|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:36:10 [Permalink]
|
You are going to need to send us a copy of your special dictionary Gorgo. A dictorship, regardless of how benevolent it may be is still a dictatorship. And while you may feel that there is no democracy in the US of A, you can sit at home every November 4th. I intend to vote.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:38:52 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo, I basically agree with your thoughts in this last post, but I need to clarify something: a dictatorship is not a democracy. By definition, they are mutually exclusive. A good dictatorship can be much better for the people than a bad democracy, but that (I believe) is not the issue.
-me. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 13:50:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What also bothers me is that it often seems that many voters have little grasp of the issues they are voting on. if a referrendum comes around to cut taxes it almost always passes regardless of the consequences. Then the voters bitch that traffic is bad and why isn't the government working on the roads etc. LOL Like the Governor will just reach into his or her pockets and pull out some light rail.
@tomic
Maybe some of us would vote for more and higher taxes if THEY showed us it was being more efficently used and budgeted. My grasp of it is that the government is wastefull and until they prove to me they can do a better job, they are not getting any more of my money than I can help giving. Perhaps some of the voters do know the issues and don't like what's happening.
"If you succeed, you sell. If you "fail" you learn." |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:10:49 [Permalink]
|
Snake, since someone can point to any part of a government's budget and say, "That's not needed" no one will ever be 100% happy. Someone will always find what is, to them, waste. Maybe we wouldn't be paying so much if we didn't elect officials that gave sich huge breaks to corporations. there was a time when corporate taxes were much higher, yeah somewhere above zero, and America built all kinds of cool infrastructure and found ways to profive for the less fortunate.
But forget about that. Just voting for taxes to be cut because you generally think government is wasteful ties the hands of government. It's unpatriotic to vote in such a way. Now finding a specific instance of waste and petitioning for that to be fixed is fine but just wanting taxes cut blah blah blah results in a country that is broken down and in need of repair with virtually no hope of growth or improvement.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:24:37 [Permalink]
|
Now it's unpatriotic to vote.
quote:
It's unpatriotic to vote in such a way.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Well, the point is about power and you don't know what you're talking about. Voting does do some good. It did some good in the U.S.S.R., it does some good in Cuba, and it does some good in the U.S., but voting is not democracy.
quote:
You are going to need to send us a copy of your special dictionary Gorgo. A dictorship, regardless of how benevolent it may be is still a dictatorship. And while you may feel that there is no democracy in the US of A, you can sit at home every November 4th. I intend to vote.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 14:56:35 [Permalink]
|
That was out of line to say that you don't know what you're talking about and wrong to pick nits against what you were saying about dictatorships. My apologies.
Better to say that those forms of government which are viewed as less democratic forms of government can have more democratic tendencies than those that are usually referred to as a democracies.
Certainly the U.S.S.R. touted itself as a democratic republic and held elections, so my point about voting is valid.
The point is who benefits from the power, and who doesn't, not the facade.
quote:
Well, the point is about power and you don't know what you're talking about.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 18:46:57 [Permalink]
|
Snake> Stay out of what? Politics? :)
TokyoDreamer> Democracy is by definition not tyranny. Real democracy includes education of the population, so they have the facts on what they vote about. I'd prefer that to the usual election-gargle that comes out every time I go to vote.
PhDreamer> You don't have any faith in the advances of technology? So you prefer the few to decide for you? You think the rulers are better fit?
But as far as I could read, Gorgo went off on someone defining democracy as being a system that provides for the wants and needs of the people. A benevolent dictator could indeed do that.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/29/2002 : 18:51:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
TokyoDreamer> Democracy is by definition not tyranny. Real democracy includes education of the population, so they have the facts on what they vote about.
I disagree. The definition does not at all preclude tyranny. "Real" democracy is simply when the rules are made by a majority vote of the population.
If 51% of the population of a democracy vote to enslave the other 49%, we have what is commonly referred to as a "tyranny of the majority".
This is common, basic political knowledge, so I'm not quite sure where you are coming from when you seem to dispute this.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 01:03:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Snake> Stay out of what? Politics? :)
Government should stay out of the affairs of companies business.
And @, sorry but all I can say to you is we disagree. Rather than go on about if businesses had to pay more tax that the public would pay anyway though higher prices. And that businesses have no responsibility to the 'less fortunate' nor does the govenment. And many companies do donate now but not because they have to. I know for a fact that one of the companies I own does. They advertize that 5% of their sales go to schools. So the public is paying. But at least one knows up front where the money is going and one need not shop at that place if they don't want to. Where as when the government collects the money we don't have as much control. Supporting business is what will imporve the country through more jobs. If we leave it up to the govenment we will continue to get what we've always gotten, higher taxes with nothing to show for it. But more wellfare.
