|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:49 am
by now hopefully you have seen it, heard it celebrated it, or just have some feelings on it
Protests for democracy in the middle east!
First lets lay down some education:
The term democracy comes from the Greek language and means "rule by the (simple) people"
and in the 17/18th century the essential elements of democracy were defined as: separation of powers, basic civil rights / human rights, religious liberty and separation of church and state
Often democracy is defined opposite to other types of government such as:
Monarchy Government by a single ruler (king/queen, emperor)
Aristocracy Government by noblemen (hereditary)
Oligarchy Government by few persons
Theocracy "Government by God" (in reality this means government by religious leaders)
Dictatorship Government by people, that have seized power by force (often: military dictatorship)
This is what they (hopefully) won in Egypt. This is what they are fighting for in Yemen, Libya,Bahrain, and Iran. This is what China, Mexico, and heck even parts of the US are afraid of.
"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson
So Ive rambled on... lets hear YOUR thoughts!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:01 am
To be honest they are all flawed the fact that any one decides things for you goes against the very thought of freedom.
For example the freedom of speach. while we are free to say what we want if we say something that goes against our goverment like The presdent is useless and should be kicked out (Just a example i do not mean it) then they say we have said something wrong and often are arrested and or treated poorly after.
Thus to claim anyone is free under any of the governments you spoke of is not true. While democracy is the closest we have come to complete freedom we are not truely free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:11 pm
I begin to think my knowledge was misunderstood
" Often democracy is defined opposite to other types of government such as "
Monarchy, Aristocracy, Oligarchy, Theocracy, or Dictatorship have nothing to do with freedom
Realistically no government promotes freedom, only the illusion of freedom.
I think we both agree on that much
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:40 pm
true but if you think about how things are run under Democracy it is like a combanation of aTheocracy and a dictatorship since if you step outside the law the police take you down and you can't go anywhere in the us without hearing about how this religon is the right path or haveing someone try to covert you to there religon by talking about it. (I can not count the amount of times i have heard about some religon on tv.)
Sorry i a eco witch didn't mean to offend if i did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:18 pm
More accurately, the US is closer to a plutonomy than it is to a representative democracy.
Agreeing with above statements made in regard to lack of true freedom and illusions of freedom.
Personally, I do not feel that the US has true separation of church and state (one example: the 10 commandments in the supreme courthouse). The US does not truly have basic human civil rights, because it's still illegal for same sex couples to get married, and marriage is recognized as one of the most important fundamental rights that we have (except not everyone has it).
Also, it's not only China, Mexico and "parts of the US" that are afraid of the idea of freedom in the middle east. The US has been putting MANY, MANY, MANY dictators in power in countries all over the world for a very long time. The US has no interest in freedom or democracy in the middle east because it would not benefit them. The US only pretends to care about freedom and democracy as a means of obfuscating their real motives and agenda. It's all political theatrics. Just like when the US went back into Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 and actually had the nerve to call it "Operation Freedom" because we really need to bring the people of the middle east freedom. Riiiight. If that were true, I would have to wonder why we're not also "bringing freedom to" all of the other many countries who are also ruled by tyrannical dictators who the US ALSO PUT INTO POWER, (for example, Saddam Hussein).
Anyways, that's all just my take on it. But I definitely agree with both of you. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:41 pm
Also, I noticed you shared one of my most favourite quotes in that first post, so here's a few more of my absolute favourite [loosely]-related quotes you might also like:
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."
- John F. Kennedy
"You get your freedom by letting your enemy know that you'll do anything to get it. Then you'll get it. It's the only way you'll get it."
- Malcolm X
"First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win."
- Gandhi
"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it. "
- George Carlin
"This change has been painful for some."
- Barack Obama (in his 2011 State of the Union Address, presumably speaking in regard to the more than 36.5 million American citizens presently living in the US who are in poverty and without health insurance, and who now have to pay a fine because they're too poor to afford coverage from a private insurance company)
"All images are authored by someone, and it is up to us whether we choose to participate passively in the worlds that are created for us by meekly accepting the ideas behind them, and reinforcing them through our silence, or whether we choose to engage the world actively by recognizing what is happening and not reinforce it – question it, point out how strange normality can actually be. It’s only when you make something strange and unacceptable that you have any chance of changing it, any chance of intervening into that social process."
- Sut Jhally (on the subject of ideas of gender presented in commercial realism, as quoted in "The Codes of Gender", based on the work of Erving Goffman)
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:13 pm
Honestly half of what Obama says makes me shake my head sweatdrop that man is a republican in democrat's clothing... I mean seriously putting fines on people who can't afford health care... that's just sick, that is kicking people who are already down.
But ya not to get off topic, Id like to think democracy works... but really I'm a socialist by my own admission, and I think democracy isn't the answer to the worlds evils... its just a...lessor one
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:06 pm
Kin Wolfington Honestly half of what Obama says makes me shake my head sweatdrop that man is a republican in democrat's clothing... I mean seriously putting fines on people who can't afford health care... that's just sick, that is kicking people who are already down. But ya not to get off topic, Id like to think democracy works... but really I'm a socialist by my own admission, and I think democracy isn't the answer to the worlds evils... its just a...lessor one
When you say "democracy," I believe what you actually mean is capitalism, because democracy isn't an economic system at all; it's only a form of political organization (and a very good one, when uncorrupted). Also, socialism is also about as truly democratic as it gets.
