Come to think of it...I can't quite help but dislike the concept of democracy, the freedom of giving the right to vote to people.
Firstly, a populist leader with no substance would be able to gain power, which isn't exactly good. Any run of the mill person with an aptitude for speaking and pulling of heartstrings is going to get in.
Secondly, are the people even able to vote correctly? Would they be educated enough, or sensible enough to vote for a good stable government? I know how the West keeps baying for voting rights, , political rights like a pack of insatiable hellhounds, yet are the people or The Great Unwash able to govern themselves? Would it be sensible to ask a farmer, who say only knows in detail his farm and the neighbouring areas to vote?
Thirdly, it causes fragmentation. Different diverse groups are bound to form. Groups who stand for ridiculous reasons like the Pirate Party are going to pop up, grab some seats, and deal a deathblow to the bigger parties trying to cobble a coalition. So far last year, I've seen so many hung parliaments, or minority governments. Australia, Britain, Sweden went into a deadlock, the US seems kind of balanced between the two big parties. And these tend to fail or fare badly, the party can't even agree amongst themselves, let alone get many bipartisan bills passed.
Is sacrificing the rights of people to vote in favour of a system that would tolerate less internal division unjust? I still can't comprehend why the West slams China for it's style of government for one. It works perfectly fine, some people are sidelined, yet there are always casualties in any battle. Most of the people from China whom I have known for years tell me they don't give a hoot about voting, they put their trust in the CCP as they have for decades.
And before some people shoot off about how the Chinese stamp out dissent such as the jailing of that recent Chinese Nobel Laureate, I would like to stress that that person has caused more disorder in China than actually bringing peace thank you very much.
So is democracy really worth it? People get their vote? And knowing people tend to have a nasty habit of conceiving different opinions about everything and anything under the sun, this would lead to political fragmentation and ultimately stagnation.
well i'm not an expert of chinese situation, so I won't argue that anymore. About the reasoning for democracy, well, in your profile you wrote "we're all humans". take this, and add that I believe that no one knows what is right and what is wrong. In my opinion the result is that EVERYONE has the right to say his opinion. you mentioned Pol Pot? well, i think Pol Pot had the right to vote a revolutionary communist party. there's not a right or wrong solution, but we're many, so let's take the one that satisfy more people, no?
In my opinion the result is that EVERYONE has the right to say his opinion. you mentioned Pol Pot?
Being human does not necessarily mean we have rights. Does it? I don't believe in the concept of rights. Is it a right if it can be taken away? As far as I know the Bill of Rights has been amended more than a dozen times. I think a better term would be temporary privilege.
no one knows what is right and what is wrong
But there are rules nonetheless to impose what others think.
In my opinion the result is that EVERYONE has the right to say his opinion.
If that was the case, the world would be in chaos if every half-twit barges up to voice his views. You may have the freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the authorities need to address them.
Well, I think the debate expired. You don't believe in the concept of rights, but I do. It's silly to keep screwing "Yes!" when another say "No!" so I'm just going to ask you a thing: how can you be Buddhist and support China at the same time? don't you share the Dalai Lama's battle for the indipendence of Tibet?
And I've interacted with plenty of Chinese people. Half my friends are from there. I've been to China twice this year. Trust me. People there have better things to do than whine all day over the current system. Plus, most are satisfied, those that you describe are in the minority.
well, it's likely that the chinese who come out of china, out of the censorship, are a minority. it's not weird that normal people who have normal jobs, and don't think too much about politics, don't really care about the system: until something goes wrong. (hundereds of dissidents were in prison just because that nobel prize! do you think that is fair?)
well, it's likely that the chinese who come out of china, out of the censorship, are a minority. it's not weird that normal people who have normal jobs, and don't think too much about politics, don't really care about the system: until something goes wrong. (hundereds of dissidents were in prison just because that nobel prize! do you think that is fair?)
I don't even think he should have gotten the Nobel Prize. I question the Committee. I think he caused more disorder with his insane actions instead of actually bringing peace.
The US is and always been and meant to have been an imperialist empire in control by a plutocracy. If you ever indulged in its history closely, this should be quite apparent. If you haven't, the recent Wikileaks releases should have reinforced that notion.
Presidential elections every four years, especially when they're so heavily depended on image, money, lies, and propaganda, don't count as democracy.
Democracy is a much stronger word that has ties to anarchism.
Do you know the difference between a popular vote and an electoral vote?
Do you know the difference between a democracy and a republic?
Democracy means rule of the people. The two most common forms of democracy are direct democracy and representative democracy. In direct democracy everyone takes part in making a decision, as in a town meeting or a referendum. The specific rules may vary: perhaps everyone must agree, perhaps there must be consensus, perhaps a mere majority is required to make a decision. The other, better known form of democracy is a representative democracy. People elect representative to make decisions or laws. Again, specifics vary greatly.
A Republic is a form of government in which the people or some portion thereof retain supreme control over the government, and in which the head of government is not a monarch.
The term republic originated from the writers of the Renaissance as a descriptive term for states that were not monarchies. These writers, such as Machiavelli, also wrote important prescriptive works describing how such governments should function. These ideas of how a government and society should be structured is the basis for an ideology known as classical republicanism or civic humanism. This ideology is based on the Roman Republic and the city states of Ancient Greece and focuses on ideals such as civic virtue, rule of law, and mixed government.
This understanding of a republic as a distinct form of government from a liberal democracy is one of the main theses of the Cambridge School of historical analysis. This grew out of the work of J.G.A. Pocock who in 1975 argued that a series of scholars had expressed a consistent set of republican ideals. These writers included Machiavelli, Milton, Montesquieu, and the founders of the United States of America.
A representative democracy is a kind of republic.
Electoral voting is where the citizens of the state vote and tally up the votes for their one state and whomever has the most, then that is whom the state votes for all together. Popular voting is where all citizens votes are just summed up and whomever has the most votes becomes president.
This at least is my understanding.
Is it a democracy? Yes I think so. But many don't. But I do.
Typically when we copy/paste from other sites we cite our sources. Otherwise it's plagiarism and it's highly frowned upon in AG, especially in the WEPR and AMW sections.
