Mid east

[Major Fubar 0]

Democracy = Capitalism. Capitalism = Pefect Society? No?

Is it democratic for a person through no fault of their own (apart from unlucky breaks, possible being born below average intelligence, or not being rich enough to afford a good education) ends up trying to support a family on a minimum wage? Yet this is extremely common in our "Democratic Eutopias".

Don't get me wrong, I am happy to live in a land where I can be "free", but I hardly think a capitalist democracy (and AFAIK all dmeocracies are capitalistic) is the "ultimate evolution of society"....

But, unfortunately, socialism and communism, for all their good intentions, never work out in the real world either.

What's the answer? I don't know...but as long as I earn enough to eat, be housed, and drink alcohol, I can't really complain.

[Major Fubar 0]

where did my reply go? this board is as buggy as hell lately...

figures it would reappear after I posted this.....

[Oligo 1]

Good news?

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 14 2002,12:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Good news?

<span id='postcolor'>

[Oligo 1]

Funny, funny...

What I liked about that TheOnion article is the subtle way they avoided taking sides. Not a single issue was biased towards either side, quite a remarkable achievement.

[Guest]

9--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 14 2002,099)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Whoever said that democracy is needed to prosper? Democracy is just a current fashion thing - was the Roman empire democratic?"

I hate to be a nitpick, but the Roman empire was ocassionally a republic, which was a sort of a democracy, so Roman empire actually ocassionally was quite democratic.<span id='postcolor'>

Ok, I will say this only once: A republic is not a democracy per se. Republic only means that you have a parliament as the main executive organ. This parliament can be chosen by the people and then it's democracy or not and then it's oligarchy.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

BTW Dempcracy is not a `ruling-system`, it is an ideology which helps to develope system to govern a society. But in order to understand this you must read Hobbes, Milton, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Macchiavelli,

Bodin....

Democracy is simply the goal of all people sharing in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class or autocrat (piece of republic). Each member of the society then acts either directly or through representatives.

Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality. Now I can assure you that the romans took the greek democracy as a base-point to develop their Republic (not all humans were equal in terms of votes, but at least everyone had a represenative). Now to say that democracy is not the final stage is just silly since democracy is not a stage, it is an ideal.

And your silly comment about `money instead the right to talk` will definetly turn out to be wrong one day.

Just wait till you sit in prison one day e.g in Guatemala as a tourist, just because they think you were importing drugs. And they will probably not allow a single phone call. And since noone gave you money to shut up you wont even be able to corrupt the angry officers. Most people usually then shout: "I am an american" or "I am a german" and you too will shout "I am from a democratic country, I want to call the embassy, I got rights!"

[Longinius 1]

"And your silly comment about `money instead the right to talk` will definetly turn out to be wrong one day.

Just wait till you sit in prison one day e.g in Guatemala as a tourist, just because they think you were importing drugs. And they will probably not allow a single phone call. And since noone gave you money to shut up you wont even be able to corrupt the angry officers. Most people usually then shout: "I am an american" or "I am a german" and you too will shout "I am from a democratic country, I want to call the embassy, I got rights!""

Well, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That has to do with your rights as a suspected criminal. Freedom of speech is my right to say whatever I want without getting punished for it, not about smuggling drugs and then calling my lawyer.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Longinius @ May 14 2002,15:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"And your silly comment about `money instead the right to talk` will definetly turn out to be wrong one day.

Just wait till you sit in prison one day e.g in Guatemala as a tourist, just because they think you were importing drugs. And they will probably not allow a single phone call. And since noone gave you money to shut up you wont even be able to corrupt the angry officers. Most people usually then shout: "I am an american" or "I am a german"  and you too will shout "I am from a democratic country, I want to call the embassy, I got rights!""

Well, that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. That has to do with your rights as a suspected criminal. Freedom of speech is my right to say whatever I want without getting punished for it, not about smuggling drugs and then calling my lawyer.<span id='postcolor'>

But all those right have evolved from democracy! BTW there can be democracy within a communistic regime!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Albert Schweizer @ May 14 2002,15:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">BTW Dempcracy is not a `ruling-system`, it is an ideology which helps to develope system to govern a society. <span id='postcolor'>

BEEEEP.. wrong

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">de·moc·ra·cy Pronunciation Key (d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

Majority rule.

4. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

<span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But in order to understand this you must read Hobbes, Milton, Rousseau, Paine, Locke, Macchiavelli,

<span id='postcolor'>

Oh, drop the BS. They have no relevance in the definition of democracy - they just represent different political views of their time and place. And yes, I have read those, as has everybody who has finished highschool. I have a copy of Il principe on my nightstand. If you have something to say, say it but please stop patronizing me.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now I can assure you that the romans took the greek democracy as a base-point to develop their Republic (not all humans were equal in terms of votes, but at least everyone had a represenative).

<span id='postcolor'>

No they didn't. The greek democracy (which was very shortlived by the way) was in the form of street meetings where the participants could agree or disagree with the speakers by yelling 'yes' or 'no'. On a higher level they formed electorial districts that had the right to come with political propositions. The members of the council were not chosen on after a democratic fashion but according to money and power.

In the Roman republic powerful noblemen were assigned as governers in the provinces. They had their representatives in the senate in Rome. It was the purest form of feudalism.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Now to say that democracy is not the final stage is just silly since democracy is not a stage, it is an ideal.

<span id='postcolor'>

Democracy is not an ideal but a pratical system for assigning political power. You are confusing democracy with human rights and civil liberties.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

And your silly comment about `money instead the right to talk` will definetly turn out to be wrong one day.

<span id='postcolor'>

The point I was trying to make, but you obviously missed, was that the rights we have to day are very arbitrary. I bet even you could think something that you would rather have then the freedom to form your own party.

[Hardliner 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ May 14 2002,09:19)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">But, unfortunately, socialism and communism, for all their good intentions, never work out in the real world either.

What's the answer?<span id='postcolor'>

MODIFY THEM!

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

IRA linked to PLO ?

http://www.jpost.com/NASApp....3224638

(hey.... whats an anti-semite like me doing reading the Jerusalem Post? )

Does this mean Mossad will be 'Gerry-rigging' Gerry Adams car???

[Longinius 1]

"But all those right have evolved from democracy! BTW there can be democracy within a communistic regime!"

What does that have to do with anything? He simply stated that he would be content with being rich even if that meant he couldn't say whatever he wanted in public. I agree with him. The only time people ever say anything truely interesting in public anyway is when they are drunk, and then generally people don't care.

[Oligo 1]

"The point I was trying to make, but you obviously missed, was that the rights we have to day are very arbitrary. I bet even you could think something that you would rather have then the freedom to form your own party."

Talking about political parties, why the hell are they allowed to exist in a healthy democracy? It just seems to me their main function is to make it easier for the dumbass citizen to vote, because they can just find a person from their respective party and vote, without even finding out what are the thoughts of the person in question. Also, parties are headed by a few key figures, who tell the rest of the members how to vote. Which means government policy is REALLY decided by the cabinet deals made by the party bosses (oligarcy). And these bosses have the audacity to whine in public, if somebody dares to deviate from the party policy during voting in the senate.

We should strive to ban any sort of political allying, because it just promotes oligarcy.

Just sometimes pisses me off...

[IsthatyouJohnWayne 0]

Oligo- i agree with your last point at least to some extent.

The rise of the far right in Europe has a lot to do with the perception that the people are ruled by a small political elite ,who never really change -even between parties.

People want to break up this Oligarchy and get more 'normal' people into power

And also have less -behind closed doors- deals brokered between different interest groups (and Companies)

The political elite have A LOT to answer for when it comes to voter apathy in modern politics

And the >UNdemocratic< EU doesnt help in this- pulling power further away from the people and ruling with unelected special commitees of more and more Bureaucrats

Thats why the British arent so enthusiastic about the EU,

it seems distant and undemocratic (and french) to us.

[Gorgi Knootewoot 0]

i am the 1114th replier, and the 13990th viewer of this topic

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Wow! THis is getting a who is right, who is wrong thread! Anyway I wont be able to change your point of view anyway..but allow me to make the following comment...It is very funny what you say.For Centuries people have fought for their rights, their right of being considered equal withn the Patrizian class. THis triggered of that each and everyone has an equal vote, that judicative will be seperated from legislative....bla bla bla. (all pieces of the democracy puzzle).

Now if you say that you would give all this up, just for a handfull of money shows that you have never been anywhere where human rights are not respected. I wonder if you would change your perception if you would live in Burundi (and yes, the UN consideres free elections in African countries as the most important step for progress).

And secondly it is also pretty lame to sell something generations before you have fought for, e.g. that all humans are equal. It sounds like someone who is slightly spoiled by the amount of human rights he enjoys.

[Longinius 1]

Yes, which also is kind of the point. Someone who is starving wont give a damn for freedom of speech, they want food. Someone who can't voice their opinion, will want freedom of speech so bad he might give up any prospects of good food to do it. It is all related to what you have right now and what you want to achieve.

As for people wanting to be equal with those in power, bull. People want to BE those in power. Just look at every Joe and his dog these days, they want to be actors or rockstars. Newsflash, everyone cant be a star. Everyone cant be in charge. Everyone cant get to voice their opinion. If they do, we wont get anywhere. Because opinions are like assholes...

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

Do you know the "pyramid of needs and wants"? Of course someone wants to have food first! But right after that we ask for hygene and freedom/self-recognition. But that wasnt the point here, he didnt say "food for freedom". The point was "luxury instead of freedom". This is like women that live in a harem. I dont think they are happy with living in a golden cave

[Oligo 1]

Everybody pays taxes. Nobody does it happily. Oh well, at least some of the money goes to goodish things. But what really makes me go ballistic through the roof is the support paid to the political parties from the tax money collected (at least they do that in Finland). I mean, some of my fucking money goes to finance the 'seminar' weekend of some party officials in some summer cottage, where the party officials get their cocks sucked by the secretaries hired with my goddamn money, drink booze bought with my money and eat fucking caviar, with MY FUCKING HARD EARNED DINERO!

It's just disgusting.

[Albert Schweitzer 10]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ May 15 2002,15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Everybody pays taxes. Nobody does it happily. Oh well, at least some of the money goes to goodish things. But what really makes me go ballistic through the roof is the support paid to the political parties from the tax money collected (at least they do that in Finland). I mean, some of my fucking money goes to finance the 'seminar' weekend of some party officials in some summer cottage, where the party officials get their cocks sucked by the secretaries hired with my goddamn money, drink booze bought with my money and eat fucking caviar, with MY FUCKING HARD EARNED DINERO!

It's just disgusting.      <span id='postcolor'>

So true, so true

It is especially worse for those that work for the EU. In the morning all they do is inscribe themselves that they arrived and then they can make a shopping trip with their little girl-friends through the city for the rest of the day. AND THEY GET PAID extra money for having had the stress to travel elsewhere! Whether thy actually worked or not is not controlled. Maybe I am in the wrong business!

[Pukko 0]

Yo, here comes the abstact man! I know I will not be able to keep this post either at an concrete (that IMO only is too reducing and therefore pointless) level; but I'll try to make sense out of it

I will once again make a list to get some structure:

1. The 'representative democracies' we live in is IMO a very primitive government form. The ultimate utopia I can think of at this time is 'direct democracy' - where everyone has a electronic identity and have the chanse to give their opinion on all questions. This is for sure nothing that could be implemented today, since it would require a whole new form of citisens; citicens with time to give their opinion, with knowledge enough to do it and most importantly: Citisens whos only goal is NOT just to grow personally by reducing others - a society where everyone is BIG and not just a few.

This is the core of most, if not all, of the problems we are facing today IMO - the reducing of one self and others. I would like to call our "civilised" society a 'prestige society'. But seing how we day by day, more and more, see through the illusion of differencies I really do am hopeful for the future. Well I could go on and on trying to explain what I mean but this will have to do for now, but I will come back to it in other ways below.

2. Feedom of speech? LOL! So we can pull out some in the long run completely meaningless 'critics' against our government? I would say that we actually have a very limited freedom of speech; can you really say what you want, when the areas in which we even dare to think are so limited? Ever heard of ruling ideals and TABOOS? We learn them good from day one through media and education. I have said it before: we live in a society where we oppress ourselves by 'symbolic violence' - if you dare say or do things that are not socially accepted to some extent, one of the few ways out are suicide................

3. I see some of you writes that all humans have the right to get their voice heard in our society. What about the huge group of children?? Yeah, right, they are not human beings - rather human becomings, or? They have about no chanse to affect their living conditions - but are completely depending on adults goodwill. To whom does childhood belong? To no one, but everybody competes to control it - where the main combatants are society and family, while children themselves by definition are excluded from the power game. When you look closer at it you will find many similarities with older forms of oppression aganst social groups like women and various ethnical groups.

