Is democracy dying?

[rccar328]

Okay...that makes sense. Like I said, I don't know a lot about modern China. I did know that they were moving somewhat closer to capitalism, though.

[Master_Keralys]

Intriguingly enough, it has been noted that China in the past few years has been allowing more and more capitalism within the country. It's still nothing like America, but clearly they recognized that communism is now a means of maintaining power - not a realistic vision of life. Some guys like Lenin may have really believed in in, but I think most modern Communist dictators actually do realize that it's a failed dream and are simply keeping themselves in power.

 

Anyway, on topic: the thing is, democracy isn't dying, per se. However, it is changing drastically. While I mostly agree with President Bush, some of the things he has done would have been shocking even a few years ago; moreover, the power of the government is increasing exponentially every year. And that doesn't matter whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. I think that that is the danger; in a situation where the people depend on the government instead of the other way around, it is very easy for the government to suspend rights if "it has become necessary." For example, the Patriot Act in the US. A good idea, but even though it hasn't been used wrongly (yet) it was reactive, and gave the government way too much power.

 

I think the greatest threat to democracy, at least in America, but probably in general, is judicial fiat. In America, it's liberal judges (see the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) that are doing it, but it would be just as bad and dangerous to have conservative judges doing it: legislating. It is not the place of the courts to make law, but that is what they are doing. For example (and don't get a debate on this started here, please), the Massachusetts Supreme Court has decided - against the will of the majority - that gay marriage is not only legal but, in essence, mandatory. These are unelected officials who, at this point, have no check on their power to legislate except that the case has to get to them. In our sue-happy society, that means they get to touch almost every part of society. In the Federalist Papers, James Madison explicitly warned against the problems with such a situation, noting that if it ever happened, America - and any democracy - would be in serious trouble. The only check on judges is impeachment and/or constitutional amendments - and impeachmetn is not an option now, because what they are doing is not technically illegal...

 

Such a governmental institution - an oligarchy of the judicial branch, if you will - is the greatest threat to democracy that there can be, unless a President were ever able to completely seize power, which is unlikely for many years.

[rccar328]

You're exactly right - that's why the court system was set up to interpret laws in light of the Constution, but they've oversteped their bounds and are legislating from the bench, which is in itself unconstitutional.

[ShadowTemplar]

Literally, by Greek definition democracy means "people power". To be fair, only the Greeks ever implemented a system of democracy that came right out of that definition. A system of direct democracy has never been seen in any liberal democracy of modern times. Which leads me on to my next pondering...

 

I normally do not like the notion that the Greek had it all figured out. Primus, because it was still only the nobility who had any real influence. Secundus, because "Greece", in the classical era, means "Athens". Take a look at Sparta, and you'll se a quite different picture. And I'm not even getting started on Platon; every fascist movement since Christianity is copied right out of 'The Republic'.

 

I don't think it did. I see it in (and bear with me here) a similar light to Communism - with regard to the fact it has been tried, but never implemented successfully.

 

The one major difference being that democracy will not be as rapid to degenerate, because it has built-in failsaves to limit the concentration of individual power. Communism lacks these, and hence goes to pot very swiftly. Capitalism, on the other hand, is designed to take advantage of humanity's base emotions; lust, fear, greed and so on, and hence is less likely to destabilize. Wether it is just is an entirely different discussion.

 

Care must be taken, however, to avoid mixing up the economic system with the mode of government. Communism, Nationalism, Patriotism, u.s.w. are not ways of governing a country. Rather they are policies that can be implemented under different forms of government.

 

A form of government is a model that describes the relations of the three fundamental powers (Ruling, Executive, and Judging) to each other, the people and the burocracy.

 

But I am rambling... To get back to the topic at hand: Is Democracy dying? Did it ever exist?

 

To pose a qualified answer to those questions, we must first arrive at a definition of Democracy. Personally, I find Democracy to be a very relative issue. When the term was coined, it covered only the upper class. When it was taken up in the US, it originally covered only the WASPs. Today, it covers every H. S. Sapiens (or so we like to think).

 

In the end, I have arrived at the conclusion, that Democracy means that every human in the administrative unit in question is granted influence on the administrative process, namely in electing the ruling power (direct democracy is problematic for a lot of practical reasons).

 

The operative word in this regard is human. The citizens of Athens defined a human as a citizen of Athens, the Founding Fathers defined a human as a WASP. Modern democrats define a human as a member of the species H. S. Sapiens.

 

What I am trying to say, is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to gauge the level of democracy in an administrative unit on any absolute scale, because the definition of democracy involves an inherently subjective parameter.

 

One could however talk about the degree to which the population of a country is able to influence the ruling and/or executive powers. This may provide a qualified answer to our original question, because we use the modern defintion of democracy.

