• beyondtheveil said on May 13, 2009....

  voltaire- The rise of democracy and much greater population has allowed ruling elite to provide things like constitutions and 'rights' to give a false sense of security to the people while the power back rooms filled with men with golf clubs rob them blind. 

• Voltaire said on May 13, 2009....

  Beyond,
  That's part of the point, to. Your 100% correct.
  

• gingersoul said on May 13, 2009....

  True democracy left this planet many years ago....i agree with you two...
  
  So......do we need another name for the kind of "democracy' some countries indeed have? Or we keep calling it in that way?
  
  And, whatever we want call IT.....better this kind of pseudo democracy than explicit regimes or anarchy.....
  If there is something better...what would it be, in your opinion? Some alternative communities all over the world have been trying to apply a different concept of social togetherness...the majority have failed, some had to adapt and some still struggle...
  
  I believe that comparing our societies to the animals is only an useless exercise. Even though i agree than a common urge of competitiveness and individualistic push is the underline of any evolution. Only the strongest win and adapt.
  
  What could be a new model for society in the new millenium? If we ever reach that milestone?
  
    
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 13, 2009....

  The fact is that the opposite is almost true.  All things work out democratically.  It is the unavoidable fate of the universe.  Now that unavoidable fate has agreed to let a few people rule but that's because the majority of us don't give a shit so long as it doesn't directly effect us.  Make no mistake, a pride of lions is dominated by a single male because several females don't kill him.  They really do have that option seeing as they out number him.

  The current model seems to basically work anyway and I see no great reason to shake the foundation. 

• Voltaire said on May 14, 2009....

  Sean,
  Interesting point of view. As for the pack of lions, yes they can do it, but rarely do.
  The single male fills a purpose within the pack, I suppose although I do not specifically know what it is except for breeding.
  Else there would be nomad packs of females. And lonely males.
  Males keep up the territory as well.
  
  In theory of course it can happen, I have yet to hear about such a event though.
  Theory and practice are most often different.
  
  I will have to consider better arguments, I'm off to take a exam soon and in the lack of time I can't do this now.
  
  GingerSoul,
  It appears the name will remain, people like it.
  No the animals had a point, it was to make it more clear to more people.
  
  The closest I see in direct democracy as Switzerland has, today as a political system.
  

• GrapeKoolaid said on May 14, 2009....

  I read somewhere that "only a nation of morons would elect an idiot president".  :D
  
  The truth of the matter is, people get the kind of government that they deserve.  If Americans are only interested in bread and circus and entertainment news, why shouldn't the people up top, with no sense of history or cultural allegiance (eroded due to trans-national corporate structure and unfettered capitalism) rob everyone blind down to the last penny? 
  
  I agree with you. 
  
  This is fact #5:  Democracy is garbage.  Most people are fools, and the choices they make are foolish. Democracy wants these foolish choices to rule us. You have to be insane to think it's a good idea.
  
  I have 13 others if you're interested in it.  :)
  

• Voltaire said on May 14, 2009....

  ...so long as it doesn't directly effect us.
  
  It does always affect us, maybe not in a direct manner, or maybe you don't see it.
  Those that rule play behind the scenes, not in the city park; not open in public.
  
  The current model seems to basically work anyway and I see no great reason to shake the foundation. 
  
  So you think there is no need for improvement?
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 14, 2009....

  There is a chasm of difference between thinking there is no need for improvement and thinking that the system is sound.

  We all get to vote for the President, each state picks its senators and congress men who in turn decide our laws.  To let it all pass down to the masses would take FOR FUCKING EVER.  True democracy can't function in a society as large as ours.  It simply can't. 

  If there was anything I think could be improved on our basic model it's that I think it should be easier to remove individuals from office but that may be ignorance on my part.  It seems to me that when I see how powerful the internet is if we REALLY wanted to recall members of Congress it would take twenty minutes on Facebook and six hours of six hundre people driving to get the required signatures.  We don't and we don't because we basically don't care.

