Go Moss and Robski... reckon Squig doesn't have a leg (ho ho) to stand on

The problem with democracy is that no matter who you vote for the government always wins the election.

It's a bit like p1ssing into the wind (to bring the thread back on topic).

Democracy:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

...said Captain Kirk, opened his communicator and spoke in a low voice "now beam me up fast Scotty!"

"now beam me up fast Scotty!"

The Prime Directive meets Democracy.

"As the right of each sentient species to live in accordance with its normal cultural evolution is considered sacred, no Starfleet personnel may interfere with the healthy development of alien life and culture. Such interference includes the introduction of superior knowledge, strength, or technology to a world who society is incapable of handling such advantages wisely. Starfleet personnel may not violate this Prime Directive, even to save their lives and/or their ship, unless they are acting to right an earlier violation or an accidental contamination of said culture. This directive takes precedence over any and all other considerations, and carries with it the highest moral obligation"

Only the truly great captains break that rule!

they then get their own tv show recounting their exploits!

Edited January 23, 200818 yr by kayo

Democracy is a system for splitting power between individuals and creating oversight relationships between them. Ideally, it means that every agent of the state is subject to the scrutiny of the public and other oversight bodies. The idea is more to counter tyranny and corruption than to promote some universal good. Indeed, it can be argued that the central purpose of democracy is to give everyone a fair shot at pursuing their individual conception of the good, with controls in place to keep others from making that aim impossible.

This is the best answer to the riddle I have found anywhere on the internet.

Moss

In the Greek polis the meaning of the term “democracy” implied the government of a vast majority of the people, the “plebs”, as opposed to the aristocracy. In modern politics the word signifies that the entirety of the population, made up of free and equal individuals, is the source of sovereignty, even though the population does not rule directly but rather through a free mandate.

Democracy is therefore the common creation, through a contract or through another emblem of the constitutional power of the people, of the legislator (the Parliament), that along with the law, gives consistency to the natural rights of individuals, giving them the status of citizens. Historically, democracy is born in Europe with the French revolution and in the United Stated with the independence from colonial England. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, also through warfare, struggles and regressions, democracy is established both on a political level, through universal suffrage -which represents the formal political requisite for a democratic state-, and on a social one; the Social State of the second half of the twentieth century is in fact an attempt to drive the economic and technical dynamics that had activated Europe to follow the logic of political equality, rather than letting them create strong power inequalities inside society.

Full article

Moss

But one must always remember that the Athenian society was a slave-owning society and even when the plebeian section got the vote, there was still a majority of the population excluded from such rights.

Muammar Gaddafi has instituted a form of democracy in Libya, where each street or housing block elects their representative, these representatives elect spokesmen, the spokesmen then speak for the area they represent.

The only problem is that they all parrot whatever they think are the 'thoughts of the leader'. There is no basic set of principles set out, so that one may pick and choose between candidates. All is by consensus.

As we should not discuss politics in TV, I will refrain from comments on Tony Blair for EU President, the approval of the Lisbon Agreement and other such matters.

This is a most interesting thread.

I generally create them

Moss

I generally create them

Moss

That's true, my threads are always inane twaddle, yours are always interesting and stimulating!

Democracy works like this,

Tony Blair leads the UK into an illegal war, despite the protests of UK citizens, which costs us Billions of pounds and countless dead and wounded.

When the reasons for leading us into war turn out to be false, and in part fabricated, he is not held responsible for his actions.

J.P. Morgan Chase, America's second largest bank, which was implicated in the Enron scandal, wins the contract by the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to run a consortium of 13 banks that will constitute the Trade Bank of Iraq.

J.P. Morgan Chase appoint former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a senior advisory capacity to the firm, effective

immediately. Mr. Blair will also join the company's International Council. (For a £2 million a year salary I think.)

The death toll and war profits continue to increase in Iraq.

And they wonder why the country is in such a mess when that is the example we are set.

I saw a quote recently along the lines of: Honesty may be the most profitable policy, but by definition/elimination dishonesty is the second most profitable policy.

Here's an interesting article on the subject with some deeper consequences of Blairs appointment to JP Morgan: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19082.htm

Edited February 18, 200818 yr by Robski

Democracy works like this,

Tony Blair leads the UK into an illegal war, despite the protests of UK citizens, which costs us Billions of pounds and countless dead and wounded.

