Stupidity - the single reason why democracies never work

[Cronos Impera]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

[HoreTore]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

[Reverend Joe]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

The greatest danger of allowing stupid people to express an option is that the stupid are easily masturbated by speeches and beauty. They actually feel good when a guy in a monkey suit tells them how important they are to him, how free they are and how much they deserve. Nowadays a politician can win an election by simply masturbating his audience with fiery speeches about how they built the future and how human rights must be preserved. Anyone who doesn't tackle issues like : "the war on terror", "global warming", "human rights in State X", "freedom of X" or "gunbortion" isn't cool enough to be given office though he might actually have real solutions for agriculture, industry, budgets and healthcare. Instead of having people actually working for a particular goal, you have endless rants about terrorism, human rights and so on without feeling any real change in your personal life.

Therefore I propose we discard the outdated term "democracy" in favor of a more realistic term "kalocracy" meaning "power of beauty". Anything that' not beautiful or nice enough never gets a chance despite the obvious qualities of that proposal.

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.

Save yourself. Vote only ugly and repulsive people in office. After all this isn't like asking them on a date.

If you remove democracy you either get oligarchy, where the guy who panders to the elite the most gets elected, or dictatorship, where anything goes. Any way you turn, you're going to get a lot of bad apples. The idea behind democracy is that it's harder to be dictatorial or incompetent because you'll get voted out of office faster.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'll give you Clinton and Reagan, but not Nixon or Bush. They are not pretty or charming.

So.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Obama's not on your list?
:inquisitive:

Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

[Vladimir]

Obama's not on your list?
:inquisitive:

Anyway, democracy is the worst. Except for all those others.

(Everyone should know who said that)

Seriously, we shouldn't allow people who get more in benefits from the federal government than they pay in taxes to vote.

CR

Obama's not a president. He's the second coming. :yes:

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

[Hooahguy]

Bill Clinton, Richard Nixon, George Bush and Ronald Reagan. The only thing they have in common is they're gorgeous.
you think theyre gorgeous? :inquisitive:

making me wonder what you think "gorgeous" means. :no:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because it is plainly obvious that today's democracies are just not working, while all the despotic governments are doing great. :dizzy2:

[Cronos Impera]

Oh come on, you want ugly state leaders? I present Merkel, Brown, Chirac. Our very own Brundtland, "the statemother", wasn't exactly a looker either.

I'll turn your argument around; a people's stupidity is the greatest strength of democracy. Why? Because those with brains have every incentive to educate their lesser brothers, because when it comes to the election day, we all have the same power. In a dictatorship, there is no reason to educate people, as the dumb ones don't matter at all. In a democracy, they do. And it's your responsibility to educate them.

Also; corruption. Power corrupts. Democracy is the single form of government that keeps corruption under control, because the system is transparent and people are prosecuted and/or judged by the people. In a dictatorship, that won't happen. That's the reason every single dictatorship will fail. Forget about "benevolent dictators", they're a myth. A dictator won't ever be an improvement over a democracy.

You don't need to educate the people to get elected. An educated mass will always move towards anarchy and never to a heirarchical society like a democracy is. Natural weakness or dumbness cannot be overcome through education. Just like a circus lion runs amock and kills his handler if the latter makes the wrong move, for a dumb mass learning isn't more than just a social activity and an inconvenient one. Despite cheap prints and free public libraries, few young people ever read a book.
The dumb will never read a book that would really improve their health, intelect or strength. They will always choose TV or cheesy computer games, despite having hundreds of quality books to read. And they will always be like that because they are weak and know their place.

The dumb masses are always inert. They're just like an audience. They can complain about the performance on stage all they can but if you place them in front of an Ibanez they will run away like hell or tear it apart.The dumb masses are always the bowling ball.They will sacrifice their lives, risk their wealth and honor just to get a few applauses.

Just like debates. It doesn't matter if the facts are right or not, if the debator was skilled his words are always true. The dumb masses never judge an event in a reasonable way, to them passion is everything.
The only true political system for humans is Oligosoc. In animal societies that dumb mass we call the people would have been long eradicated by predators, disease or starvation but thanks to our species's place in the food chain, those weaklings survive and thrive. In the absence of natural enemies who would eat us, we have developed a two-tire order...part bee hive, part lion pride.
Oligosoc relies on the brainless masses to build cities and gather food and also on a small elite to evolve them. The only thing that's changable is the way the top interacts with the bottom and the rethoric of the regimes + some minor differences in terms of mercy and intolerance. But the heirarchy itself is always present and inequality though emphasised or diminuished in the rethoric of the rulers is always present.
Oligosoc means a few struggle for power and use the weak in the same way a boxer uses gloves in a match. Why?

Because the strong can always be self-aware and identify themselves as themselves without fear or cowardice and the weak always need a group identity for safety, the powerbase will always be small.
The people are ever a powerbase, they are a means to achieve power.

That Oligosoc has many flavours and some are nastier to some and that some prefear diferent flavours is a different matter.
In a dictatorship the dictator wields limited powers: WITHOUT HIS OLIGARCHY HE'S DOOMED.

Just like USSR couldn't run without the KGB and how the KGB changed Hruschiev for Brezjnev, or how Loius XV was Richelieu's pawn is another matter.

[Cronos Impera]

And to hooahguy:
You gotta love the charming face or W.Bush, that Texan face, that sexy Southern accent and al.
Richard Nixon - could play in a Frank Coppola production with that face
Ronald Reagan - he was Hollywood material, looked great on camera when making announcements
Bill Clinton - blue eyes, golden hair and a baby face

They're all cute and handsome.If I ware gay, I'd marry one of them.

[Centurion1]

Nixon was a good looking guy. As was Reagan (but he was pretty old when elected), George W. isn't hot..... but he is in pretty good shape. clinton, is just a little too slimy for me. Now that i feel remotley gay......

Democracy is the best of the worst. While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

[HoreTore]

*snip*


Way to misunderstand what I said.

First things first though; democracies work. Look around you, it's plainly obvious. Whatever you may believe, we do not live in crappy countries. We live in great countries. All of us living in democracies. We have peace. We have work. We have plenty of food. We can say what we want, when we want to. We are protected from criminals. We have very few worries, most of them are of our own doing. Most of our population is able and educated. This is because we live in democracies, we simply would not be in this shape if we live under a dictatorship, and yes, that includes your fancy version of fascism.

Speaking of fascism... Because you do realize that is the system you're proposing, right? Alright, let's have a looky at the fascist countries of the past. Oh yes, they're of the past, simply because they proved unsustainable. Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Franco's Spain - they were all ruled by the few strong. And that proved a complete disaster. It was Nazi Germany's "strong" men who spelled their own doom by launching a half-arsed invasion of Russia. The invasion was planned and directed by Germany's strongest and most educated. And it failed completely because of them. Why? Because they eliminated the sobering effect of opposition. When you gather a clique of the strongest, you will lose the most important aspect of government, oppositional thought. It doesn't matter if the opposition is smart or idiotic, all that matters is that they're there. Why? Because it makes the powers that be think harder. Simple, really. Those in power will propose something. Whether good or bad, the opposition will voice their concern. Those in power will then recheck their proposal. Without an opposition, nobody will bother doing that.

Now for what you misunderstood:

I wasn't talking about those up for election needing to educate people. I was talking about you needing to educate people. It's simple really; the village idiot has the exact same power as you do. Therefore, it's in your interest to make sure said idiot is as smart as possible. And so you should see to that.

And please tell me you're not under the impression that it's the idiots doing all the voting. The idiots don't care, they stay at home. The more educated people are, the more likely they are to vote. So our democracies are indeed ruled by the smartest and most educated. Whether you like it or not.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Rabbit made the golden answer already: democracy is the worst form of government. Save for all the others.
As a variation, Papewaio (or was it Ser Clegane?) made the famous remark that 'democracy does not make the best decisions. It avoids the worst'.


~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Excellent points, HoreTore.

Two comments:
- We do not all live in democracies. There are many systems that call themselves democratic, but really aren't. (Think, for example, all those communist countries with the name 'Democratic').
And, more worryingly, since more prevalent of late, there are lots of countries that bear a faint resemblance to democracy but miss the finer points of it.

Examples:
'Winner takes all democracies'. Here, it is assumed that democracy means majority rule. It doesn't. Democracy is not 'most votes count'. Democracy means that every vote counts. It is not about establishing majorities, it is about protecting minorites.

Authoritarian states with elections and other democratic elements as a thinly veiled façade.

Functioning democracies that lack rule of law, minority rights, human rights, soberness and moderation in public conduct etcetera.

These examples are a reason why democracy is so misstrusted in many formerly undemocratic states. The name of the system has changed, the same crooks are still in power.


-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

[Dîn-Heru]

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

To give another example, arriving at Changhi (Sp?) airport from Heathrow was like going from hell to heaven.

