Quick question: Do you feel that democracy is good for all cultures?

[Kibbo]

I think that to have good govenment, (and I use the term loosely) there must be competition. Only if a government can lose power, will it act effectively.

Democracy is the only system I know of that allows a peaceful transition of power. I suppose any system that accomplishes the same thing would work as well.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

There are other societies where they don't have elections. Tribal societies, religious societies. People there have lived that way for thousands of years and have been content to do so. Are you going to kill them too?

If people wish to rebel, then I am for it. I was glad to see Saddam go. I was not glad we waged war on the Iraqis.

You can twist and wiggle all you want in your attempts to not answer the question but it's plain to see you only want to whine about Iraq. This isn't just about Iraq incase you didn't understand that.

Here, I'll phrase my question a different way. Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

CsG

Suppose that there were a benevelent dictator? One who had the interests of his people at heart, but was not going to surrender power. Suppose the people wanted him in power?
Then my answer would be that it is valid because the people are behind him.

Now if the situation were different, and the leader was not wanted, then I feel the opposite.

I also feel that if a person is democratically elected, but then takes matters in his hands and acts in such a way that harms the citizens, and they want him out for cause before the end of his term, then he doesn't represent the people and therefore self determination and freedom would not be even in a democratic setting. BTW, I am making a general statement here, and not referring to Bush or any other politician. I don't like Bush, but he won the election and hasn't done the degree of harm that IMO qualifies for my scenario.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
No. Democracy, in general, is a tyrannical form of government. In a democracy, the majority rules. We were set up as a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the highest law in the land which re-affirms our God-given natural rights. Even if the majority want, say, guns banned or overwhelm the rich & successful with taxes, it would not happen. Sadly, it is happening which means our Republic is no more.

As the framers of our Constitution stated - this Constitution is for a just and moral people. It is wholy inadequate for anyone else. We are no longer a just and moral people - I blame the liberals, Democrats, ACLU, and Federal Reserve for that.

Hahaha...I'll admit you do have a little truth mixed in with your nonsense. 😀 Just a reminder though, democracy means rule by the people, it does not imply majority rules.

Merriam-Webster definition

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

 

[TheBDB]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: TheBDB

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
No. Democracy, in general, is a tyrannical form of government. In a democracy, the majority rules. We were set up as a Constitutional Republic where the Constitution and Bill of Rights are the highest law in the land which re-affirms our God-given natural rights. Even if the majority want, say, guns banned or overwhelm the rich & successful with taxes, it would not happen. Sadly, it is happening which means our Republic is no more.

As the framers of our Constitution stated - this Constitution is for a just and moral people. It is wholy inadequate for anyone else. We are no longer a just and moral people - I blame the liberals, Democrats, ACLU, and Federal Reserve for that.

Hahaha...I'll admit you do have a little truth mixed in with your nonsense. 😀 Just a reminder though, democracy means rule by the people, it does not imply majority rules.

Merriam-Webster definition

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

DOH! Ok, let me rephrase. It DOES imply majority rule, but it isn't a necessary condition. 😀 I was just thinking of the most basic definition. 😱

 

[illustri]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Do you feel that democracy is good for all cultures?"

Of course not. Some people just can't be trusted to determine their leaders and policies. They are cattle and should be thankful that a culture can exist to keep them in their place whether they want to or not.

of course you know better than they whats good for them

is democracy good for all cultures ? no.
if democracy good for all countries? yea i'd like to think so

 

[Mursilis]

I like what Sir Winston Churchill said on the subject:

Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I agree; democracy is awful, but it's better than nearly everything else. Sir Winston also said:

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.

Exactly. :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

There are other societies where they don't have elections. Tribal societies, religious societies. People there have lived that way for thousands of years and have been content to do so. Are you going to kill them too?

If people wish to rebel, then I am for it. I was glad to see Saddam go. I was not glad we waged war on the Iraqis.

You can twist and wiggle all you want in your attempts to not answer the question but it's plain to see you only want to whine about Iraq. This isn't just about Iraq incase you didn't understand that.

Here, I'll phrase my question a different way. Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

CsG

Suppose that there were a benevelent dictator? One who had the interests of his people at heart, but was not going to surrender power. Suppose the people wanted him in power?
Then my answer would be that it is valid because the people are behind him.

Now if the situation were different, and the leader was not wanted, then I feel the opposite.

I also feel that if a person is democratically elected, but then takes matters in his hands and acts in such a way that harms the citizens, and they want him out for cause before the end of his term, then he doesn't represent the people and therefore self determination and freedom would not be even in a democratic setting. BTW, I am making a general statement here, and not referring to Bush or any other politician. I don't like Bush, but he won the election and hasn't done the degree of harm that IMO qualifies for my scenario.