  It's human nature not to care about shit that doesn't directly effect you.  And I mean DIRECTLY.  Like it needs to have significant and immediate measurable effects on your basic life.  There is a reason why something like 50% of the nation doesn't vote.  And that reason is that no matter how big a fuck up Bush was he was a guy on television saying things.  He didn't feed me, he didn't kidnap anybody I know.  He sent me to war once though. . .but I got over it.

  Yes I think the model basically works though.  IT's like asking do I think that cars work.  Yes cars work.  Would it be awesome if they could run on trash and fly?  Yeah but neither seems really feasible.  We can keep working on improving the safety, comfort, gas mileage etc etc but still car, four wheels and an engine seems sound.

• Voltaire said on May 15, 2009....

  True democracy can't function in a society as large as ours.
  
  True that is, it would be extremely costly and time consuming.
  Not only so, the human ego is also a problem. Part of my point.
  A utopia really.
  
  It works, sure.
   If the striving for improvements stop, so will development. Good point though
  

• stopmediabias said on May 15, 2009....

  Democracy is responsible for creating the greatest vehicle for wealth and prosperity the world has ever seen in the shortest amount of time.  We are more of a democracy with a mix of socialism and will probably be socialism with a mix of democracy soon.  The reason we have pinheads who use terms like "unfettered capitalism" is because nearly every other form of governments either under perform or are a disaster and this liberal notion of the poor and downtrodden is because of an unfair system is just silly.  Capitalism kicks people in the ass and says simply -how much you want to make is determined by how bad you want it and how hard you are willing to work- 

  We should strive for Democracy in its purest form, when the people are the driving force and the Government assists and nudges then gets out of the way that is what creates prosperity and peace.  

• javadewd said on May 15, 2009....

  Okay, I'm confused. Yes, animals are territorial. The ones you describe are also "pack" animals... They travel in groups and have a social structure. You use Feudalism [as an analogy?] to describe a type of Neo-Feudalism while in essence the idea of a Republic is actually how most democracies are now. Granted I guess with all of the socialism coming down the pike, we could easily become some sort of Neo-Feudalistic society, but to what gain? There is no advantage to end up in this state of "one-party-ness." God forbid if the left actually think that by becoming a one-party society that they will silence conservative and traditional values and with that we will all roll over and become bisexual overnight, I believe I would be one to fight that particular paradigm. How about the rest of you?
  

• beyondtheveil said on May 15, 2009....

  java- One party system, any party, is out of the question. They normally call those tyrannies. 

• javadewd said on May 15, 2009....

  Only if it's one man... Otherwise it's called an Oligarchy or Socialism... Hence USSR.

• SeanRenaud said on May 15, 2009....

  I'm not suggesting we don't strive for improvement.  I'm stating that there is a difference between improving an existing structure and tearing everything down and starting again.

• javadewd said on May 16, 2009....

  Tell that to the Socialists!

• beyondtheveil said on May 16, 2009....

  java- Now I'm confused. I don't know what you want. Do you want a right wing one party system where the party chooses the candidate and we all vote for him?
  
  To answer your question, yes, I would fight the left in a one party system. Yes, I would fight the right in a one party system. I think we both would.
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 16, 2009....

  You can't have a one party system without a dictator ship so most likely you wouldn't fight a one party system because the risks wouldn't equal the rewards.

• beyondtheveil said on May 16, 2009....

  SR- They fought the PRI in Mexico for years and finally established another competitive party. The PRI had complete power for decades, naming one president after the other. Another party existed but pretty much in name only. And what about Russia and the Communist party? Many Latin American parties have been overthrown.
  
  Most likely? Perhaps. I don't know. That would likely depend on how you were doing under that present system.
  

• Voltaire said on May 16, 2009....

  Java,
  Yes a analogy.
  
  Sean,
  Yes true, but sometimes parts of the old structure need to be replaced in order to improve, don't you think?
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 16, 2009....

