Democracy...... Good or Bad?

Users who are viewing this thread

Nahkuri said:
Vadermath said:
Nah, I've simply realized that in the Balkans, most elections are a scam.

Oh right. Forgot about that part. It's still hardly the system's fault if you lot have yet to figure out how to use it.

Oh, I believe there's a certain amount of fraud in every election system, it's just that some governments conceal it better than the others.
 
Vadermath said:
I don't have voting rights as of now, and I certainly don't intend to vote once I have them.
As of this year I can now vote (and for this two short years I can chose to vote or not), though yeah... voting is obligatory if you're between ages 18~65 (not sure about the sixty five, though). Anyway, I'd vote even if I didn't have to, it's not like protesting to vote would make any difference.
 
Vadermath said:
Nahkuri said:
Vadermath said:
Nah, I've simply realized that in the Balkans, most elections are a scam.

Oh right. Forgot about that part. It's still hardly the system's fault if you lot have yet to figure out how to use it.

Oh, I believe there's a certain amount of fraud in every election system, it's just that some governments conceal it better than the others.

*shrug*

Well some believe in god so why not.
 
Rahn said:
Nahkuri said:
So sort of like Sweden, then? You know, with Parliament/Riksdag pulling the strings and making the decision, and the King existing largely for irrelevant traditional ceremonies and to appear in Tabloids.

Pretty much the same here, except it's the Queen.

Pretty much the same here, except it's the Bourbon.

***

Democracy would be real if:

All citizens took part of the government.
It worked in much smaller comunities than a whole country the size and population of France, Zimbabwe or Persia.

But it doesn't happen. Citizens only take part once every 4 years. That's not democracy.
 
tigershark said:
Democracy, sure its flawed, and sure most people are stupid (We voted the god damn tories into power. I mean David Cameron? Come on!!!) But even stupid people have the right to their opinions, we all do. Democracy isn't the most efficient of governments for ruling a country no, but it is still the best.

Look at it this way, if you follow the philosophy I do "A government should always fear its people more than the people their government" if your in say, I don't know, a dictatorship, the only way for the government to fear its people is violent revolution, which tends to result in alot of people getting hurt on all sides. A democracy, allows for a way to remove poor or bad leaders without the need for bloodshed, which is the beauty of it.

That and I'm a rather big proponent of equal rights, free speech, all the other wonderful things that are supposed to come hand in hand with democracy. Though I do say I quite like the constitutional monarchy we have hear in Britain, the racist remarks the royal family is in the habit of making always cause amusing media storms.

LOL look what happened under Mr Personality and then under Mr No Personality.
they sold off the UK's gold reserves and bought Euros at an exchange rate of 1 Euro = £1.
bailed out the banks so the bankers could get their bonuses and left the country bankrupt.

the real kicker is that Cameron and Clegg will sort out the mess that Blair and Brown left and the people will blame Cameron and Clegg because they are the ones who had to take tough steps to sort it out.

ask any economist and they will tell you that the only reason the Labour party had a good economy to start with was because of the policies of Major's government, and Blair and co ****ed it all up.

as for "A government should always fear its people more than the people their government", how exactly did the last government fear the UK voters?
they took the piss and laughed in our faces time and time again.
 
Hey I never said I supported Labour. I just dislike Cameron his style....Irks me greatly.

and, the fear thing wasn't aimed at the UK, just as something I think should be true.


But since you bring economics into this, you are actually completely wrong. Cameron's ways are too harsh, too fast, and maggie thatcher should've been hung for half the things she did. If you wanna sort the economy out, you don't do it labours way either. For one, you fix the holes in the tax system, stop giving companies tax rebates, that gives us income for a start, THEN you start streamlining the welfare state, not utterly butchering it so doesn't work. Completely restructure the bank systems as well, cut them down, make them smaller, take away their abilities to risk large amounts of money (since thats what they're basically doing)
 
The thing with Democracy is it generally prevents the **** from completely hitting the fan. I feel like in a monarchy or other totalitarian or near-totalitarian state the state can be better run than in a democracy, but only if you have a good leader of course. The problem is you can also get leaders who are terrible ****s and run the country into the ground, or go about murdering those who oppose him.

Democracy generally means we at least get leaders who aren't going to go about murdering everyone... usually anyways. It also means we rarely get particularly good leaders.