Just one example:
While the toilets I found at Heathrow were sometimes unflushed, stained with feces and toiletpaper on the floor ( Though there was one guy going around picking it up). The experience at Changi was one of clean and self-flushing toilets.

[Cute Wolf]

You guys never live under a totalitarian regime....

If u used to live some time under that, you'll value, whatever bad things come from democracy, they are just batter than living under a totalitarian regime that if u suddenly and accidentally said "******* are ******* tyrants and their wives are whores.... and the next day all your families are tortured and sent to prison for "displeasant actions" or another ridiculous bad behaviours.

[a completely inoffensive name]

While i may personally believe a benevolent dictatorship under my reign would be best, Democracy is the most viable option.

What a great guy.

[Meneldil]

And why does some guy from Romania have to go across the Atlantic for his examples? Are there no democracies in Europe? No doubt those are the only the presidents who were around during his short lifetime. Okay, maybe he heard about Regan on TV.

Do you know of any Romanian leader? Had Cronos Impera decided to use an European example (other than Berlusconi, Prodi, Chirac, Sarkozy, Blair, Brown and the few other well-know leaders), everyone would wondering who the hell is that guy.

Now, I kind of agree that democracies are flawed and largely became mere public opinion contests. Education systems aim for the lowest common denominator (ie. It's okay if the guy somewhat knows how to read and write by the end of high school). Our media are mostly of terrible quality, putting the emphasis over mindless and pointless sensational news rather than trying to educate their readers (as Michael Jackson's death proved).
But then, most democracies never advocated that all citizens should be enlightened. This idea appeared with the development of new ideologies such as socialism. Voltaire (and even Rousseau, in a way), advocated that the uneducated masses shouldn't have a say in political matters. The founding fathers were also quite an elitist bunch. Liberalism (which was the dominant ideology in early democracies) was an elitist ideology, closely tied to the bourgeoisie and other upper classes. For those, the 'people' was completely unable to rule, and should let the benevolent elites do all the stuff.

Then, some people claimed that the lower-class should have a say aswell. They decided that democracies should strive to educate their citizens, turn them into enlightened and rational persons. Thing is, as you say, educating citizens causes a few issues. First, it is my opinion that many citizens don't want to be educated. Though they dislike their own state, they simply are too dumb and lazy to even try. They also distrust the educated elites, the intelligentsia, considered responsible for all their demises. Anti-intellectualism is very strong in western societies, and not only among the american right.
Then, as you pointed out, having educated citizens is tedious. They ask for stuff, they're unhappy, they want to have more weight in political matters than the rulers are willing to offer them. They disagree with eachothers, they argue, and so on. Having a bunch of voters who never read a book in their life and spend their time watching reality TV is much more convenient.

Now, obviously, that doesn't mean democracies don't work. They have a lot of issues (such as the ones pointed out by Louis: criminality, lack of order), but most democratic countries offer pretty good standards of living to their citizens. I don't buy the whole 'liberalism = democracy = wealth' theory, but so far, most democracies are doing quite a decent job when it comes to taking care of their citizens.
Some people still try to educate their fellow countrymates. Some people still try to make humanity better. Some people still care about politics. Things have been going like that for a while. While I can see how the situation is in some way getting worse, I also see that democracies have always been public opinion contests.

[LittleGrizzly]

If there was a way to get proven good governors who aren't corrupt and have the entire populations interest at heart rather than the just an elites, then a dictatorship would probably be great...

Also that thier willing to hand over the office when the time comes.

Unfortunately there is no way to gaurentee good dictators... so stuck with democracy for the forseeable future...

On the whole Bush being charming thing, he wasn't the most eloquent speaker but compared to his rival Gore he could have been Denzel Washington.

[miotas]

The greatest failure of democracy is that they turned a show of strength into a popularity pagent and called it an election. What was once in autocratic regimes a matter of reason has now turned into a popular show where millions of idiots chose the most handsome prince of the realm and bestow in him all the power. And when you ask them why they voted they simply reply "he has a charming smile and he speaks in a way that blew my mind". In short they vote only because that guy looks good for a campaign ad and is charismatic.

That's why you need a democratic system where the popularly elected official isn't actually the head of state. :yes: Plus look at the ugly annoying, :daisy: that we elected. Clearly Australia is doing something right :laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

If there was a way to get proven good governors who aren't corrupt and have the entire populations interest at heart rather than the just an elites, then a dictatorship would probably be great....If you could find me a man-God, a man with perfect ideas, only noble intentions, and incorruptible, I would still prefer democracy over his rule.


As John Stuart Mill once wrote (paraphrasing him here beyond recognition probably): a man's own decisions are the best. Not because they have the best possible outcome for him, but because they are his own.

It belongs to being a free citizen, to the human experience even, to make your own life. To make mistakes, bad decisions, good decisions, heartfelt decisions. What matters is that you make your own life.

Democracy in this respect then, is not the outcome of careful delibiration over what is the best form of government. It stems from a philosophical view of man. That of liberty, of man as a free individual. The decisions of a smart man are not worth more than the decisions of a dumb one. No more than the tears and joy of the smart man are worth more.



(Consequently, one can wonder if democracy isn't more suited to Western than to East Asian philosophy. To a large extent, developed East Asian countries, while not autocratic, are not entirely democratic in a Western sense. Possibly their communal values prefer more communal systems of government. Certainly, they function very well.)

[Cronos Impera]

The biggest problem is the following:
Both in tyranny and "democracy" the biggest criteria for establishing a winner is popularity. And that popularity is never linked to any real competence or skill. You can be competent and unpopular or popular and an incompetent moron. Like at the office you're neighbour can be either a skilled cranky bitch or a stupid popularity queen. And you'd prefer the popularity queen because she helps your ego more.

Like in dictatorships there is no real competition.All you have to do is say the magic words a few times and be PC and hug babies and you're as good as elected.Democracy and tyranny are bound because in both any real competition is supressed and all you have to do is follow a ritual routine.
In tyanny you butkiss your ideological leader and hug his image, in democracy you butkiss some abstract concepts to the same extent in your speeches.

My ideal government would have been along the meritocracy that benefited Genghis Khan on his campaign trail. For him it didn't matter if that man he elected was a bastard,as long as he did the job pronto he could keep that job. Object to that status quo and if you ware better that that bastard you could compete him and win the job.

Morale from the Genesis:
"Stop whining and start winning for Chirst's sake.The only reason you lost this battle was because you sucked more than your opponent."
Not a single democracy had the guts to say something along that lines to its fanbase.

The single day you'll find a politician brave enough to point the middle finger at his voters and than say: Vote me, you suck. And his voters to vote him despite that insult because he did his job right, than I'll have faith in democracy and claim it really promotes any real value.

In my country all democrats are just mediocre businessmen who need state contracts for their firms to survive and have no real need to improve anything. The office is theirs, the auction is won by their pet venture and a villa and Bentley soon follow.20 years of republican democracy have brought nothing except the silly routine of putting stamps on a sheet of paper and watching statitics afterwards.

Advice for a true political system:

- establish objective criteria for getting an office
- concieve a wide range of tests to be completed by the candidates including math, grammar and law
- establish brownie points for past work experience
- make that competition open for anyone older than 21
- employ foreign proffesionals to correct the test papers live in front of cameras.
- elect the men with the highest scores

Preserve the integrity of the process by establishing the commison as a power barter on the same level with Parliment, the Government and Justice. That system would work better than the beauty pagent that we call "election day" because it would encourage real competence and skill rather than rhetorics.

[Cronos Impera]

Nice one, I wish every country was like Astralia in this respects.

[Louis VI the Fat]

In my country all democrats are just mediocre businessmen who need state contracts for their firms to survive and have no real need to improve anything. The office is theirs, the auction is won by their pet venture and a villa and Bentley soon follow.20 years of republican democracy have brought nothing except the silly routine of putting stamps on a sheet of paper and watching statitics afterwards.Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

[HoreTore]

Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

:2thumbsup:

[Cronos Impera]

Romania is not a democracy. It is a mobsterocracy.

In fact, I was thinking about opening a thread about the EU's report from two days ago. Maybe I will when I have some more time.

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Many of which are under threat in the West. Romania should be an example to all those spoiled westerners flirting with populist parties...

