Democracy?

[usjcaesar]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried from time to time." – Sir Winston Churchill

Though Churchill is among my top admired statesmen, I often wonder about the reality of this quote. Is Democracy the best out of the barrel of rotting fruit that is Government? Is it somehow destined to encircle the world and bring "freedom and justice" to all, Fukuyama's "End of History" ideal? Further, why do we Westerner believe that it is so great and that we are so free, willing to degrade any other country (such as Russia here on the forum often) that takes a different path.

The things we take as "rights and freedoms" do not occur in the traditions of other cultures or the early history of our own; they are the invention of the Enlightenment. This was a purely European phenomenon, is it not dangerous to force our novel ideas on other, far older nations just because "we know it is right."

Further, how free are we? This goes beyond the Patriot Act or any of that. Consider this quote for example.

“The press today is an army with carefully organized weapons, the journalists its officers, the readers its soldiers. But, as in every army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and operating plans change without his knowledge. The reader neither knows nor is supposed to know the purposes for which he is used and the role he is to play. There is no more appalling caricature of freedom of thought. Formerly no one was allowed to think freely; now it is permitted, but no one is capable of it any more. Now people want to think only what they are supposed to want to think, and this they consider freedom.”

The German philosopher Oswald Spengler wrote this in the 1920's, yet it still rings true with me today. So, which is better, Russia's and China's state television or Murdoch's Fox News and CNN? This is just one of our cherished "rights" that in the end does not seem worth preaching to the world.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I guess the point is that democracy allows CNN and Fox as well as other news centres. The freedom of choice and of speech are extremely important to someone who has tasted it - someone who is born imprisoned will believe he is normal, whereas one who is born free then imprisoned will not like it. We can't change democracy to any other system because of this freedom, but we can change other, less free systems of government to democratic government because, using the same analogy, an imprisoned man will enjoy freedom.

[Bokks]

Shyam Popat had a very good point.

There is also the fact that democracy itself by its weak control over a country actually depreciates the rights that people have. real democracy is barely a peg above communism, and is extremely susceptible to nationalism. The US is not a democratic country, it is a republic with some deomcratic flairs. The founding fathers who designs the constitution did so with the expressed intention of limiting democracy, as wthe democratic government that was established under the articles of confederation showed an inherent weakness. It's no coincedence that Shay's Rebellion was fought during the waning years of the Articles of Confederation; rebellions of all shapes and sizes are susceptible to radical movements and rebellions. Most people don't realize how clase the US was to becoming a totalitarian fascist country in the late 30's. In fact the Nazi movement here had a higher approval than it did in Germany. Were we a democracy instead of a republic that would have been the end of the US right then and there, since the only true democratic segment of our society--the public--was so easily permiated by fascist ideals.
Democracy limits freedom, but the reason it limits freedom is because it allows so much of it. All countries limit freedom, but the tend to do so by their inherent ideals. That is what Churchill meant, I think.

[Rush Limbaugh]

The US is not a democracy. It cracks me up When Bush or anyone else in government says they want to spread democracy around the world. If its not good for us why spread it around?

Or the is one

"Were making the world safe for democracy" LOL

[Bovril]

Maybe political democracy is meaningless (especially in its very limited, ultra-representational (rather than participatory) forms that exist at the moment) without economic and social democracy as well. Just a thought.

[Thanatos]

The US is not a democracy. It cracks me up When Bush or anyone else in government says they want to spread democracy around the world. If its not good for us why spread it around?

Or the is one

"Were making the world safe for democracy" LOL

Of course we're not. We're a socialist oligarchy.

[Dayman]

Of course we're not. We're a socialist oligarchy.

Not quite socialist yet. Maybe if Hilary gets elected then yes.

I want to go back to the Republic dammit!

[LoZz]

The US is not a democracy. It cracks me up When Bush or anyone else in government says they want to spread democracy around the world. If its not good for us why spread it around?

Or the is one

"Were making the world safe for democracy" LOL

its a republic!


though i think democracy is a little over-rated but its the best that has practically been thought up yet.

that said i would quite happly follow the queen till death so i wouldnt mind a return to the good old days

[Bokks]

its a republic!


though i think democracy is a little over-rated but its the best that has practically been thought up yet.

that said i would quite happly follow the queen till death so i wouldnt mind a return to the good old days

Not to stab your country, but the queen doesn't have any power anyway, does she?
I hear parliament is going to cut off her yearly stipend for grounds upkeeps and whatnot too.
Boy, when the history books say that Britains monarchs are poor, they're not lying.


Also, if you really hold onto the way the system is run in a sociological sense, we are sort of an oligarchy, but there is too much elasticity to move up in the social order for a true oligarchy, and we're way too economically capitalistically geared to be socialist.
I was just walking through campus about a half hour ago when I saw a car that had "Save Darfur: darfur.org" or whatever, and though to myself, "yeah, what are they going to do? Send a butt load of cash? That'll solve the problem" and then I realized, we really are so commercially geared we would think that that would solve the problem. Sad really...

