This is such a ...bad question. Do you support democracy if it leads to things like slavery? I mean, hey, it happened once. Do you support democracy if it leads to crap like manifest destiny? I mean, hey it happened onc...oh wait it's still happening.
This is a whole another issue. Funny Mubarak kept telling Egyptians not to risk the stability of the country. But you have to ask whether the status quo is worth keeping? Stability of a society where most people are unhappy is not a fortune for the people. Often it takes violence to break that forced balance.
I agree with what you said. Democracy is 'great' on paper. but it requires a certain level of social stability, economic wellbeing and education/knowledge among the general public. Personally I voted no because i am kind of on the fence. For well developed Western Nations, yes democracy is good. But for MOST of the world, democracy is just too inefficient to maintain. like you said, there are too many countries that have conflicting views/interests the just makes democracy a waste of time.
Well there arguments to be made on both sides. There are issues that are one sided, but what is the point of discussing that.
What you are talking about is about how the term "democracy" has been used as a rhetorical and propaganda tool rather than the idea of the democracy. If you consider "democracy" just to be what is in the US interests then I would say you have bought into that rhetoric.
So just because democracies like the US aren't perfect and have a lot of problems then are you saying we should have authoritarianism?
If you assume perfection in anything like government, you are blind, deaf, and dumb, with all due respect.
Bending over and taking it might be just another Friday night for you, but the rest of us would appreciate a government that at least pretends to be improving itself. Of course true perfection in anything is a silly idea and was never mentioned by anyone, so I'm not sure why you even bothered to bring it up, with all due respect.
This is it. With the disproportionate influence that the wealthy have in our political process, it's getting more and more difficult to classify our own government as a legitimate democracy.
Oh, really? Sishir posts this: And you reply with this: "So how do you propose we make our democracy more perfect?" The implication I see you making is that authoritarianism really isn't so bad, along with what is, to me, obvious sarcasm. As for "bending over and taking it," go hang out in an authoritarian society for awhile and see just how much you enjoy the experience. I await a report.
There are certainly plenty of steps that we could take to improve democracy, which might be better discussed in another thread. Anyway just because there are problems with democracies I don't think we drop the principle.
Oh of course not, who would advocate dropping democracy. I rather vote against a million sheep than having to listen to a single dictator. Hmmm find the word authoritarian in my previous posts. Go on. No? Could it be that I simply wanted to hear ideas for improvement? Could it be that you are just a very negative person who can't help but assume the worst of people for the sake of being confrontational? Gonna have to go with "Yes" for both of these.
If it continues as is . . . how will you tell the difference? You can have an Authoritarianistic Democracy. In Communism - The control mechanism is lack of choice. Dictatorship . . the Control mechanism is guns to the head In a Democracy . . the control mechanism can be MONEY the ILLUSION of choice. . .doesn't make it a real choice or a real democracy. Hell the difference between Republicans and Democrats is not that big They probably less than 10 degrees from being one party . . a Communism party Rocket River
If that is actually what you are attempting to do, then I apologize. I'm not really a "negative person" at all, believe it or not. I'm just not shy about giving my opinions. If I was off-base with you, then I was off-base.
So it is all or nothing . . .. right? Actually I would say - America is more Authoritarian than it was 50 years ago and It maybe more Authoritarian in 50 yrs than it is now. Rocket River
If you look at the term of democracy as the power to vote someone OUT of office then I would say it's a great way to go (funny that this isn't even a possibility in the US though...). But many states could not run under democracy at this point in time.
You've brought up the important point here. The issue should be less about the merits of Democracy and more about limiting what the state can do in our name. You can't have an Authoritarian Democracy if the state's coercive actions are limited.