The only difference between my mobsters and yours is that while mine leech on a dead horse yours leech on a blue whale.Corruption is more easily observed in small, poor countries like Romania or Moldova than huge ones like Russia or USA.
Obama was sponsored with millions of dollars for his election, and that money didn't come from Devastation Dave's retirement fund. It came from businessmen who wanted state contracts for themselves. In Romania the politicians and businessmen are one and the same and corruption is more obvious than in other places.You vote for a mayor and he brings along his wife's venture for garbage disposal, you vote for a MP and he brings his firm for catering.
On a party list you'll find a popular statesmen "called the locomotive in Romanian slag" in the header and 20 shady figures in the footer. To get on the lists a candidate must invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in his party's treasury so when he gets his office his concern isn't for the morons who voted him, but for the few ventures which sponsored him.
The civil society is just a party of beggars who couldn't buy their membership in a top party and get employed by politicians to lampoon an opponent.
Human rights work like magic. The inmates live better lives than free men. No need for Amnesty International when an inmate can woo his girlfriend in a special cell or where an inmate is allowed to spend his holidays with his fammily while his victim lies in an unmarked grave.
The upper middle class does just fine and builds villa after villa while the lower middle class and lower classes can't even afford a rent.
Minority rights work fine too. The minorities get an equal share of the plunder. The Magyars even got half of the last government nominations despite holding barely 7% of the Parliment seats.
We had an Armenian for Finance and Economy and Gipsy for Mayor in Bucharest. But the plunder continued.
The rule of law works too.But the law is so confusing and ambiguous that you can't rely on procedures to guarantee anything.If you have good relations with the Court Archives you can have entire evidence dissapear from files. Than you're acquited because the whole procedure was incorrect. Sometimes you can even bribe your prosecutor to compromise the procedures. And if you get a NLAR (No Legal Action Required) from the judge your whole file gets into the memory hole. The law regulating procedures is so ambiguous that you need an army of lawyers to navigate through procedures alone. And judges work so slow that defendants can have their case judged for decades before any solution is given, but not before they've spent thousands of Euros on court fees.
All Romanian politicians are sober. You need to be sober when signing millon-dollar contracts for your cousin's small shop.

So Romania by your criteria for a "soft democracy" is a perfect candidate.We even got the Rainbow show up when Bush had a state visit, and Clinton said "Romania is a model for the Balkans". And minority rights ware respected in Communist times too. We had 4 hours of programming for minorities on state television and more. When the Iron Curtain fell, the party beheaded Ceausescu and split into five factions. After that the dissidents came and invested their money to make even more money and sold anything of value.

In 1990 a group of Hippie Businessmen and former dissidents protested for "democracy" and pooed on the streets for civil disobedience after they lost the elections. The miners from Jiu Valley came to supress the revolt, condemned by the the authorities as "anti-democratic" and "fascist". Those fools thought they ware defending democracy when they started beating the crap out of the students and teachers gathered in the streets. The bloodshed was greated by President Iliescu as a victory of "democracy" over "fascism" and saluted the gesture for "civil conscience". Then those students rose to power and robbed the miners silly. And then the Communists ware back in power.And then the tides changed again and an orange coalition came to power.Than the orange liberals formed a coalition with the communists again to ensure a majority.

[Brenus]

“Louis XV was Richelieu's pawn”. Louis XIII. :beam:Not XV.
And Louis the XIII was far from a pawn in Richelieu’s hand. That is a "3 musketeers" version due the A. Dumas…
In reality Richelieu is one of the most successful prime ministers in the French history: He re-established peace and order in the Kingdom (remember that Louis XIII's father (Henri IV) was murdered by a fanatic monks (Ravaillac), this after his predecessor (Henri III, King of Poland and King of France after his brother Charles IX death) being murdered by a monk (Jacques Clément) and the King’s authority.
Even as Cardinal he kept the Edit de Nantes which allowed peace between Catholic and Protestant.

Now, about the subject: I didn’t notice that the non-democratic leaders were specially intelligent, without mercy, yes, and most of the times idiot and stupid and corrupted.
As Horetore said, democracies work. Dictatorships, communist, liberal, whatever don’t.:yes:

[Samurai Waki]

I'm not sure if all the media sensationalism, and general dumbing down of the populace is really the direct fault of democracy (maybe indirect), it seems like more a sign of the times. However, having bore witness to our economic downturn, I've seen more people who I would have categorized into the large idiot index, actually try to better themselves because of the uncertainty, I can't help but think democracy is the best option because in many ways it forces us to take responsibility for ourselves. I don't think this is happening in any authoritarian country (I think China is about ready to tear at the seams).

Singapore is in a unique position, being at perhaps the largest trade crossroads in the world, there doesn't appear to be any shortage of money in the near future. However, if, or should I say when?, the trade stops flowing in that direction Singapore will be in a lot of trouble. Whereas countries such as Mali, that have very, very little going in the way of economic success have done remarkably well considering their circumstances, I feel this has a lot to do with the fact that they have a Democratic Government, and more importantly, are willing to fight for it.

Authoritarianism is a complete copout. Most regime's are only functional or relevant at the time they are in power, Democracies have the advantage that they can change with the times, while Dictatorships stagnate, and their people suffer, as the rest of the world progresses. Every great Democracy in the world has had to fight bitterly for it, through hundreds of years, the US had the luxury of it's isolation, but was extremely frail for the first 120 years.. The UK fought for (a nominal democracy) since the signing of the magna carta. France, Germany, Italy, and Japan had to weather many wars, and a few crushing defeats before they realized Dictatorships don't work.

[HoreTore]

However, having bore witness to our economic downturn

The financial crisis is a great argument agains the notions Cronos is fighting for. It showed Al Greenspan and the rest of the world's smartest economist being as clueless as the dumbest village idiot as to what was going on, as Greenspan said in his congress hearing, "I have no idea what is going on with the economy"....

[Crazed Rabbit]

-I've forgotten what was to be my second comment.

No wait, I remember. I predict serious competition for democracies by East Asian authoritarian systems. They do provide a standard of living, law and order, public peace, that is on par with Western democracies.
Not so much China, which is clearly dictatorial (but to a large extent isn't), but more Singapore. I can not simply dismiss the argument that 'In Singapore the police will cane you for littering chewing gum, but the streets are clean and women can walk home at three o'clock at night. In a miniskirt.'

Riding the metro in a Western city, smelling the piss, watching the graffiti, evading the bands of thugs, and avoiding being mugged, beaten or spit at, one can not help but think of Singapore as a serious challenger.

I must disagree, simply because our western governments could not implement such a thing correctly. Both our countries already have violent, abusive cops who seem to think they are the law. They would be mentally unable to apply the violence as Singapore does - ie as punishment for some infraction and not simply because they like hitting people. Instead of strict discipline, it'd simply be letting hooligans with badges roam the streets.

You'd have better luck getting rid of the welfare state, I think.

CR

[Beskar]

Dumbing Down of the Population is a method used by governments to enforce law and order, in the spirit of eroding democracy. It is by this, it should be compulsory for people to be enlightened, especially in schools, in ways such as taught to think critically, and how to look at facts.

Also, in many ways, I support the BBC as well. In shows such as Crimewatch, Panaroma and others. They play a very good public role and should broadcast more shows like these.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Rabit - yes, god forbid we move to a Singaporean style law and order. We are having trouble enough as it is to protect our rights against governments.

I think it fits East Asian societies better. Where values, even human rights, are more communal instead of individual. It makes little sense to adopt only a single element of this culture.
Which in turn means, that it not always makes sense to export elements of Western democracy to them. (Or by them).

Singling out elements of democracy, lifting them out of a broader cultural context, may not produce the expected results everywhere. As witness the rough transition to democracy in many Eastern European countries. Or, for that matter, not all cultural differences pass the north-south divide of Europe well. What seems ridiculous, even corrupt, to Finland, may work in Sicily. Trust - so important for a functioning democracy and market - in Northern Europe is communal, in Southern Europe it is individual. It makes for very different politics and business, and qualities of life that work in different ways.
Which is better, is difficult to objectively determine. The Nordic countries are like a glass house, they are so transparant. A man is judged on his capabilities. South Italians, for their part, live outside with their family and neighbours, sip on their wine a bit, all live to be ninety years old and keep wondering why so many Fins commit suicide all the time.


Likewise, I can't help but marvel at countries like Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore and Hong Kong. Much of their society is alien. To very varying degrees, democratic open societies in a Western sense they are not. Yet, they pretty much compete with only the Scandinavians for the top positions on the Human Development Index. They live as long as Southern Europeans, they are as wealthy as the richest countries in the West. Crime is virtually absent and the people are so polite to each other it makes one weep.

They belie the notion that only Western style democracy leads to succesful societies.



Also, in many ways, I support the BBC as well. In shows such as Crimewatch, Panaroma and others. They play a very good public role and should broadcast more shows like these.The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.

Now that I think about, I probably personally finance half their annual budget. My entire DVD collection is simply the BBC back catalogue of costume drama, natural history and documentaries.

You raise a good point. Public broadcasters everywhere perform a great educational and civic function. Commercial television, for its part, is a pest. A well-functioning media and press is crucial to a democracy. And if it were up to me, governmental involvement should not be exclusively negative, that is, to protect freedom of speech and the functioning of open media markets. It should also be positive, by financing public television and subsidising plurality of the press.

Also, for all the good that digital media has brought to plurality of information, I fear the demise of the traditional press it is resulting in.

[Brenus]

The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.
Well, it is because you don’t have to watch it… :beam:
BBC was a reference, long time ago.

[Furunculus]

You guys never live under a totalitarian regime....

