IMO democracy, in reality, is GENERALLY not about the masses controlling everything. It is more about the richest and most powerful convincing the rest of the people in the country that they have an interest in this country, and through symbolism like flags, national anthems, patriotism, and idealized versions of history of how the country formed, they do exactly this. If we think about every major position and issue, most often it comes from the top and then people pick a side based on that. The choices are already given to us.
Of course, there are many un intended side effects of a system like this even if the richest/most powerful (who are also not always entirely in agreement) pull the final strings when public opinion truly is weighted to a specific side. When many countries started to move to some form of mass democracy, it wasn't because it was truly better, but it was a way to attmept to convince the people that they do have that stake and are willing to sacrifice; and the results was not always controllable. The examples that I'm most familiar with are China and the end of their monarchy as they switched to constitional democracy/republic (and then got side tracked in a dictatorship lol).
I once brought up a topic like this and Vic had a really good reply:
The thugs maybe the ones who are really in control, but when they are not necessarily in agreements, its hard for them to try to be overbearing on the lives of all the citizens. And that is why I think democracy is a better system, save for an enlightened ruler/person from God - because the rulers cannot oppress/be overbearing on a population to the level that a dictatorship can.
Of course, there are many un intended side effects of a system like this even if the richest/most powerful (who are also not always entirely in agreement) pull the final strings when public opinion truly is weighted to a specific side. When many countries started to move to some form of mass democracy, it wasn't because it was truly better, but it was a way to attmept to convince the people that they do have that stake and are willing to sacrifice; and the results was not always controllable. The examples that I'm most familiar with are China and the end of their monarchy as they switched to constitional democracy/republic (and then got side tracked in a dictatorship lol).
I once brought up a topic like this and Vic had a really good reply:
The thugs maybe the ones who are really in control, but when they are not necessarily in agreements, its hard for them to try to be overbearing on the lives of all the citizens. And that is why I think democracy is a better system, save for an enlightened ruler/person from God - because the rulers cannot oppress/be overbearing on a population to the level that a dictatorship can.
edit:
Would you be willing to participate in breeding programs lasting thousands of years lol and potentially killed/regenerated at any given time?
Re.: stagnation
For the most part I think this is the best part about our system and the reason it was designed the way it is.
Premise: absolute power corrupts absolutely
Solution: prevent absolute power
Result: three groups (executive, legislative, judicial) bicker amongst themselves, keep each other honest, and prevent the government from taking complete control over everything.
Granted, we're getting there (complete gov't control) but it has, at least, been slow.
Also I agree with whoever posted (above) that the government is a reflection of the people. "We get the government we deserve." America's morality and culture has been in a steady decay to be mirrored by the government. In my opinion, that is the root of all the problems we've had recently.
For the most part I think this is the best part about our system and the reason it was designed the way it is.
Premise: absolute power corrupts absolutely
Solution: prevent absolute power
Result: three groups (executive, legislative, judicial) bicker amongst themselves, keep each other honest, and prevent the government from taking complete control over everything.
Granted, we're getting there (complete gov't control) but it has, at least, been slow.
Also I agree with whoever posted (above) that the government is a reflection of the people. "We get the government we deserve." America's morality and culture has been in a steady decay to be mirrored by the government. In my opinion, that is the root of all the problems we've had recently.
I'm sure I'm not the only one to think TOO MUCH has been done the last 9yrs or so.
Maybe, but thats supposed to offer balance in case one was over the top, the next could correct it and we wouldn't have to wait for the SOB to die before changes were made. Although, we are seeing less and less of the "change" we were promised lately.
Its always been a game. Cheer for red or blue, donkey or elephant. The differences as of late are getting harder to differentiate, good thing they are color coded
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Bullshit. I have studied the pros and cons of our version of a democracy, along with any viable alternatives, for decades. I also decided long ago to personally defend our beloved form of government against all enemies.
I then read your post.