Still evading... go figure:roll:

Now as to your little dictator apologist scenario: Who says this dictator's hold on power is in the interest of the people? How do you know the people want him there - you don't. Adding "benevolent" in front of dictator doesn't change things.
Now care to answer my question(s)?

CsG

 

[miketheidiot]

democracy is better but it seems that some people don't deserve it.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

Nobody got shot who didn't shoot first. Go to Iraq and tell the terrorists there to give peace a chance....they're the ones starting the fights.

THEY started it? huh?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Do you feel that democracy is good for all cultures?"

Of course not. Some people just can't be trusted to determine their leaders and policies. They are cattle and should be thankful that a culture can exist to keep them in their place whether they want to or not.

you are one of those people. :thumbsup:

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Do you feel that democracy is good for all cultures?"

Of course not. Some people just can't be trusted to determine their leaders and policies. They are cattle and should be thankful that a culture can exist to keep them in their place whether they want to or not.

you are one of those people. :thumbsup:

:laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
"Do you feel that democracy is good for all cultures?"

Of course not. Some people just can't be trusted to determine their leaders and policies. They are cattle and should be thankful that a culture can exist to keep them in their place whether they want to or not.

Hehe:laugh: - I must have missed this earlier. Good one.😛

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

There are other societies where they don't have elections. Tribal societies, religious societies. People there have lived that way for thousands of years and have been content to do so. Are you going to kill them too?

If people wish to rebel, then I am for it. I was glad to see Saddam go. I was not glad we waged war on the Iraqis.

You can twist and wiggle all you want in your attempts to not answer the question but it's plain to see you only want to whine about Iraq. This isn't just about Iraq incase you didn't understand that.

Here, I'll phrase my question a different way. Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

CsG

Suppose that there were a benevelent dictator? One who had the interests of his people at heart, but was not going to surrender power. Suppose the people wanted him in power?
Then my answer would be that it is valid because the people are behind him.

Now if the situation were different, and the leader was not wanted, then I feel the opposite.

I also feel that if a person is democratically elected, but then takes matters in his hands and acts in such a way that harms the citizens, and they want him out for cause before the end of his term, then he doesn't represent the people and therefore self determination and freedom would not be even in a democratic setting. BTW, I am making a general statement here, and not referring to Bush or any other politician. I don't like Bush, but he won the election and hasn't done the degree of harm that IMO qualifies for my scenario.

Still evading... go figure:roll:

Now as to your little dictator apologist scenario: Who says this dictator's hold on power is in the interest of the people? How do you know the people want him there - you don't. Adding "benevolent" in front of dictator doesn't change things.
Now care to answer my question(s)?

CsG

I did answer your question. You just don't like it. You are being a prick about it, while I have been pretty respectful and gave you an honest answer.

Who said it? I did. We weren't talking about individuals, but scenarios. I gave one. There have been benevolent monarchies, and kings are dictators by a different name. Many were loved by those living under their rule. The problem is that like dictators, kings don't willingly surrender power. That leads to lots of potential abuses, and no doubt most dictators are NOT kindly souls.

There are occasions when people are satisfied with what they have. If they are, then they are entitled to be happy without your approval.

If this answer doesnt suffice, then take you attitude and shove it. No wonder people around here can't have a decent discussion.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

There are other societies where they don't have elections. Tribal societies, religious societies. People there have lived that way for thousands of years and have been content to do so. Are you going to kill them too?

If people wish to rebel, then I am for it. I was glad to see Saddam go. I was not glad we waged war on the Iraqis.

You can twist and wiggle all you want in your attempts to not answer the question but it's plain to see you only want to whine about Iraq. This isn't just about Iraq incase you didn't understand that.

Here, I'll phrase my question a different way. Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

CsG

Suppose that there were a benevelent dictator? One who had the interests of his people at heart, but was not going to surrender power. Suppose the people wanted him in power?
Then my answer would be that it is valid because the people are behind him.

Now if the situation were different, and the leader was not wanted, then I feel the opposite.

I also feel that if a person is democratically elected, but then takes matters in his hands and acts in such a way that harms the citizens, and they want him out for cause before the end of his term, then he doesn't represent the people and therefore self determination and freedom would not be even in a democratic setting. BTW, I am making a general statement here, and not referring to Bush or any other politician. I don't like Bush, but he won the election and hasn't done the degree of harm that IMO qualifies for my scenario.

Still evading... go figure:roll:

Now as to your little dictator apologist scenario: Who says this dictator's hold on power is in the interest of the people? How do you know the people want him there - you don't. Adding "benevolent" in front of dictator doesn't change things.
Now care to answer my question(s)?

CsG

I did answer your question. You just don't like it. You are being a prick about it, while I have been pretty respectful and gave you an honest answer.