If u used to live some time under that, you'll value, whatever bad things come from democracy, they are just batter than living under a totalitarian regime that if u suddenly and accidentally said "******* are ******* tyrants and their wives are whores.... and the next day all your families are tortured and sent to prison for "displeasant actions" or another ridiculous bad behaviours.

this is an important point; living under a totalitarian regime provides an essential perspective when it comes to weighing and measuring the flaws of western representative democracy.

[Cronos Impera]

The difference between an authoritarian and totalitarian regime can be seen in Russia.
Before Yeltin Russia was a totalitarian power. Under Yeltin it became a Western Democracy. Under Putin and Medvedev it became an authoritarian regime.
Between the three Russians prefear the third, maybe except Kasparov and a few liberal yuppies. Despite the Kursk, he has proved that an authoritarian regime can help balance the situation in Russia.No more plutocrats or communists slicing the country according to their will.

[HoreTore]

.........You actually prefer Putin.....?

Go read some Anna Politkovskaja.

Russia is paralyzed by corruption. It's everywhere, and controls everything. The normal laws of the economy doesn't apply anymore, all that matters is your ability to bribe people.

[Sarmatian]

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

I don't disagree with your analysis of the Yeltsin years, but the mere fact we are talking about Putin as opposed to President Medvedev rather demonstrates the enormous challenges for a pluralist future in Russia.

[MasterPhantom]

Because the voters of the nations are stupid. They keep electing these stupid leaders "hoping" for change, then getting nothing.

[HoreTore]

Well, anything bad that happened in Yeltsin's era was often swept under the rug while newspapers in the west wrote about democracy in Russia. The corruption you talk about actually blossomed during Yeltsin's time. Putin brought it under control to a degree.

The deal is that west likes Putin a lot less than it liked Yeltsin, so more is written about corruption and oligarchs in Russia. Some with journalists. More journalists were killed during Yeltsin's time than Putin's. Russia still has a long way to go, but Putin is a step forward...

Thus the conclusion is;

- Communism was bad.
- Yeltsin was bad.
- Putin is bad.
- Western democracy ain't bad.

[Furunculus]

Rabit - yes, god forbid we move to a Singaporean style law and order. We are having trouble enough as it is to protect our rights against governments.

I think it fits East Asian societies better. Where values, even human rights, are more communal instead of individual. It makes little sense to adopt only a single element of this culture.
Which in turn means, that it not always makes sense to export elements of Western democracy to them. (Or by them).

Singling out elements of democracy, lifting them out of a broader cultural context, may not produce the expected results everywhere. As witness the rough transition to democracy in many Eastern European countries. Or, for that matter, not all cultural differences pass the north-south divide of Europe well. What seems ridiculous, even corrupt, to Finland, may work in Sicily. Trust - so important for a functioning democracy and market - in Northern Europe is communal, in Southern Europe it is individual. It makes for very different politics and business, and qualities of life that work in different ways.
Which is better, is difficult to objectively determine. The Nordic countries are like a glass house, they are so transparant. A man is judged on his capabilities. South Italians, for their part, live outside with their family and neighbours, sip on their wine a bit, all live to be ninety years old and keep wondering why so many Fins commit suicide all the time.


Likewise, I can't help but marvel at countries like Japan, South Korea, and even Singapore and Hong Kong. Much of their society is alien. To very varying degrees, democratic open societies in a Western sense they are not. Yet, they pretty much compete with only the Scandinavians for the top positions on the Human Development Index. They live as long as Southern Europeans, they are as wealthy as the richest countries in the West. Crime is virtually absent and the people are so polite to each other it makes one weep.

They belie the notion that only Western style democracy leads to succesful societies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The BBC is the envy of the world. Whatever criticisms one may have of it, if I were British and they'd ask for a bigger budget yet again, I'd grant it.

Now that I think about, I probably personally finance half their annual budget. My entire DVD collection is simply the BBC back catalogue of costume drama, natural history and documentaries.

You raise a good point. Public broadcasters everywhere perform a great educational and civic function. Commercial television, for its part, is a pest. A well-functioning media and press is crucial to a democracy. And if it were up to me, governmental involvement should not be exclusively negative, that is, to protect freedom of speech and the functioning of open media markets. It should also be positive, by financing public television and subsidising plurality of the press.

Also, for all the good that digital media has brought to plurality of information, I fear the demise of the traditional press it is resulting in.

excellent post on the outcomes of varying societies, but i have a real problem with the bbc in that i refuse to pay for the bbc, our public broadcaster, to issue illiberal left propaganda.

As evidenced by Ben Stephenson with his revealing quote in the guardian: “We need to foster peculiarity, idiosyncrasy, stubborn-mindedness, left-of-centre thinking”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/organgrinder/2009/jul/16/ben-stephenson-tony-garner

I consider his illiberal-left auto-pilot to be typical of the bbc, and i view the message as both partisan generally and cretinous particularly, so i would rather see the BBC burned to the ground than put up with the good bits at the cost of watching the bbc reduce the mental-age of the viewing population.

But then i can do little more personally, i don't have a TV and thus don't pay a license.

[Reverend Joe]

Because the voters of the nations are stupid. They keep electing these stupid leaders "hoping" for change, then getting nothing.

The voters aren't stupid. It's just that every candidate for office lately is either so mediocre they refuse to make any real change or is so radical that they couldn't make a change if they wanted to.

Maybe over time this will shift, but it's going to require a gradual breakdown of a Washingtonian establishment that is more than half a century old. Politicians don't like their cozy atmospheres being threatened, and they will fight any drastic change tooth and nail.

[Divinus Arma]

Stupidity is exactly why democracy works. It gives everyone a chance to be president. Even alcoholic spider monkeys with Down's Syndrome. They even get re-elected.

In all seriousness, the perception of control by the masses is exactly why democracy works. People don't clamour for freedom when they already think they are free.

[Beskar]

The voters aren't stupid. It's just that every candidate for office lately is either so mediocre they refuse to make any real change or is so radical that they couldn't make a change if they wanted to.

Maybe over time this will shift, but it's going to require a gradual breakdown of a Washingtonian establishment that is more than half a century old. Politicians don't like their cozy atmospheres being threatened, and they will fight any drastic change tooth and nail.

Reason why I wouldn't be elected. I would completely reform the system and I will make laws/rules in regards to things which have not even come into our technological view, opposed to the other way round. (make laws 10-20 years later after when it has become commonplace)

"You are not permitted to use teleporter technology when some one is using the bathroom, no matter how amusing and embarrassing it would be."

[Cute Wolf]

this is an important point; living under a totalitarian regime provides an essential perspective when it comes to weighing and measuring the flaws of western representative democracy.

The very experience of mine (even when you are still 8 or 9 y old child, you can feel that!). Indonesia before 1998, under Soeharto. Well, pretty much strict laws of "silence or dissapear"

EDIT: and if he and his family still in power now... maybe I can't have an email or facebook account to be used as freely as now... maybe only a bit better than Iranians...

[Furunculus]

The very experience of mine (even when you are still 8 or 9 y old child, you can feel that!). Indonesia before 1998, under Soeharto. Well, pretty much strict laws of "silence or dissapear"

EDIT: and if he and his family still in power now... maybe I can't have an email or facebook account to be used as freely as now... maybe only a bit better than Iranians...

i had the same experience living in africa, at more or less the same age.

[Cronos Impera]

Claming that Western Democracy is good for all is like claming that you can win a poker match with the first royal flush.
Without the banking system to support it, Western deomocracy will collapse into anarchy, just like Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. And since more funds are being directed by Israel into domestic issues, like improving weapon systems (and especially anti-ballistics) and building the economy, less and less money is being diverted into foreign policies.
The next logical step in the development of the human society is anarchy, then all will implode back into authoritarianism. We've all seen that whenever the bank system collapses so does democracy. WW2 had its origins in the Great Depression. Whenever the money-meter goes low so does economic freedom and a more authoritarian regime comes into shape.Whenever the money-meter goes up so does economic freedom and a more democratic regime is installed.
Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.
The third neurosis of mankind after death and female choice is that of collectivism. A man can function well either alone or in a mob, depending on either his socialism or individualism.
A working democracy is as feasable as a pure market economy. It needs countless subjects with the same abilities and goals in mind. But mankind was never developed by God to behave like an ant.Ants can live in a democratic society only because they're sterile and blind and cannot have osprings. A queen gives birth to millions of workers who are equal and united but never have any personal wishes or will. Their only job during a brief life is to work. The only one who benefits from their work is the queen, but even she is prison to a routine of egg-laying.
So, from an ant's point of view:
Freedom is slavery.
The masses have never been anything more than siege weapons for the elites, becuase the weak and mediocre will always need shelter in the heard and when a herd moves, there's nothing to stop it.Herd conformity is the herd's biggest asset and the biggest liability. The ones who can survive outside the herd are its leaders and elites. But the elites always stay inside the herd to exploit its weaknesses and to move it to their favorite pastures.
Have you ever seen a Mexican wave performed on stadium. Only a few need to trigger it, but when they do the whole stadium performs.

