First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Democracy is Tyranny
1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 3/8/09 , edited 3/8/09

Nayru wrote:


mathew312 wrote:


Nayru wrote:

There is a lot of whining going on about our government nowadays, but when you look at it from a historical standpoint, we got a pretty damn good one right now.


This post is a bit on a tangent, but it's related more to other comments that have applied current events to this thread.

Perhaps but the Bush White House WAS an Imperial Presidency (read dictatorship) which Nixon tried to create.

Consider the article I posted above where senate Republicans tried to hijack the government and shut it down to make their point. If they succeeded and the shut down was not temporary the dollar would cease to exist and would literally bankrupt the entire planet and every job in America would effectively cease to exist. I realize that the scenario is hypothetical, but the threat was made in the most literal sense to throw a tantrum, because they no longer hold the power. If the situation weren't so dire, I might concede that they only were trying to make a point, but because of the hole we're in they are smart enouph to realize thise, so I can only view them as cy-babies tryng to break their toy, so no one else can play with it.I call that a tantrum.

If we got it so great why is unemployment reported to be 8%, but if you count people who are no longer able to be counted in the statistic the numbers would probably be closer to 16% to 20%. My financial advisor even told me that 2008 was worse than any time during the Great Depression. The only reason it isn't is because of unemplyment insurance, and social security Republicans main targets for wasteful spending. It isn't quite as bad as all that, but we are closer to the breaking point than we have ever been.


Being poor (or unemployed) in America is very, very different than being poor or unemployed in China, Indonesia, Chad, or Russia.

I stand by my statement.


I think I misunderstood your statement. My impression was that you were saying people should shut their traps for whining. Not a statement on standards of living. But standards of living should not be made by pocketbook alone, some people in those people beleive they are wealthier than we are, because they live off the land and are not subservient to the dollar which only gets them things that give very little life quality in return.

But I think people do not consider that while their are places in the world where they make less than $500 a year and have dirt floors. But they sometimes have a better ability to live off the land and share community resources. If a person in America had only $500 dollars a month. He could only afford a roof over his head and not feed himself and not have running water (in which case you might end up in jail for taking your business outside). Or be homeless and eat well. These differences between the poor from one country to another present different problems and hardships. Not to say all things are equal, bur relatively speaking hardship is hardship, no matter what circumstance is being compared.

If someone steals food from a family in Chad I expect they would not stand quiet, when something similar happens here what makes us annoying for raising our voice. Perhaps the family in Chad deseves more sympathy, but getting ripped off in Chad and getting ripped off in America is still getting ripped off.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 3/22/09

mathew312 wrote:
I realize you ar refering to a true democracy, but to my knowledge such has never truly existed. Enven those that have supposed to have been are not because, women, or other groups were not allowed to participate, Thus the democracy only allowed male land owners to participate. So not being all inclusive gives a false sense of a true democracy, because the technical majority is excluded, gender, race, or status.

The modern modified democracies have given better representation, but as far as tyranny goes here is a present day example of the minority acting as tyrants and half succeeding against the majority.

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090306/Congress.Spending/

We have two bodies that make up our congress the House and the Senate, So basically the Senate Republicans (minority) decided that funding for a spending bill was wasteful without which the U. S. government would be forced to fire all it's employees and turn out the lights. So the House was forced to take action to keep things running. The result extra money is wasted for no logical reason, so these guys can claim their trying to reduce wasteful spending while wasting money to make the claim.


There have been true democracies. There are true democracies even today. They’re just on very small scale. Early settlers of America ran settlements with relative success on town meetings. Most did omit women but not all. Many included everyone, even children. They were small groups and could come together to discuss the direction they wanted to take their town. In the end they voted.