When the reasons for leading us into war turn out to be false, and in part fabricated, he is not held responsible for his actions.

J.P. Morgan Chase, America's second largest bank, which was implicated in the Enron scandal, wins the contract by the Iraq Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) to run a consortium of 13 banks that will constitute the Trade Bank of Iraq.

J.P. Morgan Chase appoint former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a senior advisory capacity to the firm, effective

immediately. Mr. Blair will also join the company's International Council. (For a £2 million a year salary I think.)

The death toll and war profits continue to increase in Iraq.

And they wonder why the country is in such a mess when that is the example we are set.

I saw a quote recently along the lines of: Honesty may be the most profitable policy, but by definition/elimination dishonesty is the second most profitable policy.

Here's an interesting article on the subject: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19082.htm

That's just about right. I would add that simultaneously the government pares back retirement insurance shemes while making tax deferred investment portfolios the new retirement scheme. The populace then buy the stocks and bonds of the corporations that profit from continuous warfare. Slowly they begin to associate the beginning of a war as a "buying opportunity" raher than the commencement of infliction of untold carnage. In this way we all become "stakeholders". It's a pretty sweet deal all around, assuming you're not the guy whose family is being blown up.

they begin to associate the beginning of a war as a "buying opportunity" raher than the commencement of infliction of untold carnage

A very astute observation.

In this way we all become "stakeholders".

Which then would muddy the waters of conviction, morality and conscience for objection against such actions of entry into an illegal war.

Good posts Rob and Lan

Moss

Phew! Excellent posts boys!

In this way we all become "stakeholders".

What, like Vampire slayers

In this way we all become "stakeholders".

What, like Vampire slayers

Not in this example. In fact, just the opposite.

I think a good answer to OP is :

In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition,

but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides.

- George Orwell

interesting thread - surprising for Bedlam !

also good to see some real conversation on the subject

...

As Robski says democracy is merely the illusion of freedom....

some one has defined a "Democracy" as "demons crazy" - meaning that people who actually control power in the countries, they get somewhat "ting tong" and decide to allow some sort of this illusionary freedom and are having fun toying with the notion of giving the masses ("demos") the impression that their vote / opinions counts and that they really govern themselves through their elected representatives.

seems like nowadays more and more people are becoming disillusioned, even here on TV

and more people turn to other concepts such as Libertarianism (in US - Ron Paul), Democratic socialism (Chavez in S. America), Social democracy (woops - G. Brown, T. Blair in UK , N. Mandela in S. Africa or M. Gorbachev in Russia) , Third Way, Futarchy, E-Democracy (cyberdemocracy or digital democracy) and many other alternatives as Islamism.

some argue that the future is with Liberal democracy or possibly, with all evident current trends, a Post-democracy (Illiberal democracy)

it is all related - economic, social and political sides, often religious no less - which all influence the government type.

however the Libertarian platform, although increasingly popular, doesn't help Ron Paul much in his campaign it seems.

but may be he just uses this campaign to spread the ideas. and he is definitely getting message across: people realize the illusionary fanfare of democracy propaganda. like one of his supporters Aaron Russo has said in his famous interview:

Democracy - it's a joke, it's a phony ! It means majority rule and it is never allowed - but that's a secret!

Hey great post, where have you been hiding?

I think the future is Fascism, (crypto fascist perhaps to appease the masses), well really it's with us already and should be resisted, but it is pervasive.

Fascism didn't stop in 1945 it just got dressed up in new clothes, it got smarter.

Define a Fascist state and how it operates, Nationalistic, a belief in racial/cultural supremecy and thus a right to dictate, and a propaganda system that perpetuates the message and excludes outside influences. (pehaps even to the extent where a state can operate unmolested within a state)

They allow the illusion of freedom, but how far will that get you? Are you willing to co-operate?

To those in the political-military-industrial elite it doesn't matter who wins the election, whoever is in power will have their interests at heart.

Meanwhile the rest of us fight through our divisions and pedjudices with each other for the crumbs that fall from their table.

Yes things have changed and more people have become dissillusioned, but it doesn't make the elite weaker, far from it.

The more we get dissillusioned and turn our backs or look for alternatives, the less united we become.

It's a truly distopian future, but then that depends which side of the divide you're on, if your rich and connected it may already seem like utopia.

Edited February 19, 200818 yr by Robski