[HoreTore]

Cromwell represented freedom, you say?

You're going to piss of the brits now, ya know....

[CountArach]

Claming that Western Democracy is good for all is like claming that you can win a poker match with the first royal flush.
Without the banking system to support it, Western deomocracy will collapse into anarchy, just like Barcelona during the Spanish Civil War. And since more funds are being directed by Israel into domestic issues, like improving weapon systems (and especially anti-ballistics) and building the economy, less and less money is being diverted into foreign policies.
The next logical step in the development of the human society is anarchy, then all will implode back into authoritarianism. We've all seen that whenever the bank system collapses so does democracy. WW2 had its origins in the Great Depression. Whenever the money-meter goes low so does economic freedom and a more authoritarian regime comes into shape.Whenever the money-meter goes up so does economic freedom and a more democratic regime is installed.
Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.
The third neurosis of mankind after death and female choice is that of collectivism. A man can function well either alone or in a mob, depending on either his socialism or individualism.
A working democracy is as feasable as a pure market economy. It needs countless subjects with the same abilities and goals in mind. But mankind was never developed by God to behave like an ant.Ants can live in a democratic society only because they're sterile and blind and cannot have osprings. A queen gives birth to millions of workers who are equal and united but never have any personal wishes or will. Their only job during a brief life is to work. The only one who benefits from their work is the queen, but even she is prison to a routine of egg-laying.
So, from an ant's point of view:
Freedom is slavery.
The masses have never been anything more than siege weapons for the elites, becuase the weak and mediocre will always need shelter in the heard and when a herd moves, there's nothing to stop it.Herd conformity is the herd's biggest asset and the biggest liability. The ones who can survive outside the herd are its leaders and elites. But the elites always stay inside the herd to exploit its weaknesses and to move it to their favorite pastures.
Have you ever seen a Mexican wave performed on stadium. Only a few need to trigger it, but when they do the whole stadium performs.
That post needs a flow chart.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Authoritarian regimes work best where people are poor and democratic ones where people are wealthy.Just like poor pesants rallied to Charles's banner during the Civil War while the rich rallied to Cromwell's.

Not really. The Parliamentarians had the support of the lower gentry and the up and coming merchants, as well as the ordinary townsfolk in the areas where trade was becoming more important. The Royalists had the support of the aristocracy, as well as the peasants in the more backward areas. It wasn't a case of poor vs rich, it was more about the old economic feudal system losing ground to one based on free trade and capitalism, with political and religious issues polarising the whole episode. It is like the Marxists say, "all history is the history of class struggle" (or something like that).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Cronos Impera has touched on an important component -- property. While I would disagree with his linkage of wealth and democracy per se, I believe he IS correct in that property is one of the more fundamental components of democratic republicanism. Without personal property and a respect by the government for same, the success of a democracy is diminished.

I believe that, for the West, the problem is that we are suffering under too broad a suffrage.

Broadening the suffrage to include everyone with a pulse inevitably leads to a situation where the "have nots" seek the use of government power to take property from the "haves." And why shouldn't they? From the perspective of the HN's, its the most rational of decisions.

We have restricted suffrage for ludicrous reasons in the past (Sex, Coming from an "upper class" womb rather than a "lower class" one, particulars of worship, etc.), but restricting the suffrage in some fashion that requires the voter to think/vote/consider more than simple selfish pecuniary concerns would help.

Wish I knew a way to do that....

[HoreTore]

Bah Seamus.

The solution to the "idiot voter"-problem is not to remove their vote - that will only lead to rioting.

The only true solution is to educate, educate and educate. If you fell that you are not an idiot yourself, then it is your democratic duty to enlighten those you see as idiots.

It really is very simple.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What if people don't want to get educated though? It's human nature, if someone else is doing a decent job running the country, there's no motive to improve your own political abilities, you only need a few people to run a government.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Bah Seamus.

The solution to the "idiot voter"-problem is not to remove their vote - that will only lead to rioting.

The only true solution is to educate, educate and educate. If you fell that you are not an idiot yourself, then it is your democratic duty to enlighten those you see as idiots.

It really is very simple.

I think Seamus has hit upon the very nub of the problem.

The "idiot voter" in most democracies does not riot - he does not vote at all. The franchise is barely exercised by most people and they do not miss it.

"Educated" voters are also significantly apathetic. People only exercise their franchise when they can see a direct correlation with their well-being. Western democratic governments have a vested interest in keeping the active electorate at a minimum and as ill-informed as possible, so you are never going to get a commitment to citizen education.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Romania (and Bulgaria in the EU, and many other states in the former Soviet bloc) are democracies in name only. This has created a deep mistrust of democracy in this region. Democracy is associated now with mobsters, corruption, plunder. Many long for authoritarian states, aka Russia.
All I can say is, these systems are not democratic in the full extent of the word. It also shows that democracy does not mean elections and majority rule. Democracy resides in 'soft democracy'. Such as a developed civic society, a strong middle class, human rights, minority rights, the rule of law, and soberness and moderation in public debate and conduct.

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.

[HoreTore]

I think Seamus has hit upon the very nub of the problem.

The "idiot voter" in most democracies does not riot - he does not vote at all. The franchise is barely exercised by most people and they do not miss it.

Just like the peasantry never rebelled in the past? :inquisitive:

[LittleGrizzly]

I sense this conversation coming back around to the 'full fridge = happiness' I think thats a big part of it, Im fairly sure a few of my friends will go through thier whole lives (assuming they get/keep decent jobs) full fridge, house and a car and then thier only worry is entertaining themselves... politics does not enter into this...

When everything starts crashing and burning everyone will suddenly become intrested... all you need then is some charismatic extremist and everything will go to hell...

Maybe its not so bad after all...

[Brenus]

By the way, stupidity is the reason why dictatureship, even disguised in Kingdom or Empire never work.
Except it is at the top level.:laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just wondering, where did you get that from? I know you are right, but still, I am curious.I got it from nowhere in particular. Just a brief, and simplified summation of what I've gathered over the years are some commonly held beliefs within Russia and elsewhere in the former Eastern Bloc regarding democracy; combined with a summation of necessary components to make democracy function.

The definition of democracy is not only 'rule by the masses', or majority rule. The other definition refers to the particular system of government and society - very broadly defined, very limited in time and geography - of modern Western countries.
The two are often confused, causing lots of misunderstandings and frustration.

The other aspect of the post concerned what happened in Russia. 'Capitalism' and 'democracy' were installed in Russia in the 1990's. This basically boiled down to selling Russia for scraps to gangs of mobsters.
Small wonder, then, that democracy is mistrusted in Russia nowadays. I too would prefer Putin over a mobsterocracy.

Sad. Tsarism, communism, mobsterocracy, autocracy - it doesn't make a difference to ordinary Russians. Dissidents, the poor, the masses outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those not connected with politics - nothing has changed for them. Life is held cheap, winters are cold, and the limitless resources of Russia are plundered for the benefit of a mere handful. Be they aristocrats, apparatchiks, Yeltsin era mobsters. And outside forces are held to blame. Jews, Europeans, capitalists, Americans, Muslims from the southern rim, Chinese in Siberia. Meh, the largest country in the world, and it feels itself perennially surrounded and besieged.


Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~



I believe that, for the West, the problem is that we are suffering under too broad a suffrage.

Broadening the suffrage to include everyone with a pulse inevitably leads to a situation where the "have nots" seek the use of government power to take property from the "haves." And why shouldn't they? From the perspective of the HN's, its the most rational of decisions.

We have restricted suffrage for ludicrous reasons in the past (Sex, Coming from an "upper class" womb rather than a "lower class" one, particulars of worship, etc.), but restricting the suffrage in some fashion that requires the voter to think/vote/consider more than simple selfish pecuniary concerns would help.

Wish I knew a way to do that....A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

[Sarmatian]

Russia reminds me of Serbia a bit. Narcissim combined with victimization. A great country that through deliberate act of foreigners has been cut up and is kept down. Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button. Meanwhile, the Russians and Serbians are still celebrating Russia's attack against Georgia as a great counter-victory against the Americans.

Apart from a mere handful of intellectuals in Moscow, nobody in Russia has positive connotations anymore to the word 'democracy'. And these few that do, are murdered or elsewise silenced.


You seem to believe that you have a talent for summing up nations, just as well as individuals. Last time I've mentioned that, you interpreted it as my way of saying how Serbs are a great nation because I've pointed out that being a shrink for 12 million people is a bit too much. Now you think you're good enough to do exactly that with app. 160 million people. Louis, you're getting better with each passing day. Do you think India was victimised in childhood and did China had problem with the parents? I think Brazil wet the bed even in the teenage years and Nigeria didn't leave the breast for a very long time.