P.S: The Government is reducing wasteful spending to some degree. They just laid off a massive portion of the postal services workforce…taking jobs from a weak economy is always the best way to avoid wasteful spending, right?! (I blame Obama.)
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/22/09
democracy itself is a failure! look how athens failed.

heck, id say a socialist world wide government is the best. and by socialist, there are many kinds and i personally favors one that is all government controlled with competitive nature and equal start. meaning that a world wide government that controlls everything (the ruler must not be corrupted, hence, should be myself and i shall immortalize myself) and that all the childrens would be taken from their parents and start on equal ground --- kinda liike a boarding school. then they would compete to see who is the best. those who stands out and are better gets to better places but everyone can choose what they want to do... hence, early career choices. everything is equal but the status determine how much a person can get and status is earned through how their intelligence, physical abilities, etc. meaning, competitive. and also, also, there is no such thing as inheritance, everyone starts at the same level.
13258 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / O.C. So.Cal
Offline
Posted 3/22/09
in that case every government is tyranny
Posted 3/22/09

o0James0o wrote:

democracy itself is a failure! look how Athens failed.

heck, id say a socialist world wide government is the best. and by socialist, there are many kinds and i personally favors one that is all government controlled with competitive nature and equal start. meaning that a world wide government that controls everything (the ruler must not be corrupted, hence, should be myself and i shall immortalize myself) and that all the children's would be taken from their parents and start on equal ground --- kinda like a boarding school. then they would compete to see who is the best. those who stands out and are better gets to better places but everyone can choose what they want to do... hence, early career choices. everything is equal but the status determine how much a person can get and status is earned through how their intelligence, physical abilities, etc. meaning, competitive. and also, also, there is no such thing as inheritance, everyone starts at the same level.


dude seriously ?? I mean come on the reason Athens fell is because the romans conquered all of Greece and they where only a small city-state that was not united with the other city-states. On socialism the main problem I have with it is that even that can be corrupted i am a anarchist to be honest with you. A socialist government will control everything or what everyone does on a huge level giving no people any rights at all unless they go by what they tell them to do. Say for example they want to monitor what people do on the net 24/7 to see what they are down loading/uploading or who they are even chatting with just does not set right with me. Wealth on a certain level should be shared to help people out like in medical care to make sure that everyone has some short of insurance but hmm I really don't know what else to say, we are all entitled to our own opinion after all.
1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 3/22/09

SeraphAlford wrote:

P.S: The Government is reducing wasteful spending to some degree. They just laid off a massive portion of the postal services workforce…taking jobs from a weak economy is always the best way to avoid wasteful spending, right?! (I blame Obama.)


I have no Idea if you meant this with sarcasm or sincerity, but either way perhaps you can enlighten me on this, because Obama was being blamed for the state of the Economy by some as early as September of last year a week or so before the election. Though most people were pretty sure of the outcome, but what if the proverbial fat lady instead sang a song of McCain. In my mind that's writing history before it happens. I though you weren't supposed to count chickens before they hatched.

I could see the train wreck in the economy coming since 2005 mere months after George Bush began his second term. Though I didn't expect the magnitude of the derailment. I expected things to get better but they progressively got worse. The crud had hit the fan 4 1/2 years ago, but most people didn't notice until early last year.

I have since come to the realization that what is meant by politicians when they say 'wasteful government spending' is books for school, salaries for police and teachers, veterans benefits, and building/repairing roads, bridges, and levies.

P.S. there's another crash coming on the heels of the housing bubble, next is the college loan bubble.

I keep forgetting this thread is about democracy, whoops.
1446 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
41
Offline
Posted 3/23/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

dude seriously ?? I mean come on the reason Athens fell is because the romans conquered all of Greece and they where only a small city-state that was not united with the other city-states. On socialism the main problem I have with it is that even that can be corrupted i am a anarchist to be honest with you. A socialist government will control everything or what everyone does on a huge level giving no people any rights at all unless they go by what they tell them to do. Say for example they want to monitor what people do on the net 24/7 to see what they are down loading/uploading or who they are even chatting with just does not set right with me. Wealth on a certain level should be shared to help people out like in medical care to make sure that everyone has some short of insurance but hmm I really don't know what else to say, we are all entitled to our own opinion after all.


Libertarians ('Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid') are the closest thing to having anarchists serving in the government. Anarchy sounds good, but it has it's problems as well no regulations and no government means if you aren't a multi-millionaire or billionaire you can't afford to see a doctor for a tissue to stop a nosebleed. Less than one percent of the population could even get a loan. You would have to pay protection money so the local cops will protect you. These are the real consequences of rule by Anarchy. Is absolute freedom worth that price.