 

When it comes to this parameter, the US has never impressed me. Why not? Well for one because it's impossible to get an american politician to tell the people what he wants to do with the power that he wants to have. It is common knowledge that concrete political initiatives in the election campaigns can only substract from ones chances, never add to them. Because you can't please everyone it's safer to shut up. That way you avoid offending anyone (other than those who use the inside of their head). Which of course means that the people cannot make an informed choice, which in turn means that their influence is largely superficial. So, in a sense, democracy isn't on the wane in the US, because, if you'll excuse my bluntness, it never really existed.

 

Apart from the lack of relevant information (undemocratic behavior on the part of the politicians/the press/both) being a problem, passivity on part of the citizens is a major problem. Inability or refusal to make a decision, even when all the neccesairy information is present, is the other major threat to Democracy. This threat is very fundamental, as it touches upon one of our greatest fears: The fear of solitude. With choice comes solitude. It is inescapable. The appeal of Fascist ideologies is that they remove the need to choose, and thus the nessecity of solitude, by removing the ability to think. The fundamental challenge of Democracy is therefore to motivate the people to not take the easy way out, and lay their thought, and thus their very humanity, at the feet of fascism.

 

Personally I fear that Democracy is loosing the battle. Never have I so hoped that I am wrong.

[rccar328]

I have to remember people that democracy has once elected bad people too. Hitler was democratically elected. He just used the people's anger and hate to get elected. This kind of tampering with people's feelings can happen again in any democracy.

 

I agree, and I believe that America, in some ways, is moving toward this, but whether we would elect someone on the basis of anger and hate is iffy (I surely hope we don't).

 

Look at the current Presidential campaign: Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are running on a hatred for Bush. There are some issue-based complaints, but for the most part they're running on a platform of hatred. (And I know, many of you disagree with my analysis).

 

This has been tried before, the most notable instance being Bob Dole running against President Clinton. Senator Dole tried and failed to be elected, because he was running on a platform of hatred.

 

Hitler was elected on a platform of hatred because the people were starving. In the aftermath of WWI, Germany's reparations payments crippled their economy, and the subsequent depression made it even worse. If Germany's economy had not been in such ruins, it is possible that Hitler woule not have been elected (though there is no way of knowing for sure). Hitler gave them someone to blame for their troubles, and they went for it.

 

Today in America, however, I don't know how possible it is that the people would elect someone on a platform of hatred. Many of the current candidates are transparently power-hungry; they see that many people disagree with President Bush, and they work to turn that disagreement into hatred, without offering a true positive alternative. It would be a mistake for America to elect most of these candidates, as their policies will move our country closer and closer to socialism, which is a stepping-stone toward communism. And when it comes to communism, I'm inclined to agree with SkinWalker - it may work in smaller countries, but it just can't work in one as large as the US.

 

I normally do not like the notion that the Greek had it all figured out. Primus, because it was still only the nobility who had any real influence. Secundus, because "Greece", in the classical era, means "Athens". Take a look at Sparta, and you'll se a quite different picture.

 

I agree - we do give the Greeks (or rather, the Athenians) a bit too much credit. They had a great idea in democracy, but they limited it to a fault.

 

However, it was the Greek notion of Democracy that our democratic system in the US is loosely based on - our Founding Fathers had studied Greece, and sought to modify the Greek system (and even they didn't get it right at first).

 

Our Founding Fathers had also studied Rome, and they understood that in order to avoid a fall similer to that of the Roman Empire, two things were necessary: morality and education. (there are more than just these two, but these are the biggies).

 

First, we must have morals in order to allow our free way of life to continue. Without them, we become a society where anything goes. Moral codes have no meaning, and neither do our government's laws (which are based, for the most part, on moral codes). Governmental anarchy springs from moral anarchy.

 

Second, we must be educated on current issues. This education, combined with our understanding of moral values, will allow us to vote responsibly, and keep us from allowing the wrong person to take power.

 

So, is democracy dying? In a way, yes. It is easy to see the decline in moral values taking place in America's society today. Just take this year's Superbowl half-time show and imagine it being shown during the 1950s. Or even the 1980s. Or even 1990. Moral values in America have been degenerating for quite some time, and unless the people of America realize the importance of morals, disaster will result.

Likewise, voter education is declining. Many people simply don't care anymore - the way they see it, all politicians are corrupt, and nothing they do will change the way the government is being run. What's more, these people are mainly middle-of-the-road when it comes to liberal or conservative, and when they cease to educate themselves on the issues, and cease to vote, they leave our nation in the hands of the right- and left-wing extremist minority.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's true most of the democrat candidates are using hatred to get themselves into power. Much like Bush used your hatred to go to war...

 

Socialism doesn't necessarily lead to communism. Canada is a half socialist country and we aren't close to communism.