But, unfortunately, there's some truth in your words. Can't say for Russia (although I do believe there is similarity), but definitely for Serbia. Problem is that trust and cooperation are a two way street. As long as the other side refuses to even contemplate the idea that mistakes and blunders have been made and how much of that distrust is their fault, we won't move from square one. We might, actually, but at a snail's pace. Can't speak for the nation but I won't accept moral responsibility for mistakes other people made, no matter how profitable it might be.

I'm also not aware of anyone in Serbia celebrating the conflict between Russia and Georgia. I've been outside those days and there were no mass gatherings in the streets celebrating anything, let alone an armed conflict. Someone might have celebrated it in the privacy of his/her home, I could hardly barge into homes of other people to check. Maybe you have another "reliable" article the proves otherwise, that half of the population was celebrating, I don't know.



Poor Obama last month thought he could press the 'reset' button.

You mean Biden's visit to Serbia? Or something involving Russia?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Well, Louis, your statement was at best a generalisation. Nothing you said was false, but to say that is all, and to say that all do as you say is generalising. Which may or may not be good. There are benefits of generalisation and its pitfalls. I lived in Russia, and still do for a part of a year, and it is becoming different, changing.

This: Sad. Tsarism, communism, mobsterocracy, autocracy - it doesn't make a difference to ordinary Russians. Dissidents, the poor, the masses outside of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, those not connected with politics - nothing has changed for them. Life is held cheap, winters are cold, and the limitless resources of Russia are plundered for the benefit of a mere handful. Be they aristocrats, apparatchiks, Yeltsin era mobsters. ...has certainly improved. Putin is working, especially on corruption, as Russia is not about to get a democratic government any time soon, but it can change its other aspects. We will see how Russia pulls out of the recession, or namely how the oil prices rise and fall, which will be crucial to determining the solution to the previous question.

However, this: And outside forces are held to blame. Jews, Europeans, capitalists, Americans, Muslims from the southern rim, Chinese in Siberia. Meh, the largest country in the world, and it feels itself perennially surrounded and besieged. ...is getting much worse, as Putin seems to be slowly and sinisterly injecting increasing doses of anti-Americanism in the classic act of whipping up jingoism to draw the spotlight away from one's own shortcoming. Putin, as interesting it would be to believe, may still have delusions over Russia and its power, attempting to bring it back to the USSR days. I doubt he actually thinks Russia is strong right now, but perhaps he dreams of a stronger future Russia, which is quite counter-productive I daresay.

I am tempted to liken his illusions to the almost a century it took Britain to realise its days were over, but given Russia's size and natural resources, it may still be possible to bring some of the past back. Thus I cannot divinate if his behaviour is proper or not.


I would not believe you read many works about Russia that were not biased, but to rely on my understanding and impressions from having lived their is just as faulty if not more than your reliance on others and not you. Rarely do I see an unbiased account of Russia, one that does not merely mention her many weaknesses and stop at that. Things seem to be taking the up-turn in the economic and the reduction of various criminal situations such as corruption, misappropriation of funds/graft, as well as the political dominance of rich businessmen seeking to plunder everything, and whatnot, but at the same time the central government and the mentality of the people is not moving forward.

Whether this is yet transitional period towards the better is up to a question. Politically-historically speaking, Russia is still a young nation, of less than 20 years. It took US slightly longer than that to set things right, and US did not have the shackles of the past, the communism, to shake free...





As for the "reset" & "overload" debacle, that was Hillary's visit. I do not blame the bloke making the mistransaltion either. In technical or computer language in Russia, "reset" is pere-zagruzit" "pere" meaning "over" or "again" and "zagruzit" meaning load, as in "load an website page". At the same time, in vernacular, as it is in US, load means a burden, a hefty weight. Thus, "overload button" is what the news sources claimed Hillary gave to Medvedev. But "pere" could mean either "over" or "again/re-". That button could be taken by a common man as "overload" but by a techie as "reload/reset"

[Louis VI the Fat]

Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia, just wait and relax with the prospect of Seamus returning to this thread to find his political beliefs described as borderline fascist.

Or, in other words, I have no axe to grind with either Serbia or Russia. You get the same treatment Peasant Phil and Andres get about Belgium, Adrian and Frags about the Netherlands, Rabbit and Don Corleone over the US, HoreTore over Norway, perenially hard-done by Furunculus over the UK, etc. I just barge in and take painstaking care not to mind my own business.

@Aemilius: Yes, I deal in generalizations. As you say, generalizations can serve a justified purpose. In this case, it served to hide my lack of true insight while still allowing for the grand pompous statement. :book:

I don't care whether Russia is a great power or a humiliated power or a future power. All I care about is for ordinary Russians to have a life of peace, dignity, and a tasty chicken in the pot. And central heating if at all possible.



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~



But, unfortunately, there's some truth in your words. Can't say for Russia (although I do believe there is similarity), but definitely for Serbia.Hah!


You mean Biden's visit to Serbia? Or something involving Russia?I thought that Obama went to Moscow, hoping to 'push the reset button' for US-Russia relations. Maybe the phrase derived from a visit by H. Clinton. Or from a mistranslation. I dunno.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-amsterdam/after-obama-visit-russia_b_236604.html (Much abridged version of article):
After Obama Visit, Russia Resets to Default


For all the talk of "reset button diplomacy," by the time Obama left the continent, Russia had rebooted to default, exhibiting some of the most regrettable conduct and tragic events it has become known for over the past decade.


Obama seems like he has good intentions and fewer illusions about Russia, but let's face it: it is a high cost, low reward diplomatic problem. Given the current route being pursued in Washington, we are not likely to see any eye-opening changes following this latest murder. To Russia's delight, the Obama administration has found itself cornered into a guilty position, willing to apologize for anything and everything. Washington currently suffers from some very unreal assumptions based on groupthink - repeating like a mantra, we must respect Russia to work with Russia . The same goes for Europe. A high-ranking German official recently commented to me, "Whenever Russia behaves outrageously, everyone in Germany starts asking what we did to cause it."

When we subscribe to this victim narrative, measuring our words about Russia's human rights problem while journalists go down before the firing squads, who exactly do we think we are helping?

Anna Akhmatova may have nailed it back when she wrote, "She loves, loves blood, this Russian earth." But with the spilling of Estemirova's, it is high time we realize that it is on our hands too.

[Brenus]

Carry on Louis. “Mords lui l’oreille”…:karate:

It is not because Serbia refused to participate in NATO’s manoeuvre in Georgia that they celebrate the Russian victory by the way…:sweatdrop:

Generalisations are there to find some gold nuggets in tones of … mud.

Can we add in the Russian – Serbian axe Chavez? Please?
Because it reminds me a Serbian saying about the Ever Hodza’s Albania: We (Albanian) are with the Chinese one Billion…:bucktooth:

And because I am in Serbian Saying: God, protect as from the Russian friendship….
:beam:

[HoreTore]

Putin is working against corruption....?

Putin is the very reason there is corruption in Russia.

@Louis: You're giving me a hard time about Norway...? You'll have more luck trying that one on Sigurd or Viking, as I can assure you, if there is some Norway-bashing going on, I'll be the first to join in ~;)



just don't mock Vålerenga IF or Mjøndalen IF.... then you're dead.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Putin is working against corruption....?

Putin is the very reason there is corruption in Russia.

Right. Which is why corruption was rampant in the USSR, namely the late period, and which is why corruptocracy blended with a kleptocracy was the dominant form of government under Yeltsin. Corruption is deeply rooted in Russia, as in any eastern European country. That is our greatest problem and weakness. Our people are simply lack the deceny of the Westerners, as a tougher lifestyle tends to take that away, along with the national mentality, which is not making it any better. In US, people leave house- and car- doors open in my town of 56,000 people. People are generally courteous and honest. But I guarantee if you put them in Russia, their grandchildren will be no different.


Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia
No, if you read my post carefully, as contradictory it was, I actually liked your description. Of course, it failed to mention any positive sides, but honestly, I would not have expected you to read about any of those.

And from what I got from Sarmatian's post, he too was somewhat ambivalent.

[HoreTore]

Right. Which is why corruption was rampant in the USSR, namely the late period, and which is why corruptocracy blended with a kleptocracy was the dominant form of government under Yeltsin. Corruption is deeply rooted in Russia, as in any eastern European country. That is our greatest problem and weakness. Our people are simply lack the deceny of the Westerners, as a tougher lifestyle tends to take that away, along with the national mentality, which is not making it any better. In US, people leave house- and car- doors open in my town of 56,000 people. People are generally courteous and honest. But I guarantee if you put them in Russia, their grandchildren will be no different.

Of course.

But Putin is still the high protector of every corrupt individual living in Russia today. He doesn't fight corruption - he furthers it.

For proof, well... Let's have a bet on whether that last journalist murder will be solved, shall we?