Ronald Reagan expressed the Anarchists wet dream when he stated that the scariest thing you could hear is "...I'm from the government and I'm here to help." and "government is not part of the solution, government is the problem." (I'm quoting from memory so the words may be slightly inaccurate). The biggest difference is the Republicans want to spy on everything and Anarchists treasure their freedom.

I will support your view in one regard. It would be nice if it could work. We all have an ideal we would like to see. Respect me when I do my thing and I'll respect you when you do your thing made Anarchy appealing to me when I was 16, but I realized that it really only works when everyone falls into a lock-step harmony lacking the individuality that Anarchy should be promoting. But there will always be someone to muck it up and doing their own thing. Oops isn't that Anarchy, then one might fall into the trap of saying no mater what kind of society we live in it's an Anarchy.

No matter how you slice it and dice it no government can possibly purely follow one model or theory, but be a blend. It is just defined by it's major trends.
13326 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Terra
Offline
Posted 3/23/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:


o0James0o wrote:

democracy itself is a failure! look how Athens failed.

heck, id say a socialist world wide government is the best. and by socialist, there are many kinds and i personally favors one that is all government controlled with competitive nature and equal start. meaning that a world wide government that controls everything (the ruler must not be corrupted, hence, should be myself and i shall immortalize myself) and that all the children's would be taken from their parents and start on equal ground --- kinda like a boarding school. then they would compete to see who is the best. those who stands out and are better gets to better places but everyone can choose what they want to do... hence, early career choices. everything is equal but the status determine how much a person can get and status is earned through how their intelligence, physical abilities, etc. meaning, competitive. and also, also, there is no such thing as inheritance, everyone starts at the same level.


dude seriously ?? I mean come on the reason Athens fell is because the romans conquered all of Greece and they where only a small city-state that was not united with the other city-states. On socialism the main problem I have with it is that even that can be corrupted i am a anarchist to be honest with you. A socialist government will control everything or what everyone does on a huge level giving no people any rights at all unless they go by what they tell them to do. Say for example they want to monitor what people do on the net 24/7 to see what they are down loading/uploading or who they are even chatting with just does not set right with me. Wealth on a certain level should be shared to help people out like in medical care to make sure that everyone has some short of insurance but hmm I really don't know what else to say, we are all entitled to our own opinion after all.


heck, did the athens not give turn for each person to have certain job? dont blame the romans, they cant even defend themselves. take this for example, so lets say that this athen dude who is a great war general, then here comes the time when he had the take turn and he have to be the next job. so then the next guy after him totally sucked at being a war general. so when enemies attack, how can they defend themselves when following a failure? heck, their democracy totally failed. dont you remember how socrates died cause the majority said hes bad?

there are many kinds of socialism, i bet youre thinking about the one thats more closer to communism. do read over my type of socialism.

wealth shall not be shared, wealth shall be earned. those who are more worthly deserve to be more wealthy. yet, everyone should start at an equal level to be fair and there shall not be such thing as inherited wealth for it isnt fair and makes those who got wealth for free worthless since they doesnt have the competitive skills or anything.
5782 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / In Limbo in Silen...
Offline
Posted 4/23/09
Nowhere in The Articles of Confederation, The Constitution, or The Bill of Rights does it say anything about a democracy directly.
However it is worth noting that Hamilton and other Big Government founders had their hand in writing the documents.
In the preamble of the Constitution it mentions both...
"We the People of the United States" Meaning a government We, By and For people to protect People, Property, enforce contracts and Rights. A republic.
then later near the end
"establish this Constitution for the United States of America" Meaning a document for the government, since their is only one USA being the Capital, Washington D.C. A Democracy.

Show me Democracy in it's human form, and I will strangle it, then bury it in a shallow grave.
I will expect a ticket-fan fare parade in my celebration
10694 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/23/09
you might as well go with anarchy or anything without a government then because government itself is "tyranny".

in my opinion democracy is the best thing to live under. all the best places to live in the world today are one form of democracy or another. until we find something that is better and also works on a large scale, i'll stick with democracy.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.