 

Morals change, you have to agree with this. If morals don't change, we'll just keep on stalling and live like we did 100 yrs ago with religion dominating everything and without any scientific achievement.

 

As for the Super Bowl half time show, you americans should really sit down and think. Your media talks about murders and killing all the time(just watch America's Most wanted or any other show) and oh that's ok.

We see a breast on tv, something that's not harmful to anyone, won't traumatize any kid(don't you dare say that kids in the 50's did not think about sex) unlike violence that actually kills people.

 

Which is worst? Talk about morals...

 

But nevertheless, there's also the universal morals that is linked to education. If your parents didn't teach you the basics, you're in deep sh!t...

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

Look at the current Presidential campaign: Many of the Democratic presidential candidates are running on a hatred for Bush. There are some issue-based complaints, but for the most part they're running on a platform of hatred. (And I know, many of you disagree with my analysis).

 

I like Wesley Clark. At least he had the brains and fingerspitzgefühl to suvive in NATO. He might be able to undo some of the trash dubya made in the international community.

 

If Germany's economy had not been in such ruins, it is possible that Hitler woule not have been elected (though there is no way of knowing for sure). Hitler gave them someone to blame for their troubles, and they went for it.

 

And if the Commies hadn't been complete idiots, he'd never gotten anywhere near power. The Conservatives didn't like him. The Social Democrats didn't like him. The Commies certainly didn't like him. But the Commies threatened the Conservatives, and hated the Social Democrats even more than the Nazis, so there was no effective front against the Nazis. If the Commies and Social Democrats had worked together, then the Nazis could perhaps have been kept from power. But then again... the Weimar Republic was called 'the republic without republicans'.

 

Today in America, however, I don't know how possible it is that the people would elect someone on a platform of hatred.

 

Dubya does. Agains Islam. And against anyone who is opposed to his insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma.

 

It would be a mistake for America to elect most of these candidates, as their policies will move our country closer and closer to socialism, which is a stepping-stone toward communism.

 

Are you really buying that neo-conservative rubbish? USA? Socialist? Now that's something I'd like to see! The extreme left of US politics may come close to the middle of the European political spectrum. Which is still a far cry from Communism.

 

And when it comes to communism, I'm inclined to agree with SkinWalker - it may work in smaller countries, but it just can't work in one as large as the US.

 

I'm inclined to disagree with Skin here. Communism doesn't work. Period. But as I stated before, Europe is social-liberal, not socialistic. One of the things that irks me about Americans, if I'm to make an only slightly unreasonable generalization, is that they can't tell a Social Democrat from a Baader-Meinhoff-supporter.

 

However, it was the Greek notion of Democracy that our democratic system in the US is loosely based on

 

Not true. The American Constitution is based on the doctrines of French intelectuals who fled persecution at the hands of the French monarchy. Before said monarchy... lost its head, so to say.

 

First, we must have morals in order to allow our free way of life to continue. Without them, we become a society where anything goes. Moral codes have no meaning, and neither do our government's laws (which are based, for the most part, on moral codes). Governmental anarchy springs from moral anarchy.

 

Are you quoting the 'Fathers here, or is this more of your neo propaganda?

 

Second, we must be educated on current issues. This education, combined with our understanding of moral values, will allow us to vote responsibly, and keep us from allowing the wrong person to take power.

 

Second, we must be educated on current issues. Educated. Period. One cannot make an informed decision, if one's 'education' extends no further back than the last election.

 

So, is democracy dying? In a way, yes. It is easy to see the decline in moral values taking place in America's society today. Just take this year's Superbowl half-time show and imagine it being shown during the 1950s. Or even the 1980s. Or even 1990. Moral values in America have been degenerating for quite some time, and unless the people of America realize the importance of morals, disaster will result.

 

A very... decorative addition. But if you want to see moral decline, look at dubya's circumventing the Security Counsil. Or stashing suspects on a remote military base and leaving them there to rot. Showing a breast during SuperBowl is not moral decline. Getting all worked up about it really is just... silly.

 

Likewise, voter education is declining.

 

Likewise, voter education is declining.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

 

I'm inclined to disagree with Skin here. Communism doesn't work. Period. [/b]

 

What I actually said was that communism works only at the band level of society. I don't think it is possible to have communism in state-level societies becuase of the necessary stratification.

 

But at the band-level, it can work. After all, isn't egalitarism a basic form of communism? Everyone shares in everything, etc.

 

By the way, welcome back, Shadow T!

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

What I actually said was that communism works only at the band level of society. I don't think it is possible to have communism in state-level societies becuase of the necessary stratification.

 

But at the band-level, it can work. After all, isn't egalitarism a basic form of communism? Everyone shares in everything, etc.

 

By the way, welcome back, Shadow T!