[Aemilius Paulus]

But Putin is still the high protector of every corrupt individual living in Russia today. He doesn't fight corruption - he furthers it.
He does further it, true, on the high levels. But on the mid- and lower levels, he fights it. All in his own interest of course, but at least he is better than anything else Russia was unfortunate to get. Low-level corruption decreases the efficiency of his own programmes while the high-level corruption, or political favours, is to his benefit and usually to the government's. Of course, some businesses thus get an unfair advantage, which is the main problem.

In reality, this is no or little different from the lobbies in US though. It is my suspicion the lobbies are much more active than the high-level corruption in Russia, as lobbies are so active and powerful in US, that is Putin was to equal them, he would have to make corrupt deals 24/7.


If you wish to know some lobbies that affected my town, in a dishonest way, I would be glad to share them, just for the sake of illustration.


Let's have a bet on whether that last journalist murder will be solved, shall we?
Sadly, there are so many journalists regularly disposed of in Russia, that is possible to confuse them :no:. I assume you are speaking of that lady who worked in Chechnya, and supposedly the Chechens got. And no, of course I will not bet, as you will win, supposing you bet on what I presume you will. If the "getting rid of" was sanctioned by the government, then it will never be solved. And if the Chechens really did it, it would be difficult anyway.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A way to do that? Well you could turn fascist. Failing that, you could vote the next best thing, Republican.

Maybe poor Americans who have the nerve to long to be free and equal citizens can emigrate elsewhere? Perhaps in search of a place that accepts the poor, the huddled masses, a country that is a home of the free?

I'll skip the fascism, thanks. Private ownership but government control isn't all that much more appealing to me than is outright government ownership, and demonizing some "enemy" to deflect criticism is politics at its tackiest. Besides, I can't really grow a proper chaplinesque mustache.

You are going right to the heart of my concern Louis. Yes, I believe we would be better off with a suffrage that is restricted to those who will give a **** and apply a little long-term thinking to their selections of representatives and the like -- who won't just react to which one is taller or has the most salacious pornographic films (gotta love Italian voters....).

But all of the previous restriction metrics: wealth, birth, ethnicity, sex, have all been abjectly unfair. I DO want somebody who sees themselves as a having a "stake" in the long-term success of the society. I just haven't figured out a way to do it without resorting to something that is worse in terms of individual liberty than the current system.

Our system may be broken (or at least dinged about), but it isn't completely non-functional. Therefore, it is incumbent to come up with a better idea before trashing the current one. I have yet to do so.

[HoreTore]

He does further it, true, on the high levels. But on the mid- and lower levels, he fights it. All in his own interest of course, but at least he is better than anything else Russia was unfortunate to get. Low-level corruption decreases the efficiency of his own programmes while the high-level corruption, or political favours, is to his benefit and usually to the government's. Of course, some businesses thus get an unfair advantage, which is the main problem.

In reality, this is no or little different from the lobbies in US though. It is my suspicion the lobbies are much more active than the high-level corruption in Russia, as lobbies are so active and powerful in US, that is Putin was to equal them, he would have to make corrupt deals 24/7.

Some businesses "get an unfair advantage"...? What?

Look, a method used on several occasions by the oligarks(every single one of them Putin's friends, or former friends):

First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.

And no, this is nothing like what the US lobbies are doing. Not even close.


Sadly, there are so many journalists regularly disposed of in Russia, that is possible to confuse them :no:. I assume you are speaking of that lady who worked in Chechnya, and supposedly the Chechens got. And no, of course I will not bet, as you will win, supposing you bet on what I presume you will. If the "getting rid of" was sanctioned by the government, then it will never be solved. And if the Chechens really did it, it would be difficult anyway.

The chechens got her, that's what the propaganda is telling people these days...?

Look, the body was taken through a border controlled by the russian army. There is not a snowballs chance in hell that a car driven by chechens would get through one of those checkpoints without a full search of the vehicle, and that would've found the body. No, she was killed by russians, there is no other alternative. And it won't be solved, because the ones responsible are protected by Putin. Indeed, if it was to be solved, it would likely expose Putin's own corruption, and we can't have any of that, now can we? The Great Leader's reputation cannot be stained, can it?

[Aemilius Paulus]

First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.

That is not a common method which I was certainly not referring to. Of course it is not anything close to what the lobbies do. I was referring to the "favours" and not these Yukos-style debacles.

[HoreTore]

That is not a common method which I was certainly not referring to. Of course it is not anything close to what the lobbies do. I was referring to the "favours" and not these Yukos-style debacles.

Common? Define common.

They've certainly happened more than they should've. And lookie, it's happening again (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97c74236-5d86-11de-a914-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=9170c6b8-7fde-11dd-8eeb-000077b07658.html).

[Aemilius Paulus]

And lookie, it's happening again (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/97c74236-5d86-11de-a914-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=9170c6b8-7fde-11dd-8eeb-000077b07658.html).
Yes, I know, the Economist ran an article on it too...

[Sarmatian]

Well, Sarmatian and Aemilius, all I can say is, that if you are incensed by my description of Russia or Serbia, just wait and relax with the prospect of Seamus returning to this thread to find his political beliefs described as borderline fascist.

Or, in other words, I have no axe to grind with either Serbia or Russia. You get the same treatment Peasant Phil and Andres get about Belgium, Adrian and Frags about the Netherlands, Rabbit and Don Corleone over the US, HoreTore over Norway, perenially hard-done by Furunculus over the UK, etc. I just barge in and take painstaking care not to mind my own business.

I understand I'm a bit touchy when the issue arises but you have to understand something. For you everything about Yugoslavia was what you read in the papers. For me, it was a bit more personal and a bit more real. That's why I feel somewhat insulted when you speak so nonchalantly about it. I shouldn't, I know, but the dark side of the force is strong.



I thought that Obama went to Moscow, hoping to 'push the reset button' for US-Russia relations.


I wasn't sure which one were you talking about, because you've mentioned both Russia and Serbia.




just don't mock Vålerenga IF or Mjøndalen IF.... then you're dead.

Let it be known that with Sarmatian at the helm, Valerenga won the UEFA Cup and got the semis of CL in Football Manager.



And from what I got from Sarmatian's post, he too was somewhat ambivalent.

That's because Louis and I have had discussions before. (He was completely trounced of course, but he won't admit it :laugh4:)




First, find a suitable profitable factory, government-owned or private. Then grab one of your judges, and have him make a verdict declaring you as the rightful owner of the factory. Then grab the towns local police force, and have them occupy said factory, force the previous owner to relinquish his ownership and then remove them. Then loot and pillage what you can, take up a gazillion loans, remove your personal stakes in it, declare bankruptcy and finally pocket the money you've stolen.


That's not really how it works. Go back to the 90's, Yeltsin times. Huge political and economic crisis in Russia. Someone yells "democracy" and you have state owned companies privatised. Some shares are kept by the government, some distributed to the workers. Those workers go out of the factory holding a piece of paper in their hands. Someone outside the factory offers them 200 dollars for it. Crisis is severe. they need to feed and clothe their children, they need to pay the gas bill, the electric bill and many other things and they need to pay it NOW. They can't say ok we won't eat this month but we will eat twice as much the next. So they sell it for 200 dollars. Some don't actually know how valuable is the piece of paper they hold in their hands, they exchange it for a bottle of vodka. They can't afford to wait for months, to get themselves organised, to hire an expert. They have no money and no time and there's no expert. Then there's a problem with finding someone else to sell it to. Foreign companies are reluctant to invest during a crisis and only people with money are mobsters or "controversial businessmen". In the true spirit of free market, where "everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for", those oligarchs got factories and companies worth hundreds of millions, even billions for a few cases of vodka. The trouble is, it is hard to prove that there was anything against the law in it. Is it your fault if someone sold you something worth a 1000 dollars for 10 dollars?

Similar stuff happened in other countries going through transition. After 2000, Serbian government tried to deal with it by introducing special tax for extreme profit retroactively. Unfortunately, due to corruption, a very small percentage of the money was collected. In fact, you could say almost none of it was collected.

That's often the problem when you try to change political, social and economic system overnight. You can't just install free market economy in a country not ready for it. When Milosevic lost in the 2000, pretty much everything that was sold or privatised was done below the real value. The steel industry in Serbia, worth more than 200 millions, was sold to US Steel for 2 millions. When the economy was stabilised, when certain laws were enacted, the situation got much better. For example, Telenor bought the cell phone company for 1.3 billions, Carlsberg bought a brewery for more than 600 million, Interbrew bought another for 900 millions.

Even with US Steel paying a lot less than it was worth, it's still not that bad. It's US Steel, you know they will invest some fresh capital, try to make it work again. Unfortunately, most of the foreign investments were actually domestic through phantom firms set up in Cayman Islands or wherever. Then it often ended in the scenario you mentioned, like taking loans, selling them off or just closing them down to eliminate competition. Not all, to be fair, but most of it

The pattern was more or less the same in all transitional countries... Some fared better than the others but none was immune to it...