Who said it? I did. We weren't talking about individuals, but scenarios. I gave one. There have been benevolent monarchies, and kings are dictators by a different name. Many were loved by those living under their rule. The problem is that like dictators, kings don't willingly surrender power. That leads to lots of potential abuses, and no doubt most dictators are NOT kindly souls.

There are occasions when people are satisfied with what they have. If they are, then they are entitled to be happy without your approval.

If this answer doesnt suffice, then take you attitude and shove it. No wonder people around here can't have a decent discussion.

:thumbsup:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

Does that include dictators? Do the people speak for that "right of self determination" or does the dictator?

CsG

Does your democracy include killing people against their wishes to free them?

There are other societies where they don't have elections. Tribal societies, religious societies. People there have lived that way for thousands of years and have been content to do so. Are you going to kill them too?

If people wish to rebel, then I am for it. I was glad to see Saddam go. I was not glad we waged war on the Iraqis.

You can twist and wiggle all you want in your attempts to not answer the question but it's plain to see you only want to whine about Iraq. This isn't just about Iraq incase you didn't understand that.

Here, I'll phrase my question a different way. Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

CsG

Suppose that there were a benevelent dictator? One who had the interests of his people at heart, but was not going to surrender power. Suppose the people wanted him in power?
Then my answer would be that it is valid because the people are behind him.

Now if the situation were different, and the leader was not wanted, then I feel the opposite.

I also feel that if a person is democratically elected, but then takes matters in his hands and acts in such a way that harms the citizens, and they want him out for cause before the end of his term, then he doesn't represent the people and therefore self determination and freedom would not be even in a democratic setting. BTW, I am making a general statement here, and not referring to Bush or any other politician. I don't like Bush, but he won the election and hasn't done the degree of harm that IMO qualifies for my scenario.

Still evading... go figure:roll:

Now as to your little dictator apologist scenario: Who says this dictator's hold on power is in the interest of the people? How do you know the people want him there - you don't. Adding "benevolent" in front of dictator doesn't change things.
Now care to answer my question(s)?

CsG

I did answer your question. You just don't like it. You are being a prick about it, while I have been pretty respectful and gave you an honest answer.

Who said it? I did. We weren't talking about individuals, but scenarios. I gave one. There have been benevolent monarchies, and kings are dictators by a different name. Many were loved by those living under their rule. The problem is that like dictators, kings don't willingly surrender power. That leads to lots of potential abuses, and no doubt most dictators are NOT kindly souls.

There are occasions when people are satisfied with what they have. If they are, then they are entitled to be happy without your approval.

If this answer doesnt suffice, then take you attitude and shove it. No wonder people around here can't have a decent discussion.

So your answer was "yes" to:

Do you think Dictatorships are valid forms of countries with "self determination"?

Why was it so hard to answer directly?

then take you attitude and shove it. No wonder people around here can't have a decent discussion

Hehe - a tad ironic - no?:laugh:

BTW - Dictators by definition is an absolute ruler and/or one who rules tyrannically. How exactly does one do this nicely? How exactly does one know that the people want it? How exactly is this "self-determination"? Because an dictator says so?

One more question - Do you believe that all men yearn for freedom?

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

"One more question - Do you believe that all men yearn for freedom?"

Most do, but our definitions of freedom are probably different like most things.

There is a fellow that was in prison in the USSR. You may have heard about him.

He maintains that he was free because he could say anything he wished, while the guards were in slavery because they could not.

Now is he right, or is he delusional?

Free men can be prisoners of themselves, and prisoners can be free.

I think what the human spirit wants most is that inner freedom.

Is that what you mean?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"One more question - Do you believe that all men yearn for freedom?"

Most do, but our definitions of freedom are probably different like most things.

There is a fellow that was in prison in the USSR. You may have heard about him.

He maintains that he was free because he could say anything he wished, while the guards were in slavery because they could not.

Now is he right, or is he delusional?

Free men can be prisoners of themselves, and prisoners can be free.

I think what the human spirit wants most is that inner freedom.

Is that what you mean?

It can mean inner freedom, however this is about governing. Ofcourse some might think imprisonment is "freedom" - but I submit that the man didn't know freedom - just inner peace. Making peace with your situation is not "freedom" IMO.

Now about those questions...

CsG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"One more question - Do you believe that all men yearn for freedom?"

Most do, but our definitions of freedom are probably different like most things.

There is a fellow that was in prison in the USSR. You may have heard about him.

He maintains that he was free because he could say anything he wished, while the guards were in slavery because they could not.

Now is he right, or is he delusional?

Free men can be prisoners of themselves, and prisoners can be free.

I think what the human spirit wants most is that inner freedom.

Is that what you mean?