 

Aah, but then you're not talking about Communism as Marx defined it. Besides... I still don't think that i'd work. And if it was to be put to the test, we'd have to gamble for who'd be within the 5-10% to be allowed to see it. The rest would have to die, or the hunter-gatherer model would irreversibly destroy the land that it occiupied...

 

Oh, and thanks for the welcome...

[rccar328]

I like Wesley Clark. At least he had the brains and fingerspitzgefühl to suvive in NATO.

 

And yet, when Michael Moore stands up next to him and lies about George W. Bush's military record, he doesn't have the brains or the guts to disagree. And besides that, the man's an egomaniac :

 

No one can accuse me of being soft on defense, and no one can accuse me of not knowing about what the armed forces are about. And when I say, “It’s OK,” then it’s OK, period.

 

If he says it's OK, then it's OK? Period? Gee, that's pretty darn reassuring (and if you couldn't hear the sarcasm, it was there).

 

If the Commies and Social Democrats had worked together, then the Nazis could perhaps have been kept from power.

 

Yeah...but they didn't. Also, if England had listened to Churchill long before WWII, they probably could've stopped him. But they didn't. The simple truth is, Hitler's message of hatred appealed to the masses, and that's what got him elected.

 

Dubya does. Agains Islam. And against anyone who is opposed to his insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma.

 

Now, this is just pure, unthinking, ignorant Bush-bashing.

If the President hated Islam so much, why not just order all of the troops to go around killing all of the Muslims? Why even go to the trouble of freeing Iraq? If the President hated Islam as much as you say, wouldn't it have been more to his liking to leave Hussein in power to torture, rape and murder the Muslims in Iraq? If he hated Islam so much, you'd think he'd be supporting Hussein and giving his regime funding to build more rape rooms to torture more Muslims. Maybe he'd fly down on weekends and torture & rape a couple himself. What's more, the President isn't running (and hasn't run) on a platform of hatred. If you remember, 9/11 happened after Bush was elected. Just because we're fighting and killing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists (that want to kill us) and we deposed the tyrannical leader of an Islamic nation doesn't mean that the President hates Islam. Or anyone opposed to his supposed "insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma." What's more, Bush didn't cite hatred as a reason to go to war. He cited many reasons, including national defense and compassion for oppressed people, but not hatred.

 

And another thing - so many people these days are so willing to buy into the myth that Christianity is a religion of hatred because we believe that there is a moral standard, and if you don't meet that standard and believe in Jesus, you're going to Hell. Well, we don't decide what's true, we just try to live by it. And if you don't agree with me, maybe you should try reading the Bible with an open mind and finding out just what Christianity is all about before you spout your insane liberal-athiest fundamentalist nonsense.

 

The lie that Christianity is a religion of hatred is perpetrated by those people who look at the fringes of Christians and assume that all Christians are like that (it's also spread by those people who say they are Christians in order to look like good, moral people, but don't actually practice the religion). Well, you can't appropriately judge an entire faith based on a small group of extremists.

 

Really, it's just like buying into the lie that Islam is a violent, hateful faith based on the fact that there are fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Real Islam isn't like that at all, but a few extremists who have perverted the religion into what they want it to be have soiled Islam's reputation.

 

The truth is, both of these religions are religions of peace and love, but the few extremists out there get all of the press and give the rest of us a bad name.

 

And now, I know that somebody is going to say, "If Christianity is based on peace and love, why is Bush (a Christian) going to war?" Well, the Bible says, "Love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 19:19), and it also says, "Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you." (Luke 6:27). But is also says, "To everything there is a season, and a time to every purpose under heaven...a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace." (Ecclesiastes 3:1 & 8).

 

The extreme left of US politics may come close to the middle of the European political spectrum. Which is still a far cry from Communism.

 

True. But it's an undeniable fact that the extreme left (which includes each and every democratic presidential candidate) is moving closer and closer to socialism. And according to the dictionary definition of socialism (if you even cared to check out the link), it is a step toward communism.

 

Are you quoting the 'Fathers here, or is this more of your neo propaganda?

 

Well, I would provide a direct quote, but I left my copy of the Federalist at home. When I find quotes, though, I'll be sure to give them to you.

 

Really, all it takes is a little thought, though, to see how moral anarchy leads to governmental anarchy. Especially when so many of our basic laws are based on a basic moral code (murder, rape, assault, lying under oath, etc.). Without morality, our laws have no meaning, and therefore no purpose.

 

Not true. The American Constitution is based on the doctrines of French intelectuals who fled persecution at the hands of the French monarchy. Before said monarchy... lost its head, so to say.

 

True...but the American Constitution isn't based on any one source. The idea of democracy came from Greece, and the American system is a modification of that (and also includes elements from France).

 

Second, we must be educated. Educated. Period. One cannot make an informed decision, if one's 'education' extends no further back than the last election.