[rvg]

Hmm, let's see. In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny. Quite sad, really. Still, as far as tyrants go, Putin is a genius. He didn't *destroy* the opposition. Oh, no, that would be too cliche and archaic. He merely marginalized it to the point of irrelevance, and now the opposition is a convenient way for him to point his finger and say to everybody: "hey, look, we do have opposition, they simply aren't popular." Same thing with the media: you can find a couple of independent newspapers that do not toot the official party line, but at the same time the TV is completely under Putin's control. In short, pure genius.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Hmm, let's see. In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny. Quite sad, really. Still, as far as tyrants go, Putin is a genius. He didn't *destroy* the opposition. Oh, no, that would be too cliche and archaic. He merely marginalized it to the point of irrelevance, and now the opposition is a convenient way for him to point his finger and say to everybody: "hey, look, we do have opposition, they simply aren't popular." Same thing with the media: you can find a couple of independent newspapers that do not toot the official party line, but at the same time the TV is completely under Putin's control. In short, pure genius.
I am sorry you have such a point of view, as it is inaccurate. And ignorant, no offense to you personally. But I am sure you were ignorant on purpose, or more accurately, you were making a litotes when saying In the past 20 years Russia has gone from a reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny to a.... reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny Because in reality, much has changed, and while you may generalise all you wish, it is clear you have not lived in Russia nor read a *great* deal about it, which is normal for a non-Russian due to all the mayhem in my country. Changes are not as noticeable as the breakup of USSR, but they are there.

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?

Describing Russia as that is not even a generalisation. It is the omission of facts or ignorance. It seems in your case as the former, as you know more about Russia than that, I am certain, but do not mention it for the sake of the argument. Not that I blame you - an argument must be effective, and if some facts have to be dropped, then so be it.

[rvg]

Is there anything in particular in my description of Russia, that is inaccurate?

[HoreTore]

Let it be known that with Sarmatian at the helm, Valerenga won the UEFA Cup and got the semis of CL in Football Manager.

See my new siggy. I now proclaim you my God.

As for your rebuttal to my post, that's another situation. Sometimes things happened like you described, sometimes it happened like I described. Like in the latest example, the Telenor case.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Is there anything in particular in my description of Russia, that is inaccurate?
*picardfacepalm*. Either you did not read my post more carefully or you did not get the point. I stated:

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?

The point is, you are incorrect in your omission. They say the greatest lies are told in silence. You only mentioned the most basic well known fact, one that applies to countless countries other than Russia. How am I supposed to reply to the statement that "Russia sucks", for instance. In comparison to US in many factors, it is true, but what is the point of making that statement? One says nothing new, nothing detailed, nothing that can be debated, such is the simplicity and irrelevancy of the declaration.


See my new siggy. I now proclaim you my God.

Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

[rvg]

*picardfacepalm*. Either you did not read my post more carefully or you did not get the point. I stated:

Look, Russia is still a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny", you are absolutely correct. So is China. Are we to say China never changed since October 1st, 1949? Because it still is technically a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". Or heck, China was always a "reactionary, dogmatic one-party tyranny". What were the Emperors if not that? Emperors were always reactionary to the extreme, forsaking all change in a conservatism worthy of the Ancient Egypt; they were also dogmatic, absolute rulers with no other parties present, save for rebellions. So are we to say that it never changed since its almost prehistoric beginning?? See my point?



Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

You described my assessment of Russia as incorrect and possibly ignorant. I would like to know what I got wrong. If by your admittance Russia indeed is a tyranny, then where did I make a mistake?

[HoreTore]

Hey! I am his greatest fanboy! You cannot take that away from me!! :clown: See his profile.

Nonsense.

I'm Norwegian. We Norwegians, among other diseases, suffer from a chronic feeling of unworthiness. As such, our wieners grow a few inches every time our nation is mentioned by someone from another country, however passing the comment may be.

And I'm no ordinary Norwegian either; I'm a Norwegian from a small town. That means I feel small even among Norwegians from other, bigger towns, and my wiener grows an inch every time my town is mentioned by other Norwegians, or even just to have other humans know that my town even exists.

So, to have a Serb, a continental european, know about my favourite football team.... You cannot even begin to image how big my penis is just now.

[Aemilius Paulus]

You cannot even begin to image how big my penis is just now.
Umm, yeah, sure, I doubt I will try to imagine that... *coughs**clears my throat* :sweatdrop::sweatdrop::no:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Of course, it failed to mention any positive sides, but honestly, I would not have expected you to read about any of those.Plenty of positives are reported on, are widely available.
Lake Baikal is beautiful in spring. The small towns in North Carolina are full of great people. On the .org however, we discuss Putin and Bush. If it doesn't involve bombs falling, it is not discussed.




That's because Louis and I have had discussions before. (He was completely trounced of course, but he won't admit it ) In your dreams. I just got bored with the subject.
I maintain that Serbia was a major force behind the tragedy that raged in Yugoslavia for a decade. You maintain that Serbia was a poor victim and that America/the West needs to apologise to Serbia and pay reparations.
(Brenus for his part emphasises a more holistic view)

We can argue 'till we are blue in the face. But I'll leave it for the next round. Rest assured we'll have even more victims of mass murder dug up and identified from their mass graves. That I can use to smite you and Brenus with. Maybe Serbia will even have been forced to hand over more of those mass murderers it is still shielding.

I too understand that the situation in Yugoslavia was very real, involving real people. :yes:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Private ownership but government control isn't all that much more appealing to me than is outright government ownershipThere is no private ownership outside of ownership protected by the state. Laws decide what is ownership, and government control protects ownership.

Monkeys don't have ownership. They sit in trees that they protect against other monkeys. That is ownership without government.

Ownership as we know it, on the other hand, exists because the law designates it ownership. All that you can do, is to work within the system, or work the government, to protect and enlarge your share.


Currently, the government works for you, and protects your share. This is under threat. So in a defensive move you work the government:

You are going right to the heart of my concern Louis. Yes, I believe we would be better off with a suffrage that is restricted
[...]
I DO want somebody who sees themselves as a having a "stake" in the long-term success of the society. I just haven't figured out a way to do it without resorting to something that is worse in terms of individual liberty than the current system.I would say that one can start by pondering better means of giving everybody a stake in society. Instead of further disenfranchising those who already are.
Never change the electorate when policies don't work out. Change the politicians and the policies.

The heart of my concern, in turn, is that the US has gone, within a few generations, from a country of possibilities to a closed shop. It is divided between haves and have-nots, to an extent not witnessed in the West since 19th century Europe.

And all I hear from the haves is talk about 'leechers', who consequently need to be stripped even of their right to be acknowledged as a citizen. The haves are turning into the landlords their ancestors fled from last century. Making America Ireland, 1845.


Two more unrelated comments:
Of course, in my heart of hearts, I wish you would succeed. That those who can not apply long-term thinking were stripped of their vote. That the more uneducated part of society would stop voting itself out of existence. That they would not swap their livelyhood and their healthcare for a prayer and a flagpin anymore.

Lastly, Europe, too, is quickly losing its social-democracy. I blame the importation of a vast and permanent underclass. Solidarity is stretched to the limit. Socialism has dug its own grave with its insistence of endlessly extending solidarity outwards. In twenty years time, I'll agree with you. As for now, I'll scold you. Such is the perennial fate of the American talking to a European. :wink:

[Brenus]

“I maintain that Serbia was a major force behind the tragedy that raged in Yugoslavia for a decade.”
No problem with this as your analyse based on information given to you, provided I would say Milosevic.
Then you have to accept that Milosevic did exploit a situation he didn’t create…
SERBIA / MILOSEVIC didn’t initiate the first blood, to paraphrase Rambo (1st one).

In my one theory, Milosevic and Tudjman were accomplice in murdering Yugoslavia.
But I agree it is another subject.:sweatdrop:

“Rest assured we'll have even more victims of mass murder dug up and identified from their mass graves. That I can use to smite you and Brenus with. Maybe Serbia will even have been forced to hand over more of those mass murderers it is still shielding.”
Probably. :beam:
Can’t wait that after 15 years we will finally find them, and to see the satellite pictures and the proofs of horse shoes operation and the systematic campaign of rapes and….
Sorry to be cynic.

But you won’t have to answer for the mass murder made by the others sides.
The International Community is good in creating Serbian War Criminals…:smash:

And as we know and shown in and by The Hague “International” Court of Justice, war crimes against Serbs are not war crimes…

About the privatisation process in the East, I saw it in Macedonia (FYROM/ARYM).
The State announced a privatisation process of the state own company.
Managers (all from communist party) fired workers, sold the machines to relatives/friends) making value of the company close to zero.
The company is assessed. They bought their own company for nothing and the shares from their former employees.
Then they bring back the machines. They’ve got all the contact to start to work… Job done…
After they emigrate to England and buy football clubs…
:beam: