the word "demortic" this is government by zombie or undead - notorious for not listening to or caring about people.

Sorry, mischevious I know, but couldn't resist. :embarassed:

Rhyfelwyr
05-14-2008, 18:30
If I understand the roots of the word "demortic" this is government by zombie or undead

Now that's a cool type of government. Would make meetings at Westmister a lot more interesting. No more intellectual debating - just eat the opponents face off! :2thumbsup:

LittleGrizzly
05-14-2008, 18:55
No One in a Demortic Goverment cares about the people, if they did, they would be listening to us rgiht now.

Some of them do care, some of them are just in it for the power, but all in all a democratic goverment has to care much more about what its people think than other types of goverment, they generally avoid upsetting the public though go against majority opinion sometimes... which isn't always a bad thing

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-14-2008, 22:51
Some of them do care, some of them are just in it for the power, but all in all a democratic goverment has to care much more about what its people think than other types of goverment, they generally avoid upsetting the public though go against majority opinion sometimes... which isn't always a bad thing

Avoiding upsetting the public leads to foolish things like political correctness, ineffectiveness at the political level, and a downright lack of responsibility and accountability among politicians.

LittleGrizzly
05-15-2008, 00:14
But how can you aviod it without installing a dictatorship

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-15-2008, 00:27
But how can you aviod it without installing a dictatorship

A balance between the two, like I suggested.

CountArach
05-15-2008, 12:23
No.No One in a Demortic Goverment cares about the people, if they did, they would be listening to us rgiht now.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we you know... vote for someone who will listen to us :idea:

LittleGrizzly
05-15-2008, 12:29
A balance between the two, like I suggested.

Well any goverment is dependant on public opnion to a certain extent unless its a dictatorship, this means they have to do at least some of what the majority of the public wants.

A constitutional monarchy you say... A constitution that can be changed or one that is set in stone ?

and how do you propose creating a monarchy and for what purpose ?

Viking
05-15-2008, 13:51
No.No One in a Demortic Goverment cares about the people, if they did, they would be listening to us rgiht now.

So, you're suggesting anarchy?

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-15-2008, 21:29
Well any goverment is dependant on public opnion to a certain extent unless its a dictatorship, this means they have to do at least some of what the majority of the public wants.

Indeed, but a balance of a system that can afford to ignore most public opinion (even a dictatorship must take it into account to a certain extent) with a democratically elected system means that the people can have some of what they want, and things can still get done.


A constitutional monarchy you say... A constitution that can be changed or one that is set in stone ?


I had a response to this typed out, but unfortunately deleted it. :whip:



and how do you propose creating a monarchy and for what purpose ?

What do you mean how? Political means come immediately to mind. Having recently re-read the Basic Law, I'm rather disatisfied with it, to say the least.

For what purpose? See my first paragraph in this post.

Lord Winter
05-16-2008, 02:13
and what happens to your monarchy if the office itslelf starts to corrupt. I mean look at the U.S. Presidency, the founding fathers would be appaled now if they know what powers the president had now. The fact is that excutive figures are drawn to increasing their power. So your ethier going to get a corrupt king with fewr checks on him, no elections, basicly making it so the only check in the end is a bloody rebellion, or you going to end up with a weak monarch controlled by outside intrest.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-16-2008, 02:19
and what happens to your monarchy if the office itslelf starts to corrupt. So your ethier going to get a corrupt king with fewr checks on him, no elections, basicly making it so the only check in the end is a bloody rebellion, or you going to end up with a weak monarch controlled by outside intrest.

Elections could be constitutionally mandated to set intervals. The key benefit of having a monarch is that the heir is raised from birth, indoctrinated if you will, to do one job and one job only. It's not like being President at all.

Checks on a monarch are governed by a constitution, a law which cannot be broken or bent. Elected officials have power as well.

Lord Winter
05-16-2008, 04:24
What I'm saying is in the long run a consituational monarchy will not have nearly the same levels of checks and balances that democracies have. I understand that you'll have elected officals to balance it out. I pointed at the U.S. as an example of how consituations and electors eventually erode. Like I said the consituation no longer holds all the checks and balances that it did or even some of the rights. With a permenent King you lose the abillity to vote somebody out. Not to mention that with heriditary monarchies you always end up with bad rulers, look at Rome, France. There will be your Caligulas and Louis XVI's. Plus with a heriditary monarchy your creating an elite class structure and eroding the idea that all men are created equal.

Kralizec
05-16-2008, 20:29
Elections could be constitutionally mandated to set intervals. The key benefit of having a monarch is that the heir is raised from birth, indoctrinated if you will, to do one job and one job only. It's not like being President at all.

Checks on a monarch are governed by a constitution, a law which cannot be broken or bent. Elected officials have power as well.

As long as the whole apparatus functions as you say it will, there's no problem. At some point however, you'll have a king that could be incompetent, arrogant to the point of disrespecting the constitution, an embarrassment to the country, or all of this. In the old days you had to use force to unseat a dynasty only to replace it by one that hasn't gone sour yet. I don't really see the point of all this hassle, while a president could be legall unseated by either impeachment or simply not reelecting him.

Rhyfelwyr
05-16-2008, 23:04
Rather than a monarch, perhaps a 'Lord Protector' should be elected by a council of 13-21 representatives?

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-17-2008, 00:47
As long as the whole apparatus functions as you say it will, there's no problem. At some point however, you'll have a king that could be incompetent, arrogant to the point of disrespecting the constitution, an embarrassment to the country, or all of this.

I see no reason why it should be impossible to replace a monarch with the one next in line to the throne if the first one is mad or breaking the law. The constitution in my system is the infalliable rule. The monarch is below the constitution, the chancellor is below the constitution, and the people are below the constitution. At the same time, however, the constitution protects these groups.

I do see the problem with having people arrested or banned from politics for ideas that conflict with the constitution, and I'm working on that part. I'm not saying this system is perfect, just that it could work.

Incongruous
05-24-2008, 00:19
I reckon we should just go back to good old Athenian Demokratia, vote by pebble is the best vote IMHO.
But isn't t funny that the most democratic city in the ancient world was also one of the most vile?

Conradus
05-24-2008, 09:01
Well, it goes to show that direct democracy doesn't really work imo. You can't ask the people about their opinion and heed them for every single decision that has to be made.

CountArach
05-24-2008, 09:04
Well, it goes to show that direct democracy doesn't really work imo. You can't ask the people about their opinion and heed them for every single decision that has to be made.
Actually you can. Plebiscites seem to work pretty well and Switzerland manages to have a couple every year. Of course not EVERY issue can be done, but at a local government level there can be far more inclusivity.

Also Athens is not an example of what would happen in a modern democracy with universal suffrage.

Incongruous
05-24-2008, 09:47
You cannot apply the political realities of Switzerland to nations like the U.K or U.S.A.

There is a vast difference in culture and history, the only way to create the best government possible for a nation is for it to evolve according the political, cultural and historical issues of that nation. In a Britain dominated by scum like Murdoch with legions of avid SUN readers the truest from of Demokratia would run amok.
Thank god for the Great Leader:juggle2:

I mean clearly the idea that democracy can be dangerous, is dangerous itself. It can lead to governments putting serious curbs on the ancestral rights of the people, because the people might get stupid.

This is why ideas and politics just don't mix.

King Jan III Sobieski
05-31-2008, 03:34
Now, are we talking about pure democracies, or republic-type democracies?

Evil_Maniac From Mars
05-31-2008, 05:22
Actually you can. Plebiscites seem to work pretty well and Switzerland manages to have a couple every year. Of course not EVERY issue can be done, but at a local government level there can be far more inclusivity.

The problem is that the average person does not and cannot know everything. The President, monarch, council, Politburo, whatever - they have access to intelligence reports, they have access to up-to-date information that has not yet been tainted by the media, and they know more about the issue than any single person. Secrets are necessary for a government to have, and these secrets are also necessary to make a proper decision. People can make decisions only where they have all the information, which they cannot be trusted with.

Spartan198
06-08-2008, 21:39
I chose GAH.

As long as I'm left in peace, I don't really give a flying rat's @$$.

Odin
06-09-2008, 18:18
I chose GAH.

As long as I'm left in peace, I don't really give a flying rat's @$$.

Ah, but your in the wrong place then ! The fact that you're in peace must mean you have something someone else dosent, hand it over you cretean! :logic:

In all candeor I feel the same as you do with particular emphasis on -personal freedoms-, and not tieing them into reliance on others (basically lets be done with entitlements shall we?).

I'm thinking at this stage of the game with the exception of the handicapped (lets not split hairs on what is or what isnt handicapped shall we?) we are all pretty much able to make a decent enough way forward (global economy and all).

Of course, coveting what someone else has due to thier labors might derail the whole personal responsibilty schtict, but Im willing to go out on a limb and allow everyone to be resonsible for themselves.

Be it democracy, anarchy, monarchy.....

Disclaimer: This message brought to you by those people in the shadows who would rather you worry about yourself then every one else and feel that by doing so the world will be a much better place !

:toilet:

(Gah, was a great choice spartan198, not all of the sarcasm was directed toward you.)