The fact that you haven't "thought this through" is quite obvious, son... but hey, at least you admitted to being clueless... that's a good start!
Wanna talk about bullshit?
Either you are lying about having read my post, or you can't read period. You have no idea what I haven't thought through and what I have. You think I'm attacking the democratic system and consider me the "enemy" despite what I stated in the beginning of my OP.
You studied the pros and cons of democracy? What a joke. If you actually did any studying, you'd be countering my statements with rational arguments instead of trying to frame me as a clueless enemy of the state.
"Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice."
- Joyce Carol Oates
Here is some food for thought: compare the past 50 years of that super-efficient Chinese society you speak of, and of ours. Then realize how stupid you sound.
I just wish all people could learn to read the actual post before responding with an idiotic statement. Just wishful thinking.
What you're saying is actually worse than if I said "While Hitler's rule was bad, Nazi Germany did not have some of the problems we do and we should look to them for an example in some areas." Is that correct? Yes, because every statement is qualified. Does it recognize the fact that you want our model, the most successful in the world, to follow the most horrific human catastrophe in history (The Great Leap Forward)? No.
Primary elections would simply be elections within the factions of the same party. If you consider the fact that the Democrats and Republicans are both authoritarian, big government, capitalistic parties you could say that the current situation we have is simply a 'primary election' within one big party. The distinctions you are trying to draw don't necessarily exist.
palehorse
Lifer
- Dec 21, 2005
- 11,521
- 0
- 76
Your OP is nothing more than emotionally inspired bullshit followed by what is possibly the worst idea in the history of government: a one party system.
You're not an "enemy of the state" because you pose no real threat to anyone but yourself... and that is because you're just a stupid kid.
Firstly, your getting your government systems mixed up. The government in place now in China is a socialist republic, far different from the communist government that ruled over the GLF during the 1950s.
Secondly, I NEVER stated that we should look to China for answers. Read my post again. All I am doing is comparing the two forms of government, and noting that the current Chinese system, while often demonized, does have benefits over our own system. It was a comparison to demonstrate where our form of governance has weaknesses, with China being used as an example to dramatize the gaps.
I thought fdr's long reign was the very reason we have term limits now - repugs wanted a chance at power again.
This post was an analysis of certain observations about our government that I had. I am in no way an expert on politics, nor am I claiming to be one. I accept the notion that I may be 100% wrong in my views on the subject.
In fact, if you had enough intelligence and knowledge, you could very well articulate in a rational and thoughtful way just exactly how I am wrong in my line of thinking. And if you were to do this then I would be forced to change my position.
Instead you choose to attack me, because of either:
A. You are not smart enough to debate me on an intellectual level
B. You actually realize I'm right yet you don't want to admit it
As it stands, your proof that the 2nd line in my OP is correct; Some Americans thinking democracy is the ultimate form of government that is the best thing we have and always will have. I personally consider this point of view, your point of view, very narrowminded and ignorant.
Well as I've stated earlier, the one party democratic system idea was something that came off the top of my head.
But I guess I'll attempt to defend it nevertheless.
I'll start by arguing that the distinctions I draw do exist, because the two parties we have now are at opposite ends of a long political spectrum. If we only had one party, I would argue that the political spectrum would become narrower, leading to many benefits:
1. Mass media, and thus American people, would be closer together within the political spectrum. This would lead to less of the harsh bickering and back and forths between those at opposite ends of the spectrum that we see today. (This is under the assumption that society is in congruence with the political sphere)
2. Because of the narrowing of the political spectrum, important bills would be passed faster, with greater ease. We would also be able to set long term initiatives and have them met, because successor presidents would be closer to their predecessor in terms of policy.
Just two I can think of right now, but I'm sure there are more.
I'm not going to argue that the one party idea is the best alternative we have... just one that came to me while writing the OP. I'm sure someone can easily come up with a better solution.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 397
Facebook
Twitter