"If you succeed, you sell. If you "fail" you learn." |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 04:37:56 [Permalink]
|
In reference to direct democracy and decision making, many decisions would be taken locally, or regionally. Less would have to be taken nationally and supra-nationally, hence involving the whole population.
At least in the Western world, technology already allows us (if we *really* wanted) to implement direct democracy on a civic level pretty easily. However, most of those in government (local or national) are not keen on this.
In the UK, we have had debates recently on issues that various parties have suggested be put to a referendum (of the whole voting population). With rare exceptions, politicians of all parties take the line that *they* have been elected to rule, and referendums *undermine* representative democracy by taking decision-making power out of their hands. That's how little faith they have in the citizen population at large.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 06:18:43 [Permalink]
|
Those that define democracy simply by saying it only has to do with voting must then say that Cuba and the U.S.S.R. are (and were) democracies as there was/is a lot of voting in those places. The word "power" is also in the definition. Who has the power, and who benefits from the power? In those places, the elite had (and have) the power, and the elite benefit from the power. In the U.S., the elite hold a disproportionate power, and also benefit disporportionately.
It can be said that while a benevolent dictator (monarch, autocrat) holds the power, that power can be used to give the benefits of that power to the people and that does happen to some degree in wealthy countries.
quote:
But as far as I could read, Gorgo went off on someone defining democracy as being a system that provides for the wants and needs of the people. A benevolent dictator could indeed do that.
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 08:27:27 [Permalink]
|
TokyoDreamer> Okay. Two discussions here, I'm mixing them up. There's one about what democracy is and then my views on democracy (which includes a well-educated population, as education INMO is the way out of superstition and fanaticism).
But Democracy is not only the rule of the majority. It's also protection of minorities. Okay, I may be getting ahead of myself. The latter may've been implemented later. But we do have laws to protect minorities, from the stupidity of the majority, right?
And calling democracy “tyranny of the majority” doesn't mean it's a tyranny as per the definition given on page… ehrm, earlier here.
Snake> No problem. Disagreement is the basis of debate. There's probably a common ground around somewhere :D
Government should stay out of company business? There we definitely disagree. But I get the impression it's mostly on the grounds on present government and the vast amount of money going… nowhere? Politician-wages, dinners, travels and other strange accounts (On a side-note. I've always wondered why politicians should get such high wages. They shouldn't be in for the money. But anyways…).
“Less fortunate”. Well, who are they? In conservative views they're just the lazy people, who won't work for a living. Odd, when unemployment is high to tell people to just get a job.
I'm not necessarily for a government that intervenes constantly. I'm for a society with a high amount of education (well, GOOD education then :)) a fair distribution of the goods, which is based not on the profit of the few, but on the benefits for everyone.
Taxes are high here in Denmark. But we have free education up to and including universities. As well as a diverse system of education. Free hospitals and doctors, a decent well-fare system, a low crime-rate (and strict gun-control). Government supervision of companies' pollution and products before they get marketed.
Okay the current right-wing government is destroying it, but I'm willing to pay high taxes for well-fare and education.
NottyImp> I still want to know why you think that Stalin was an inevitable consequence of Lenin.
As to more local democracy. Are you nuts? :D I don't know if you remember Denmark having to vote for the Maastrict treaty in 1992. We voted “no”. So the government went ahead with a scare-campaign and decided we had to vote again, with a few adjustments. Then we said “yes” (Well, I didn't). Now the adjustments are being removed. The government doesn't really know whether to put it out for a vote or not. We might not do what they want!
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 12:05:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
And calling democracy “tyranny of the majority” doesn't mean it's a tyranny as per the definition given on page… ehrm, earlier here.
I'm not quite sure what you mean here, as no one has said democracy equals tyranny of the majority.
My only point in bringing it up is that when you have a direct democracy (defined as majority rules, no more no less; nothing about how educated a populous is or any other details, we're talking general definition, not specific cases), you have a danger of tyranny of the majority.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2002 : 21:59:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
PhDreamer> You don't have any faith in the advances of technology? So you prefer the few to decide for you? You think the rulers are better fit?
Well, suppose we stick an interactive vote-o-matic TV in every household in America. How do we ensure that every eligible member of the household actually votes and not the 8-year-old pushing the pretty buttons on the screen three or four times? I simply do not see the necessary technology available for quite some time.
As to the representation issue, while politics may influence us all, I have confidence in statistics; I think a large enough representative body will be generally representative of the population. The question is how large that representative body needs to be.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