4. Lastly I would like to ask you who are well orientated in national economics:

How important is it in strictly economical terms that 'everyone' works? Is the fact that 'everyone' is employed the very core to national economics, or would there in a really streamlined society be possible to gain enough surplus to let the majority of citisens be out of directly economically gainful 'business'? Again strictly economical, not about motivation or such

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ May 16 2002,03:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. The 'representative democracies' we live in is IMO a very primitive government form. The ultimate utopia I can think of at this time is 'direct democracy' - where everyone has a electronic identity and have the chanse to give their opinion on all questions. This is for sure nothing that could be implemented today, since it would require a whole new form of citisens; citicens with time to give their opinion, with knowledge enough to do it and most importantly: Citisens whos only goal is NOT just to grow personally by reducing others - a society where everyone is BIG and not just a few.<span id='postcolor'>

I think that a problem is that democracy is a holy cow today. I am not at all that sure that average Sven, Fritz and Joe can decide what's best. You have a lot of descisions that require prior knowledge and understanding of the issue, and that is impossible to expect from the citizens. One other issue is that crowds are generally stupid and easily manipulated. A group of people can easily be turned into a lynching mob.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">3. I see some of you writes that all humans have the right to get their voice heard in our society. What about the huge group of children?? Yeah, right, they are not human beings - rather human becomings, or? They have about no chanse to affect their living conditions - but are completely depending on adults goodwill. To whom does childhood belong? To no one, but everybody competes to control it - where the main combatants are society and family, while children themselves by definition are excluded from the power game. When you look closer at it you will find many similarities with older forms of oppression aganst social groups like women and various ethnical groups.

<span id='postcolor'>

This was the point that I was trying to make earlier. If you examine our 'rights' closely you will see that they are very limited and always special cases. Yet we learn in shools and from media that those rights are universal.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">4. Lastly I would like to ask you who are well orientated in national economics:

How important is it in strictly economical terms that 'everyone' works? Is the fact that 'everyone' is employed the very core to national economics, or would there in a really streamlined society be possible to gain enough surplus to let the majority of citisens be out of directly economically gainful 'business'? Again strictly economical, not about motivation or such <span id='postcolor'>

It depends on the system. I can guess that for instance in Sweden, where the government has a greater social responsibility, that it can become an expensive deal to have to support large numbers of non working citizens. In countries like USA, where the government has a more limited responsibility to the unemployed, have no reason to fear direct economic problems as a result of high unemployement rates.

[WKK Gimbal 0]

I was OK with the EU untill one fine day when I was going to France for holiday and had to middle-land in Brussels for a couple of hours...

We went on a sightseeing and it turned out that half the city is turned into one huge EU buerocratic(?) concrete block. It's not just huge, it's like you can drive for an hour straight ahead, and you will STILL be passing by EU offices next to more EU offices!

Not that I care for the preservation of Brussels architecture, but this made me realize how fucking huge and resource wasteful the EU "control room" is. I was thinking about the 10000's of people working there all wasting my good taxmoney on working out BS resolutions, like "what colours should be allowed on a beer bottle" and shit like that.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ May 16 2002,03:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">1. The 'representative democracies' we live in is IMO a very primitive government form. The ultimate utopia I can think of at this time is 'direct democracy' - where everyone has a electronic identity and have the chanse to give their opinion on all questions. This is for sure nothing that could be implemented today, since it would require a whole new form of citisens; citicens with time to give their opinion, with knowledge enough to do it and most importantly: Citisens whos only goal is NOT just to grow personally by reducing others - a society where everyone is BIG and not just a few.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not that we even live in a representative democracy. Year after year, it's the same assholes representing their own interest in the parliament. If we want to have a REAL representative democracy, we should have a lottery where the senators are chosen at random from the whole population. Thus we would have a real average sampling of the people to make the decisions, not skewed by political advertising (=lies). The senators could make even hard decisions, because they need not worry about getting re-elected (almost no chance). Furthermore, the salary of the senators should be very low, so to make it almost a punishment to be assigned to the senate. That way we could eliminate any money hunger motivated meddling with the electoral lottery. Also, political parties could still exist, but this time the parties would have to convince the people, not the other way around. This kind of lotteries would be possible in all the countries where the state knows the name and address of every citizen from birth (like in Finland).