That also sounds a lot like Lee Kwan Yu. How do you guarentee that those who know the best really do know the best or they won't just loot the country? The problem with authoritarianism is that if you have a bad leader you are stuck with that bad leader or have a revolution. With democracy you at least have a method to change the government without major upheavel.
Democracy is never to the detriment of the U.S. Perhaps it looks that way in a very short-sighted way, but it's not. We should support the ouster of Mubarek if that is the will of the people, even if it gives the Muslim Brotherhood political power. So long as it's a fair election, then we should recognize and respect that. It was a mistake not to recognize Hamas as the legitimate leadership of Palestine. To me, it undermines our entire foreign policy.
Okay. I don't want you to keep alluding to this guy since I don't know him and never heard him speak. So he and I could have very different opinions. I'm not "guaranteeing" any type of government results in good governing. If anything, my entire point is that all systems are open to corruption and bad governing. I point to different forms of governments being similar despite the inherent difference in makeup. And this doesn't happen in democracy? Because if a certain group in a country decides that we should not tax the rich, start aimless wars, create laws the screw the masses but help large corporations, in a democratic country people would see that and vote these horrible politicians out, right? Also, I'm not saying authoritarianism is the answer. I just said there are fewer differences that people imagine. Yes, I know all the negatives of one-party rule quite well. It's pretty much hammered throughout history classes in my younger days. The problem is, and this is the point of my first post, is that we're never taught the negatives of democracy. Hence my cynicism when I learned about our great democracy in reality as opposed to fantasy. In the end, I personally care more for a country's stability and wealth over its form of governance.
Funny you should mention Sir Winston. He's got another quote that I like even more: 'The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter' :grin:
He is the former prime minister of Singapore and the pretty much the father of modern Singapore. In his own words he has basically made Singapore a Confucian state and has frequently criticized the Western ideas of human rights and democracy. His argument almost always comes down to that he and his People's Action Party was justified in behaving undemocratically in order to build Singapore into the vibrant country that it is. You seem to be falling into the same rut that Rocket River was by looking at the problems with current democracies. While yes democracies like the US have a lot of problems that doesn't undermine the principle of democracy. I agree the US has a lot of problems but that isn't a failure of principle but a failure of execution. The bottom line is if you don't like the idea of democracy then the alternative is authoritarianism.
Just to clarify Spell out the PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY so I can know what I am arguing against. I ask because. . .I remember one taking about capitalism with a guy and he says. . .well . . the problems with capitalism is man made so . . imagine if Jesus [a perfect person] was running it .. . it would run perfectly I quickly point out . . . if Jesus [a perfect person] was running anything. . it would work You cannot argue . . .well this system would be the perfect way to govern people. . . as long as it is not run by people [flawed individuals] IT does not matter what the form of government is . .. if it does not have built in controls for human faults. . . it will fail. Rocket River
I know who he is. I just have never studied his policies, so when you mention him, I have to wonder if I really agree with him or not. That's all. I'm not raging against the US. I actually think it's one of the better democracies in the world, even historically speaking. For example, I feel The Bill of Rights is absolutely incredible. I'm speaking of the form of government itself. My point is that there is no way to execute a democracy flawlessly. No more than communism or dictatorship or Kingship or oligarchy or any other form of government that has been tried in history. Everything sounds great in theory. But in practice things eventually eventually degenerate into the powerful abusing their power and the masses get the shaft. I love the US. But I love it because it's a stable, powerful, wealthy country. Not because I can have a choice of A and B in every election to choose who will lead me. Even if America become a socialist country(the way the Tea Party seems insinuate Obama is turning the US into), I still would love it as long as I can live a stable life with opportunities provided I work hard. Even if the US dissolves into minimal government, where it basically dissolves into corporations running everything, I'd still be okay as long as it provides the best standard of living I can find.
Democracy's principle is simply that the government is accountable to the people directly through a vote. Compare that to authoritarianism or totalitarianism where the government isn't accountable to anyone but itself or Communism which in its true form has no government and everyone is supposed to be accountable to each other. Obviously as long as humans run thing there will be flaws in every governing system but given that what system would you choose?
See my response to Rocket River. If stability is your primary issue and you don't really care about accountability then democracy even in principle might not be for you. That said if you are pointing at problems with democracies I agree that every democracy has a problem but the key is as long as there is accountability. While the US system has many things that take it away from an ideal of democracy there still is accountability. Presidents do get voted out of office, so does Congress.
