Your thoughts on freedom of voting and the uneducated masses

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Really? Cite some proof if you want to make claims like that. Really go ahead, so I can poke holes in your choices. Churchill said it best (and I'll paraphrase here, because I'm too lazy to look up the exact quote), 'democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the others that have been tried'.
 
ooo a good debate!

Ok mage, Hitler, was a good dictator. ( So was FDR :wink: ) 

Hitler was great for the German people, he got them out of a horrible depression, gave them a purpose, and united them under one leader. There was fierce hero worship that made his people love him. Course he screwed himself over with the whole "kill the jews and dominate Europe" thing, but he was great for germany.
 
Yeah... For a while. Then he screwed over Germany as well.

Reading through all five pages of this debate, I'm increasingly surprised that no one has suggested testing the politicians instead. I have no problem with idiots, I mean the fellow masses voting, as long as the candidates know what they're doing. Right now in the world politics is more about crowdpleasing than doing what's good for the country. America for example could do so much good for the rest of the world instead of just playing war-games with real countries and putting a kid in a sandbox in charge of the nation. If all of the presidental candidates knew how the situation in the world looked, with oil depleting more rapidly than ever, and with more in mind than just keeping their country on top, then I don't see a problem with anyone voting. In either case a competent person would be in charge. I'm not going to say that I know anything about american politics besides the small things I hear occasionally on the news, but at least in sweden that's the case. Politicians just want to appease to the crowd, and don't improve the country. Making life a little bit harder for the voters to change the whole world to the better is an unknown concept. Winning votes is all that matters, and if the price for that is the world itself, then so be it.

I say educate and test our politicians, take away their priviliges, and put people in charge that care for more than just power, votes, and money.
 
ShadeSlayer said:
ooo a good debate!

Ok mage, Hitler, was a good dictator. ( So was FDR :wink: ) 

Hitler was great for the German people, he got them out of a horrible depression, gave them a purpose, and united them under one leader. There was fierce hero worship that made his people love him. Course he screwed himself over with the whole "kill the jews and dominate Europe" thing, but he was great for germany.
Click to expand...

First problem with your choice: you defined the quality of a system of government (in this case, fascism) purely based upon its ability to supply goods and services and increase national strength. You ignored many other key aspects of society, like political and social freedoms, as well as any sort of ability within the system to redress grievances or prevent the power-mad (gee, who could that describe?) from dragging the country in to ruin. If all you ever look at is the strengths of the system without ever looking at its weaknesses (and quite frankly your passing off Hitler as having been great for Germany, when looked at in the long run and not just the period when Nazi Germany was prosperous, is enormously misguided) then of course your perspective on the matter will be completely biased towards one system of another. I could argue that anarchism is the best system to live under because it allows people to do whatever they want to, but if I did I would be completely ignoring the violence and inefficiencies of the system, just as you ignored all of the problems with Nazism and focused only upon its strengths.
 
Silver said:
Yeah... For a while. Then he screwed over Germany as well.

Reading through all five pages of this debate, I'm increasingly surprised that no one has suggested testing the politicians instead.

I say educate and test our politicians, take away their priviliges, and put people in charge that care for more than just power, votes, and money.
Click to expand...

What do you mean no one suggested testing them? I already suggested a meritocracy.
 
But wasn't that for the voters? In all honesty I read all five pages really quickly and might have missed a point or two, if so I apologize. Besides I have never really liked the idea of a meritocracy, at least not as it looks now. It's a system too easy to cheat.
 
Hræfn said:
ShadeSlayer ist ein übel nationalsozialistische!
Click to expand...

Que?

As for testing politicians, it doesnt even matter. You can have someone pass completely and then go ahead and **** it up. Politics in America are so partisan that nothing gets done cause Dems and Reps are fighting amongst themselves. They all want power for there party and wont do **** for the country.

The one time in a long time they acted together was a few days ago. Congress agreed to fund the war in Iraq and provide a large budget, but they have to start pulling troops out in Oct. Of course numbnuts doesnt want his fun and games interrupted so he vetoed it, despite the fact that it is clearly the nation's opinion to end the war.

Seriously, America is probably the worst country in the World. All of our freedom is double standard. We have freedom of speech, but we cant say anything offensive. Freedom of religion but people who pray facing East 6 times a day are terrorists. Free press but its all biased in some way, or censored. Seperation of Church and State, but both are too into the other. Our troops are dieing for no reason now, Iraq is Vietnam all over again. And as far as the freedom to choose, its all masked and biased. I choose to boycott oil, but can we do that? No. Even if tomorrow, 37 states said they are done with oil and gase prices, Bush wouldnt give a **** cause the oil companies own too much. Thats the problem with "free enterpise". When it goes on like oil is, it shouldnt be free anymore and the government should end it. But when it does, boo hiss bad!

Too many double standards that ruin america's "freedom".
 
Democracy is not about the "public" electing the best. The general public is stupid and easily influenced. The best government would be a benevolent and wise king. That's fine. But the problem is: who would succeed the king? There is no way for an institution (government) to select its own leaders effectively. Bad kings would eventually come, and then the only way to replace them would be through bloodshead. Thus, the question is not "who should rule", but "how do we prevent bad leaders from doing too much damage, and set up a system where we can replace them without violence". Democracy is the best (but not, of course, ultimate) way of solving this problem.
 
I think that there will be no absolutelly perfect form of government. A wise and benevolent king doesnt live forever and it would be a risk every time one would have to succede him.
 
Myn Donos said:
I think that there will be no absolutelly perfect form of government. A wise and benevolent king doesnt live forever and it would be a risk every time one would have to succede him.
Click to expand...

No, but an inhumanly cruel and evil one might.
So there would be no risk.
 
That's disgusting.  Someone is not only admitting they have absolutely no concern for the future of their community (which you would hope is as far as anyone would be willing to go), but they are willing to give power over to someone with money for personal gain.  It's frighteningly hypocritical how a person can fuss about corrupt politics in one breath and laugh at this article in the next.

Archonsod, I don't necessarily mean you; I haven't seen any of your past statements.

And I thought buying votes was still taboo. :???:

=$= Big J Money =$=
 
I dunno. 99% of politics tends to revolve around money (either how much you'll lose to taxes, or how much you'll gain by government investment). It's not admitting they have no concern so much as removing all the bull**** surrounding modern democracy.
 
Big J Money said:
That's disgusting.  Someone is not only admitting they have absolutely no concern for the future of their community (which you would hope is as far as anyone would be willing to go), but they are willing to give power over to someone with money for personal gain.  It's frighteningly hypocritical how a person can fuss about corrupt politics in one breath and laugh at this article in the next.
Click to expand...

To be honest, selling your vote is the same as giving voting for someone because they support your economic/racial class. It's a bit more direct...hence politicians can't screw you out of your money (economic agreement vs "Ill cut taxes!"). I almost want to say thats the reason why its illegal (so politicians can screw us)...but that is stretching it.

Honestly, I find that less disgusting than voting for someone just soley because A. They are x (political party), B. Their family done good (yehaw), C. People around you are voting that way. These are the main basis for votes...and they are more detrimental to society than selling votes ever could be.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SP - Battles & Sieges Interactive combat menu of commands (the ability to select commands with the cursor (mouse)).
Replies
2
Views
168
fedeita
fedeita
Krisee
EU Native Other Open The Grand European Duo Tournament - Community Funded prizepool! (fundraiser on kickstarter) - Triple elimination!1!
Replies
7
Views
321
Krisee
Krisee
Add a way to copy your character face on console and other quality of life improvements related to characters.
Replies
0
Views
106
goncalito_viana
Back
Top Bottom