 

Agreed - which is why we have schools (even though we do have problems in our educational system). However, the point I was making is that if we are not educated on current issues (and, yes, past issues), we cannot intelligently vote on those issues.

 

A very... decorative addition. But if you want to see moral decline, look at dubya's circumventing the Security Counsil. Or stashing suspects on a remote military base and leaving them there to rot. Showing a breast during SuperBowl is not moral decline. Getting all worked up about it really is just... silly.

 

Well...first of all, "dubya's" circumventing the Security Counsil is a diplomatic matter more than a moral one. If anything, the President made the correct moral choice, choosing both to eliminate a threat to America and liberate an oppressed people, despite the pathetic whinings of the UN's ever-impotent Security Council.

 

Showing a breast on network television in front of millions of people may not seem like moral decline to you, but your reaction in and of itself shows that our morals are declining. Going back 50 years, there would be no question as to whether the Superbowl halftime show was immoral - and the debate wouldn't have started over a breast, it would've been about the whole show - it was basically as much of a sex-fest as they could get away with without being totally shut down by the FCC. The fact that the moral outrage is just about a breast and not about the lyrics to the songs & the dancers shows the moral decline of our nation. The amount of promiscuous sex and teen pregnancies in our nation shows the moral decline of our nation. The prevalence of obscenities in our young peoples's language shows the moral decline of our nation. If you can't see this, it's because you, like many others, have been desensitized to it. And it's not just the Superbowl half-time show, that's only a blatent example of the moral degrigation that runs rampant throughout modern television and music across America. What was once black-and-white morality has been justified over time into a gigantic grey-area by a society that wants to say, "anything goes." But anyone with a clear sense of morality can see that the moral decline is there, and it is undeniable.

 

Yeah, we aren't outraged (for the most part) by things like murder on TV or sex scenes in movies or trashy shows like the Osbournes. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be. These things don't outrage us anymore because we are so surrounded by them that we become desensitized to them until we move the line of what we are repulsed by a little farther away. Then, the entertainment industry turns it up a little, and we're outraged for a little while, but we become desensitized again and quiet down. After a while, the moral depravity that we see on television and hear in modern music gets us so desensitized that people have no problem committing or defending in real life the things that they see on television or hear in music. It's not a change in morals, it's an erasure of morals from our society.

 

And I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that kids in the 50s didn't think about sex. I'm saying that back then the majority of people didn't have such a gigantic grey area between right and wrong because they weren't surrounded by the immorality that is so prevalent in today's society.

[taoistimmortal]

Originally posted by ShadowTemplar

Aah, but then you're not talking about Communism as Marx defined it. Besides... I still don't think that i'd work. And if it was to be put to the test, we'd have to gamble for who'd be within the 5-10% to be allowed to see it. The rest would have to die, or the hunter-gatherer model would irreversibly destroy the land that it occiupied...

 

Yes but communist Russia was not communism as Marx defined it either. Neither is China, North Korea ect. What I've infered from Skin's is that if communism was put to the test the only way that it would'nt end with pandemic brutality, or ubiquitous oppression, is if the society was small enough to give the greatest amount of people the greatest amount of space, or whatever it is people want in a marxist system. This may in fact turn out to be an very small society indeed: like the size of a clan or any other basic familial unit, and that is a valid form of communism under certaim conditions.

 

As for the top 5-10% being allowed to see it, that is not a description of a marxist system. A marxist system invites all working peoples to partake in the system, although, eventually after the period of time in which a marxist regime is formed there will be those that lead the party. It seems you assume that communism will always be conducted by rulers capable of the greatest despotism and taste for injustice, but in my mind it all depends on the situational variables which are too numerous to even begin to mention here. Size of society, technological advancement, educational level of average "comrade", intent of the top memebers of the party, are these memebers susceptible to corruptive forces ect.

[Aries077]

Government, to me is all the same...as in there is no democracy, no feudalism, no autocracies...All forms of government are based on one another, so it is likely that the governments we are firmilliar with are nothing but our interpretations of one, flexible government.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by rccar328

And besides that, the man's an egomaniac :

 

In case you didn't notice, Nato was in its worst crisis ever a few years ago (Kosova, anyone?). I hardly think that an egomaniac would have survived in the upper echelons during such a turmoilous time.

 

The simple truth is, Hitler's message of hatred appealed to the masses, and that's what got him elected.

 

Considering the grasp of European history that you have so far demonstrated, I'd advise you against making hard-and-fast statements about complicated issues like this.

 

If the President hated Islam so much, why not just order all of the troops to go around killing all of the Muslims?

 

You know the answer to that question. It begins with 'war' and ends with 'crimes'. Besides I didn't say that he hates muslims. In fact I didn't even say that he hates Islam, merely that he is riding on a wave of unthinking anti-islamism. Not that that's my biggest beef with him anyway.