  Beyond:  The PRI in Mexico was a hair shy of a dictatorship from all I've read and the same goes for most of those Latin parties.  They run the country to such an extent that competition often disapears.  Communist Russia was again single party dictatorship and then it collapsed under it's own weight.  It wasn't defeated by another party, reality just didn't work that way.

  Voltaire:  Again yeah parts of the old structure need to be replace and taken away.  There are tons of things I would do.  Given the chance one of the first things I would do would be to restructure our military, police and prison system.  I would eliminate the Air Force entirely.  They are completely redundant and until we start colonizing other planets they will remain redundant.  The Army, police and prison guards, would combine with homeland security.  All police around the nation would receive identical training and better training.  They would also be on call to defend the US and immediate neighbors (Mexico and Canada) if needed.  The Navy and Marine Corps would basically become a single unit (though technically they already are) and business for them would basically continue as is other than the Marines would be forced to expand to take on missions that are currently handled by the Army.

  There is nothing specific about the current democratic process that I would change.  I think the fault here is in the public not in the process.  It's the proverbial man at starving to death sitting at a banquet.  You can'th elp it.  It's not the food, it's the dang fool sitting there not doing anything about it

• javadewd said on May 16, 2009....

  I wouldn't want a one-party right wing system either. That would lead to ultra-conservatism like what they have in Iran. I think we allow liberals to breathe our air in order to keep us in check. It's the political "circle of life." I wouldn't mind a third party, so long as they were dead center. Libertarians are squirrelly people and sometimes I dig their "hands off" approach to government, but I prefer the FDA check my meat... The green party has too much astigmatism attached to it. Now, I'd actually vote for the brown party... At least you know they're full of shit all the time.

• SeanRenaud said on May 16, 2009....

  LoL.  The right is a plague and they are currently in the process of dying because they refuse to admit that liberals are right about anything that doesn't involve money or guns.        

• javadewd said on May 16, 2009....

  LOL. Liberals aren't right about anything, because everything involves money or guns. Haven't you studied George Carlin stand-up? It's all about who has the bigger penises!
  

• Voltaire said on May 17, 2009....

  I think the fault here is in the public not in the process.
  
  Yeah true.
  But you can try to "wake" them up. I'd rather try then to regret I never did try.
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 17, 2009....

  But this isn't going to wake the public, not that I'm sure the public needs to be woken.  I'm almost thinking we'd be better off putting the genie back in the box but that's neither here nore their.  This is just going to put the public further to sleep by reinforcing the idea that the system doesn't work and why participate ina  system that doesn't work?

• Voltaire said on May 18, 2009....

  I am even expecting to wake a part of the public, but those whom I reach is good enough for me.

  why participate ina  system that doesn't work?
  To make it work, of course or at least make it better.
  But then again, that's me.

  Why don't you think the public needs to be woken?
  Isn't a human right to get "truthfull" information? At least I think so.

  Sean, I commend you; your giving me the best discussion in a very long time!
  Thanks.

  Regards,
  Voltaire

• SeanRenaud said on May 18, 2009....

  If the system doesn't work participating isn't going to fix it.  If you've got the impression that in 2000 Bush "stole" the election because even though Gore got more votes the Electoral College went to Bush (and that Florida Debacle) what's the point in voting.  I'm using that as an example not a fact.  If you believe that if we vote and it's not what "The Man" wants he'll rig the game why participate?  Unless he's hurting you directly just let him do his thing.

  It is human right to get truthful information.  It is human responsibility to seek it out.  I don't feel it is a responsibility to force people to pay attention.  If they don't want to know that's there right too.

  Again humans are terribly selfish, anything that doesn't directly interupt their sphere is basically unimportant.

• Voltaire said on May 18, 2009....

  Sean,
  You said it works previously, so it is worth to at least try; that's the least you can do.
  
  If you believe that if we vote and it's not what "The Man" wants he'll rig the game why participate?  Unless he's hurting you directly just let him do his thing.
  
  Because I can.
  
  I don't feel it is a responsibility to force people to pay attention.
  
  Good thing blogs are a matter of choice; read or not read.
  