It can mean inner freedom, however this is about governing. Ofcourse some might think imprisonment is "freedom" - but I submit that the man didn't know freedom - just inner peace. Making peace with your situation is not "freedom" IMO.

Now about those questions...

CsG

<Sigh>
In America, Europe etc, yes people want that freedom. In Afghanistan, most people in the country side do not. Why? Because of tribal fealty. People there are content and happy to be living under the rule of the local chief. They aren't concerned that they didn't vote for him. BTW, this was explaned to me by a few people who are from Afghanistan, so it isn't a hypothetical.

So the answer depends on who you ask. If you ask ME what I want, I want to have a voice in government. In fact I insist on it. If I were born elsewhere, then I might give a different answer. It depends on culture.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
"One more question - Do you believe that all men yearn for freedom?"

Most do, but our definitions of freedom are probably different like most things.

There is a fellow that was in prison in the USSR. You may have heard about him.

He maintains that he was free because he could say anything he wished, while the guards were in slavery because they could not.

Now is he right, or is he delusional?

Free men can be prisoners of themselves, and prisoners can be free.

I think what the human spirit wants most is that inner freedom.

Is that what you mean?

It can mean inner freedom, however this is about governing. Ofcourse some might think imprisonment is "freedom" - but I submit that the man didn't know freedom - just inner peace. Making peace with your situation is not "freedom" IMO.

Now about those questions...

CsG

<Sigh>
In America, Europe etc, yes people want that freedom. In Afghanistan, most people in the country side do not. Why? Because of tribal fealty. People there are content and happy to be living under the rule of the local chief. They aren't concerned that they didn't vote for him. BTW, this was explaned to me by a few people who are from Afghanistan, so it isn't a hypothetical.

So the answer depends on who you ask. If you ask ME what I want, I want to have a voice in government. In fact I insist on it. If I were born elsewhere, then I might give a different answer. It depends on culture.

<SIGH> 😛

Again, as I stated - making peace with your situation isn't freedom IMO. Also the it's how they do things or they don't know any different sort of answer doesn't mean they have freedom. But anyway, IMO, tribal councils are a democracy or atleast a representative democracy of sorts.

questions...

CsG

 

[judasmachine]

my people were not democratic, but were free, and happy.

 

[Mursilis]

Speaking of democracy, are there any in the world which aren't in deficit most of the time? The U.S., Japan, and most of Europe sure seem to be. Someone once said that a democratic government will collapse as soon as the populace realize they can vote themselves 'benefits' out of the public treasury. "Free" money sure sounds nice, except it's impossible to sustain perpetual deficits. Fiscal irresponsibilty seems to be democracy's Achille's heel.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Speaking of democracy, are there any in the world which aren't in deficit most of the time? The U.S., Japan, and most of Europe sure seem to be. Someone once said that a democratic government will collapse as soon as the populace realize they can vote themselves 'benefits' out of the public treasury. "Free" money sure sounds nice, except it's impossible to sustain perpetual deficits. Fiscal irresponsibilty seems to be democracy's Achille's heel.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Speaking of democracy, are there any in the world which aren't in deficit most of the time? The U.S., Japan, and most of Europe sure seem to be. Someone once said that a democratic government will collapse as soon as the populace realize they can vote themselves 'benefits' out of the public treasury. "Free" money sure sounds nice, except it's impossible to sustain perpetual deficits. Fiscal irresponsibilty seems to be democracy's Achille's heel.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

Ah, thanks; that first one was the quote I had in mind. As we see today, so very, very true. Sad.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Speaking of democracy, are there any in the world which aren't in deficit most of the time? The U.S., Japan, and most of Europe sure seem to be. Someone once said that a democratic government will collapse as soon as the populace realize they can vote themselves 'benefits' out of the public treasury. "Free" money sure sounds nice, except it's impossible to sustain perpetual deficits. Fiscal irresponsibilty seems to be democracy's Achille's heel.

When the thirteen colonies were still a part of England, Professor Alexander Tyler wrote about the fall of the Athenian republic over two thousand years previous to that time:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage.

Alexander Tyler

Ah, thanks; that first one was the quote I had in mind. As we see today, so very, very true. Sad.

Note that it's been 200+ years since our civilization started. I think we are at the "apathy to dependency" part, very close to bondage. The reason is that we are depending on China and Japan to keep buying our US Treasuries to keep our interest rates low. We depend on foreigners for energy, raw materials, services, etc. We have been hollowed out.

 

[phillyTIM]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
I believe every country has the right of self determination without being threatened by the aggression of others.

DITTO - well said, Winston! Each culture is different and there are enough people to change their society to what they want it to be, regardless of a saddam-like figure or not.

People around here shouldn't allow their bleeding-heart diatribe to blind them to realtiy.