 

Why even go to the trouble of freeing Iraq?

 

Oil. Military bases. Turns away focus from a crappy economy. Power gaming. There are lots of reasons.

 

If you remember, 9/11 happened after Bush was elected.

 

I know, and I mourn that fact. But I was talking about this election.

 

Just because we're fighting and killing fundamentalist Islamic terrorists (that want to kill us) and we deposed the tyrannical leader of an Islamic nation doesn't mean that the President hates Islam.

 

But he is still playing upon an anti-islamistic wave. But, frankly, I'm not here to defend Islam. It's no more civilized than Christianity.

 

Or anyone opposed to his supposed "insane judeo-christian fundamentalist dogma."

 

That is an entirely seperate issue, involving women's rights, homosexuals' rights, etc.

 

And another thing - so many people these days are so willing to buy into the myth that Christianity is a religion of hatred because we believe that there is a moral standard, and if you don't meet that standard and believe in Jesus, you're going to Hell.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda. Cut the crap. Chritianity is a hateful and totalitarian organisation because the vast majority of Christians who ever lived were religiocentric, racist totalitarians. And every government founded on Christianity throughout history has been totalitarian. Same can be said for every other religion, but that's beside the point.

 

Well, we don't decide what's true, we just try to live by it. And if you don't agree with me, maybe you should try reading the Bible with an open mind and finding out just what Christianity is all about before you spout your insane liberal-athiest fundamentalist nonsense.

 

Touché. But 'open mind' means 'willing to accept what can be proven', not ' willing to accept whatever a stupid, old book says, just because its followers have multiplied enormously over the years'. I don't see any proof in the bible, and no there is sensible way in which one can defend a point that has no proof.

 

True. But it's an undeniable fact that the extreme left (which includes each and every democratic presidential candidate) is moving closer and closer to socialism. And according to the dictionary definition of socialism (if you even cared to check out the link), it is a step toward communism.

 

This is a game of words, nothing more. In Marx's theories, socialism was a stepping stone towards Communism. But you aren't telling be that you, as a neo-conservative, are subscribing to Marxist nonsense, are you?

 

Without morality, our laws have no meaning, and therefore no purpose.

 

A philosophical debate best left to another time and place. Suffice is to say that I disagree vehemently.

 

If anything, the President made the correct moral choice, choosing both to eliminate a threat to America and liberate an oppressed people, despite the pathetic whinings of the UN's ever-impotent Security Council.

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda. I've heard that one before. And I've told you why you're wrong before. And I get really tired of having to repeat myself, so those interested can look my points up in one of the mulititudes of threads where I have explained my views already.

 

Showing a breast on network television in front of millions of people may not seem like moral decline to you, but your reaction in and of itself shows that our morals are declining.

 

Or that the Bible Belt is living in the past. The totalitarian-dark-age-kind-of-past.

 

The amount of promiscuous sex and teen pregnancies in our nation shows the moral decline of our nation.

 

Or that the dark numbers have declined.

 

The prevalence of obscenities in our young peoples's language shows the moral decline of our nation.

 

Correct. But I hardly see how this is relevant to the breast in the SuperBowl halftime.

 

If you can't see this, it's because you, like many others, have been desensitized to it.

 

Or because I am not a follower of puritan, Victorian morals.

 

But anyone with a clear sense of morality can see that the moral decline is there, and it is undeniable.

 

I pride myself in having a high moral standard. But I find your idea of morals disgusting.

 

Yeah, we aren't outraged (for the most part) by things like murder on TV or sex scenes in movies or trashy shows like the Osbournes.

 

I'm not going to stand up for American television. From what I've seen of it, it's utter crap.

 

And I'm not saying by any stretch of the imagination that kids in the 50s didn't think about sex. I'm saying that back then the majority of people didn't have such a gigantic grey area between right and wrong because they weren't surrounded by the immorality that is so prevalent in today's society.

 

What I'm saying is that sex is not immoral. And that those who claim that it is, do so with the intent of oppressing others. "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."

 

As for the top 5-10% being allowed to see it, that is not a description of a marxist system.

 

Nope, it's a description of a hunter-gatherer system.

[The_One]

Hey, let's be clear about the relative success of Communism here.

 

You can't make the unsubstantiated claim that "Communism doesn't work" - that simply has no grounding. The "best" model of Communism we have as a point of reference is that of the Soviet Union.

 

Now, Marxist theory - as illustrated in the Communist Manifesto - suggests that over a slow period of time there will be an evolution of economic/political systems. This will originate from a feudalistic system, then over time will become more capitalistic – this is the stage we are at now. Eventually, capitalism is predicted to break down, and from that shattered foundation, a system of Communism can be established.