[LoZz]

Not to stab your country, but the queen doesn't have any power anyway, does she?
I hear parliament is going to cut off her yearly stipend for grounds upkeeps and whatnot too.
Boy, when the history books say that Britains monarchs are poor, they're not lying.

any power she has is "symbolic" i think is the best way to describe it, she has it, but she doesn't use it.

and i have not heard of any such spending cuts, but it could happen, but i asure you she will still have far more money then you and i

[King Edward III]

though i think democracy is a little over-rated but its the best that has practically been thought up yet.

What about Absolute Monarchy?

Boy, when the history books say that Britains monarchs are poor, they're not lying.

I think we've had the best bunch of monarchs in the world really.

[Panzerbear]

democracy is just as an utopic idea as communism. it is impossible to achieve due to CORRUPT nature of humans. it is not a good or bad thing, it is a fact.

voting for your leaders is a great virtue, but reality is such that we vote for someone who is the best liar among all other crooks. the minute they step into the office, they vote for 1) according to their Party decisions, 2) according to what the "interest groups/sponsors" want them to do, and only 3) according to what the general people want. some people even view their city mayors as corrupt bastards. what the hell do you expect from senators and presidents ?

[Dayman]

I think we've had the best bunch of monarchs in the world really.

Like yourself?

[King Edward III]

Like yourself?

Well Edward III was certainly a good king.

[Bokks]

I think we've had the best bunch of monarchs in the world really.

I'm sorry; you misinterpret what I meant, or rather I did a bad job at presenting it.
All through Englands history the monarchs have been monetarily poor, and therefore have hed to rely on parliament to appropriate funds for such things as declaring war and other comparatively costly things. Constrastly other monarchs, generally absolute monarchs such as Spain or France... or Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Bavaria, etc., have been very rich, and so have not required a parliament or estates general to appropriate funds.
The parliament of Britain has always had power of the purse, they can raise taxes and allocate tax funds to different causes, while the monarch has not.
And yes, Queen Lizzy II will lose more money tomorrow than I'll ever make, but the issue here with parliament cutting off her salary is that the lands that she owns and therefore must take care of due to their historical significance to British history are extremely costly, and may outway what she gains from interest and rent.

I would agree that Britains monarchs have been the most effective in the world, but the question there that connects to the original topic may be whether or not such success is derived from the fact that it is a constitutional monarch, or a monarch based in a fairly democratic country?

[LoZz]

I'm sorry; you misinterpret what I meant, or rather I did a bad job at presenting it.
All through Englands history the monarchs have been monetarily poor, and therefore have hed to rely on parliament to appropriate funds for such things as declaring war and other comparatively costly things. Constrastly other monarchs, generally absolute monarchs such as Spain or France... or Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Bavaria, etc., have been very rich, and so have not required a parliament or estates general to appropriate funds.
The parliament of Britain has always had power of the purse, they can raise taxes and allocate tax funds to different causes, while the monarch has not.
And yes, Queen Lizzy II will lose more money tomorrow than I'll ever make, but the issue here with parliament cutting off her salary is that the lands that she owns and therefore must take care of due to their historical significance to British history are extremely costly, and may outway what she gains from interest and rent.

I would agree that Britains monarchs have been the most effective in the world, but the question there that connects to the original topic may be whether or not such success is derived from the fact that it is a constitutional monarch, or a monarch based in a fairly democratic country?

hmm.... the british monarchy is pritty damn rich i asure you, and it was richer, it only gets its money from paraliament now because of the english civil war, it used to be just as rich as all the other european ones where/are.

[Lunatic1701]

What I think Churchill meant is pretty much what he said. That Democracy doesn't work. However other forms of government don't work to a greater extent so we're simply choosing the best of a choice of bad situations. I agree.

[Earl of Rochester]

The US is not a democracy. It cracks me up When Bush or anyone else in government says they want to spread democracy around the world. If its not good for us why spread it around?

Or the is one

"Were making the world safe for democracy" LOL

You know, your playing a semantics game. One that you are loosing.

A Republic is a type of democracy. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with this concept.

[Rush Limbaugh]

You know, your playing a semantics game. One that you are loosing.

I dont think so. The FFs hated democracy

A Republic is a type of democracy. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with this concept.

That are quite different types of government. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with this concept. In a democracy there is no protection for the minority. We dont even really vote on the president.

[LoZz]

I dont think so. The FFs hated democracy



That are quite different types of government. I don't understand why you have such a hard time with this concept. In a democracy there is no protection for the minority. We dont even really vote on the president.

you vote for the person you want, the person with the most votes wins. how is that not really voting for a president?