But I agree with you. Obama is either an extremely weak democrat, or he is a republican. I also definitely agree with the ideas of socialism and similar economic theories such as Marxism, and communism, (though straight up communism does entail a lot of things that I don't completely agree with, I still think it very much has the potential to be good as long as there is strong representative democracy). Also, if you're interested, I have an endless list of excellent reading material on political and economic theory.
I most closely identify as a Syndicalist, but by extension that sorta makes me a socialist as well. smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:12 pm
Your probably right, in that I KNOW I hate capitalism blaugh
just remember the old saying: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely
and sadly so far... our leaders at the top (elected democratically) are corrupted to the core
so I tend to have sour views on it sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:17 pm
Kin Wolfington Your probably right, in that I KNOW I hate capitalism blaugh just remember the old saying: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely and sadly so far... our leaders at the top (elected democratically) are corrupted to the core so I tend to have sour views on it sweatdrop
I feel that there is very little at all that is democratic about the way that politicians come into power, especially in the US.
But out of curiosity, what form of political organization would you prefer to democracy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:23 pm
hunter the peripatetic I feel that there is very little at all that is democratic about the way that politicians come into power, especially in the US.
But out of curiosity, what form of political organization would you prefer to democracy?
That's a difficult question... I mean I believe its a Oligarchy... where by its ruled over by a small body of people... but... i mean ultimately...it would have to be democratic in how they are voted into power... and ultimately its no different then what we have now in (Canada) and our system is horrible... its a total failure as far as I'm concerned. I think maybe if you could improve on the system... and create a cooperative body rather then a body of rulers that fight and bicker amongst themselves so that nothing gets accomplished... I think if they truly worked together for the betterment of ALL equally (socialist ideal) then THAT would be the best form. However it always seems to come back to corruption for me... and anytime there is a position of power... there is a chance for abuse and corruption of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:42 pm
Kin Wolfington That's a difficult question... I mean I believe its a Oligarchy... where by its ruled over by a small body of people... but... i mean ultimately...it would have to be democratic in how they are voted into power... and ultimately its no different then what we have now in (Canada) and our system is horrible... its a total failure as far as I'm concerned. I think maybe if you could improve on the system... and create a cooperative body rather then a body of rulers that fight and bicker amongst themselves so that nothing gets accomplished... I think if they truly worked together for the betterment of ALL equally (socialist ideal) then THAT would be the best form. However it always seems to come back to corruption for me... and anytime there is a position of power... there is a chance for abuse and corruption of it.
Well, in reality, the system we have in the US is a bit closer to an Oligarchy than to a representative democracy. Our presidents are elected by an electoral college of senate members who are elected by the people, not so dissimilar from the Canadian system. But here in the US a president hasn't been elected by means of popular vote since 1929.
Basically, it seems like you are looking at the current state of political organization here in the US as though it were actually a representative democracy. The problem with that is that the US could not be farther from a true representative democracy. It is actually a much more corrupted form of a system that loosely resembles the system that you are proposing.
The "stereotypical socialist response" would be that power belongs in the hands of the lowest social class, the proletariat, or working class.
Power is far more dangerous and easily corrupted when it is placed in the hands of the few, and taken away from the many.
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:52 pm
hunter the peripatetic Well, in reality, the system we have in the US is a bit closer to an Oligarchy than to a representative democracy. Our presidents are elected by an electoral college of senate members who are elected by the people, not so dissimilar from the Canadian system. But here in the US a president hasn't been elected by means of popular vote since 1929.
Basically, it seems like you are looking at the current state of political organization here in the US as though it were actually a representative democracy. The problem with that is that the US could not be farther from a true representative democracy. It is actually a much more corrupted form of a system that loosely resembles the system that you are proposing.
The "stereotypical socialist response" would be that power belongs in the hands of the lowest social class, the proletariat, or working class.
Power is far more dangerous and easily corrupted when it is placed in the hands of the few, and taken away from the many.
Your right of course, supreme courts being a prime example of too much power among too few, I just see how both our systems are now...how different parties essentially divide up the countries in 2-3... and they don't cooperate on anything...and while they fight and bicker... bad s**t gets slip under the radar or nothing of importance gets solved...its a circus really, if ya ever watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:54 pm
Kin Wolfington Your right of course, supreme courts being a prime example of too much power among too few, I just see how both our systems are now...how different parties essentially divide up the countries in 2-3... and they don't cooperate on anything...and while they fight and bicker... bad s**t gets slip under the radar or nothing of importance gets solved...its a circus really, if ya ever watch it.
Hahaha yeah!
..... *serious face*
I am always watching. o_____o
|
|
|
|
|
|
hunter the peripatetic Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kin Wolfington Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:58 pm
hunter the peripatetic
Hahaha yeah!
..... *serious face*
I am always watching. o_____o
le gasp! even when I pee?! blaugh
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