 

None of the Communist systems that have existed over the last hundred years have fitted with this model. Marx and Engels suggest that the move to Communism will be more of a gradual - perhaps evolutionary - change.

 

Back to our case in point, the Soviet Union. The Bolsheviks seized power in October 1917 (or November, depending on your preference of calendar) and imposed a system of “Communism” on Russia. Indeed, Lenin had to introduce the capitalistic NEP on the country just to restore the economy, before any kind of socialist economic system could be introduced. Essentially, the "capitalist" stage of Marxist theory was rushed through in under 10 years, and none of the slow progression was ever seen. The country, to all intents and purposes, went straight from a Feudal system to a Communist system. And then, if you look at Lenin, he was pretty out of touch with Marx, and Stalin had practically nothing in common with either Marx or Lenin - he is more readily compared to Peter the Great, than his predecessor.

 

Now, that is just one country, and I am using this as an example to make one simple point: there has never been a true system of Communism ever. If it ever does happen, there won't be some "uprising" or "mass revolution", it will be a gradual change, and move away from capitalism towards the ideals of Communism. Also, let us not forget that Marxist-Leninist theory (of which I am a great admirer) suggests that "world revolution" is required for Communism to succeed - unlike the ideal of "socialism in one country" that Stalin pushed for – and a worldwide system of Communism is required for it to actually get anywhere.

 

So, please don't just say "Communism doesn't work" when we haven't even seen a true Communist system, or given one a chance to work.

[toms]

Originally posted by Aries077

Government, to me is all the same...as in there is no democracy, no feudalism, no autocracies...All forms of government are based on one another, so it is likely that the governments we are firmilliar with are nothing but our interpretations of one, flexible government.

 

yup. It doesn't matter what system you go with, it is still a case of a few people with the right friends, family, influence and backers making all the decisions, and doing so in a way that benefits those same friends, family, influence and backers and not the people as a whole. depressing huh?

 

Democracy has almost become a joke. We vote in party A, complain about them not fixing stuff that generally isn't fixable without paying way more taxes (which we won't do) and then vote them out and vote for party B, then we do exactly the same.

 

This whole moral decline thing is a load of rubbish. Morally the US (or UK) is no worse off than it was 50 years ago (probably better) or 100 years ago.

 

Hell, there are writings from roman times which have the older generation complaining about the moral decline in the youth of today and exactly the same stuff that the older generation complains about now. It has been going on since civilisation started and today's youth that people are so worried about now will be complaining about exactly the same thing in forty years.

[TheLiberator34]

I think American democracy is dying. Democracy itself is an idea. It can't die unless it is forgotten. In the end I think America, in its attempts to create a kind of "invisible empire" based on capatalist values, is going down the tubes. The weakness of our democracy is very simple. Never in the original constitution was any real thought given to how leaders were chosen. Now we see elections powered by the money of special interests and side line groups suberseeding the will of the people because no thought was given to how our leaders would be chosen. The next step of implemented democracy will HAVE to give serious consideration on what criteria its leaders will have to fill. In the end all governments are trying to put political power in the hands of those who will use it well for the greater good. We just need a better means of seperating those kinds of good leaders from power mongers.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by The_One

So, please don't just say "Communism doesn't work" when we haven't even seen a true Communist system, or given one a chance to work.

 

I don't buy the 'we've never seen a true Communist state' crap. The Middle-East islamists say the same about the Sharia. And I'm willing to bet that neo-nazi apologetics say the same about Nazism. Point is that that excuse can be used to justify any revolution as part of a world-wide experiment on a grand scale.

 

We just need a better means of seperating those kinds of good leaders from power mongers.

 

How are you going to do that without sacrificing an essencial part of democracy: The people choose whomever they want. If the people vote for a stupid, power-mongering git, then that's their legitimate choice. I've yet to see a model that could sort the candidates a priori without taking on the trappings of a despotism.

[TheLiberator34]

Im sorry. I should have clarified something I said earlier. When I said the point of government was to give power to people who was using it wisely I meant voting power as well as holding office. The idea of giving everyone voting power has already proven itself suspect. If you want to understand what I mean, go read Robert Heinlein's book Starship troopers. He points out the big flaws in OUR version of democracy.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

Im sorry. I should have clarified something I said earlier. When I said the point of government was to give power to people who was using it wisely I meant voting power as well as holding office. The idea of giving everyone voting power has already proven itself suspect.

 

If we don't give all American citizens the right to vote then democracy DOES die.

 

And StarShip troopers is not the way to base our democratic system. Only allowing people who serve in the military to vote is bullocks. I have absolutely nothing against people in the armed services and I do admire them, but the majority of them that I have met in real life are going to vote for Bush in the coming election.

 

That right there tells me that military men are no more fit to make decisions of leadership than the average American citizen.