  Not only selfish but extremely lazy. At least most of them.
  
  
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 18, 2009....

  I do vote.  I believe the system works the way it is.  The reason it feels like a handful of people are running things is because everybody else is chillin at the sideline watching the suckers run around.

  What you're claiming is. . .stupid.  If you truly believe the man rigged the game then you really shouldn't bother.  Why bang your head against a wall, it's not possible to bring down a brick wall no matter how hard your head is and it's stupid to try.

• Voltaire said on May 19, 2009....

  I never claimed it doesn't work; my point is merely it could be better.
  
  No it's not stupid, it's very logical really.
  If I want to change, then I  vote on the political party that comes the closest to what I want. Isn't that so?
  
  Sometimes you really don't have to smash the wall but instead go around it.
  

• SeanRenaud said on May 19, 2009....

  True enough you never claimed that you don't believe the system works.  However the point were we debating at the moment was the motivation of a person who doesn't believe the system works.  Which is where some people are, that is why I pointed out specifically the 2000 election.

  What specifically do you think could be better anyway?

• Voltaire said on May 20, 2009....

  Point taken.
  Well if you don't believe it works; then one might very well think it is meaningless.
  Agreed. But there is also a minor chance one can go the very opposite to I suppose.

  What I think we could do better?
  Social stuff like hospitals, social security, school and similar.
  I would like to see much more change in the social structure; not tear it down but renovate parts of it.

   

   

• newmoney said on May 30, 2009....

  I liked reading this!

  Democracy is a sham any more. It's all about the money Gold helps, but *they want all your land. Now a car is made that runs on *pure air, but there's no money in it for the fat cats! I put some links on my site about this car.

• SeanRenaud said on May 30, 2009....

  The hospitals, Social Security and schools aren't a product of democracy however.  Even in Ifaq under Saddam those things exist. 

  Democracy and in our case Democratic Republic is limited to how we choose our leaders and make our decisions, not the results of those decisions. 

• Voltaire said on May 30, 2009....

  NewMoney,
  Cheers.
  If you however want to propagate about your money here expect to be deleted and/or blocked.I do not tolerate that, same goes for SPAM and similar.
  If you are in for a healthy debate however, please hang around.
  
  Enjoy,
  Voltaire
  

• travelr712 said on Jun 16, 2009....

  i know i'm a little late to the party, but i found this discussion fascinating. i was doing some research on our political system a year ago, and from what i found, it was set up the way it was because there were two major schools of thought at the time. one side was for a republic, the idea that the masses should be represented by a person who was educated and well versed in the issues of the day. they did not believe that the average person had the knowledge or exposure to make good decisions concerning government or the issues. in those days, they were probably right.
   
  the other side supported a democracy, one man one vote. they felt it paramount that each voice should be heard and the concensus of the majority should be followed. this was also a valid viewpoint for governing, because often times in a representative system, the leaders are out of touch with the average person.
   
  they finally, after long debate, decided on a system where the population votes for representatives and on certain legislation in a democratic process, but most of the day to day goverment is carried out in a republican form. it's a very difficult system to maintain, because it requires a compromise between two distinct types of government. personally, i think that compromise is what makes our country as strong as it is.
   
  i would also add that with the advent of the internet and the fact that most people are involved in it, there is much more opportunity for the individual voice to be accounted for. i've noticed in the last few years that opinion polls, blogs and social network sites are having a major influence on government, it is much easier and faster now to see what the average person's opinion is.
   
  i'll leave it at that.

• Voltaire said on Jun 17, 2009....

  Travelr,
  You sure found a old post. ;-)
  
  Yes there was those 2 views of it, in my country to; Sweden.
  The first one lasted longer here then in many other country's.
  
  Simply put you think we are here because of a compromise, I think that could be true.
  
  And yes it is easier to make your voice heard these days. :-)
  
  Voltaire
  

Comment on "Another blow at our society"

Currently tagged	democracy Social criticism life politics capitalism Social Issues great-read (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment
	Comment Anonymously