Ideally I think we'd want a form of government where extremely important and major decisions are made via straight democracy (Things like whether or not to go to war) but allow individuals to essentially run the country from day to day. Also, decisions should be made at as local a level as possible. Health care, for instance, can be handled on a state or even city level.
 
tigershark said:
But even stupid people have the right to their opinions, we all do.

They should have opinions, but their opinions shouldn't have any effect on the matters of state, for one reason: they're stupid. The stupid opinions of the stupid majority shouldn't affect me. The Kingdom of Yugoslavia was quite an efficient constitutional monarchy, the king was actually a figure of real power and influence, not a lackey of the parliament.
 
Meh. I say it depends on the situation. I find Democratic nations to have bloated ego's and are like small children too fussy to accept they aren't open to other societies and just want to change every single nation into some wash up form of Democratic society. (Say what you will, but your not open to new idea's if you scrutinize everything against democratic ideals, of which some people here do.)


Sure, I beleive everyone has the right to opinion, but who the hell wants to give people power who have no worth of ****wad and grasp of actual power? I certainly don't.

If a guy is in power and I don't like him, I'd rather skip the bureacratic, half assed, and rigged
(most of the time anyways, and even if its not the govt, its by population descrepencies and allocations in a nation, like some half wit from your capital may choose the style of govt to rule you in another district, and obviously there may be problems on how they run things) elections we see now a days.

Politics is a Drama, a Drama I do not wish to involvem yself in. But if there is a absolute maniac with no grasp of reality or sense how to manage power and his responsibilities as a leader effectively, thats what I call a Revolution.


Eithier way though, I think Democracy works in certain conditions. Just as any other form of Government. Over here, Democracy cannot work because the majority of our population isn't even citzens, it's immigrants who will probably never acheive citzenship, but take up residence. They won't get a say, and neithier will I. Im a citzen but im outspoken in the ring of politics. The only power I do really have is the fact I was in military, and the Civilian government tends to overlook that over here.

I prefer sticking to my own neighbourhood then going into that brathouse of over pompous preps we call a Parliament over here, so in my opinion for Kuwaiti Democracy, screw it. It's useless over here.


What we need is a more Confederational approach. Let districts manage themselves locally rather, then a centralized form of government.

Eithier way, I beleive it's better to look at a few options for government. It's better that way because each government can be used to a societies needs, rather then DEMOCRACY IZ BEST, IZ SUPPORTZ FREEDOM crap we see from bleeding hearts advocates who know diddly crap of what they are speaking about.

Thats one thing I don't like of Western nations eithier, si the fact they think it's their duty to police nations who have problems in their society or have civil strife. Sure it's nice to help and all but do you really think you should? SHouldn't nations be focusing on themselves and help solving their own people's problems before they go and try to fiddle around with ANOTHER nations politics and whole society?

Im leaving that up  to you. In my opinion Im not a fan of Fundamentalism, or Democracy for that matter.

 
tigershark said:
Democracy, sure its flawed, and sure most people are stupid (We voted the god damn tories into power. I mean David Cameron? Come on!!!)

Just because you disagree with them doesn't make them wrong, and people who agree with them stupid. Also, just so you people know, most of us live in representative democracies, not democracies. A true democracy would require a vote every time a decision has to be made and that would be ridiculously difficult/expensive to do in countries with as large populations as most modern ones.
 
And thats the problem with Democracy today. You get incompotent choices and your left with nothing but some prep in office, and Democracy itself is determined by the number of votes and how wealthy and influential a party or individual is. The more wealthy you are, the more you can pay for advertisement which in essence means you can reach out to more people.

It's also a fact that with population differences, and i'll give a example here, is that a large chunk of the population lives in a huge city but that only occupies mabye 3% of the countries land mass. Then the rest of the people live in the country, and combined they would outnumber the city folk, but due to the fact they're so far spread and the fact that they're all in diffrent districts means the highest density of people in the big city, means they control the votes. A Politician i na "democratic" society in todays ideals means you can ignore an entire countries well being as long as you tend to the big chunk that voted you in. Even if that big chunk is outnumbered by outlying provinces/ districts. So screw it.
 
EdwardWellcraft said:
The problem is you can also get leaders who are terrible ****s and run the country into the ground, or go about murdering those who oppose him.

And you need only a name to make reference to all the problems autocracy can bring:

Caligula.

 
Back
Top Bottom