[TheLiberator34]

Not what I trying to get across Et warrior. The whole point is to give power to people who will use it wisely. The whole idea heinlein was trying to express is that giving everyone franchise or full political power DOES NOT make them more responsible citizens. Besides, in starship troopers people only got voting rights and the right to run for public office AFTER they leave the service. They had NO political rights while serving and not all those people were military. So of them were just plain government workers. The whole reason they got power was because their experiences taught them to look at things from the perspective of the good of the many over the good of the one. Also, the people who didn't have voting rights still had free speech, freedom of the press, etc. The simple harsh reality is that what WE concieve of as democracy may take a new shape to serve the needs of future generations. A shape which we may not agree with. That's the way life works. Nothing stays the same.

[ShadowTemplar]

Originally posted by JediLiberator

The whole point is to give power to people who will use it wisely.

 

But what criteria are you going to employ in your selection? If you go to Iran, then the criterium is "Islamist Zealot". If you look at the neoconservative American Right, then the criterium would probably be "Christian Zealot". And I'll not even go into what it would be in Israel.

 

What about hippies? Are they responsible citizens? I think not. Priests? Hardly. But I'm pretty sure that most people here disagree with me on at least one of the above.

 

According to most parts of the world, Bush is harmful to society. According to most parts of the world, he's a blithering idiot as well. Does that mean that we have the right to exclude him from running for office? I don't think so. Why not? Because according to most people in the Bible Belt, Kerry is a menace to America. If we were to exclude dubya from running for Prez, then why shouldn't the Deep South have the right to veto Kerry's campaign? From what authority would such decisions be derived? How would you justify your version of democracy if the majority of the people weren't allowed to vote?

[TheLiberator34]

There's very simple way of selecting people for the right to vote. Anyone willing to join government service, willing to suffer, risk their lives, for minimal pay I might add, and act for the good of a nation rather than their own hides deserves the right to vote. Their religion and political views don't enter into it. The point is to make voting hard to reach because I guarantee you, very few people who don't deserve power are willing to risk their hides to get it. Could you imagine G W in an actual combat unit as a bid to earn his presidency? I don't. And even if he did go through such a trek, he's still gotta deal with constituents who understand military matter, have the agression to question authority, and enough brains not to commit their fellow man to a conflict which earns more suffering than value. Also, if you look at how difficult training is for such units, you'd realize anybody who wasn't fully prepared to make a serious commitment to doing their duty to their country ain't gonna cut it.

[ET Warrior]

I'm sorry, but I've known FAR too many idiots who've decided that since they're too stupid for college they're going to join the armed services, and when they got out they were STILL morons.

 

Again, this in no way implies all people who serve are stupid, but you see my point. Serving in the military or even for the government by no means makes you any more qualified to vote than the average 18 year old American citizen.

 

Just because I dont choose to serve in the military because I find killing morally unacceptable does NOT mean I am unable to make a reasonable and intelligent decision on who I will vote for.

[SkinWalker]

Poppycock.

 

Voting is the right of all citizens regardless of their "civil service." This is the way it should be and was the clear intent of the Founding Fathers, though the definition of "citizenship" has changed over the course of 200 years (some would say to the expectations and hopes of many FF).

 

A system of excluding those that choose not to serve their country amounts to a form of tyranny. Moreover, it works under the a priori notion that "civil service" is exculsive of any duties that are not in direct employ of the government. Our society is such that all members (even non-citizens) serve the nation in some capacity: business owners, cashiers, ditch diggers, volunteers at soup kitchens, etc.

 

Excluding a typology of citizenship would ensure that "that type" doesn't vote. But perhaps these are the very voices that need be heard.

 

Dissent is a concept that this nation was built upon and is a patriotic ideal. The dissenters deserve as much right to vote as the hardline, civil servants...

 

Also, if you look at how difficult training is for such units, you'd realize anybody who wasn't fully prepared to make a serious commitment to doing their duty to their country ain't gonna cut it.

 

More baloney. I retired from the military and can assure you that all ratios of intellect are well represented. The military is a predictive cross-section of normal society. What changes is the culture (jargon, norms of behavior, etc.) and the job skills.

 

A military serviceman is no more or less qualified to vote than the person flipping burgers at your local Wendy's (assuming the same age-grade).

 

Anyone willing to join government service, willing to suffer, risk their lives, for minimal pay I might add, and act for the good of a nation rather than their own hides deserves the right to vote.

 

Of course they do. As does anyone willing to look for a job in today's job market, go to college and obtain an education, fix the cars as a mechanic in a garage, pull the fries out of the oil as soon as the timer goes off, or grow food on a farm to feed the nation, or .....

[TheLiberator34]

Ya know what the most funny thing about this whole thread is? In arguing against my points you guys have proven just how alive democracy is.