Do people deserve Democracy?
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Liberty is the only thing you cannot have unless you are willing to give it to others.
-William Allen White
I have been doing a lot of thinking lately, basically because it is one of the few things i do well. I wondered, is freedom and liberty something people deserve as human beings? Is being denied Democracy wrong? Do the iraqis deserve to have freedom? The true question in my mind was not 'Did the Americans have the right to force democracy on Iraq?' but 'Did the Iraqis deserve democracy enforced on them?'
Questions for debate:
1) Do you think democracy is something people deserve or something that must be earned?
2) Does/did Iraq deserve to have democracy?
3) Whether or not you agreed with the war, Do you think the US has made a valiant effort to bring freedom to iraq?
well let's see
1) depends what kind of democracy you mean "indirect democracy" (like most countries have) or "direct democracy" (the pure democracy meaning everyone has a vote in everything) The first one they deserve, the second one they need to earn
2) Yes Iraq deserves "indirect democracy" which they will now get.
3) depends on what you call freedom
Iraq has never been free... persia has never been free they know nothing of freedom ... monarchs and warlords have ruled thier very existence... everyone deservse a chance at freedom... what they do with it is on them...
direct democracy leads to anarchy and tyranny when implemented on large scale .... indirect is a republic
I know Raven
just wanted to make it clear to anyone else that it means what we got
i was sure you did to because you knew what a direct and indirect democracy was to begin with
Iran is the only country to have a government ruling under a religion.
technically Italy is influenced greatly by the Pope
in order to have citizen ship i think you have to be Catholic in Mexico and in Italy
To quote Orwell, "the object of oppression is opression..." those who would think to rule over others are psychopathic. The word democracy means "opower to the people." It is a sham if most of the time only a few people are making all the decisions.
awh....you speak of democracy as it is some gift from a higher being. it is not. it is a governing system with PLENTY of flaws. It just suits or way of thinking best. that's why it is dominant so far. but it's safe to assume we will move on, from this system also. just like we did before this one.
1) they don't deserve it nor earn it. it's a good system (better than others), and it will be implemented if it suits the designtated country (not counting in problems like tirant rulers, etc...)
2)this is also a matter of interpretation. I for one, believe that the americans went there for oil (and/or other things..it's just an example. don't take it literally). so the liberation is a pretext, therefore ruling it out of consideration. even if for no oil. they would have gotten the publicity. my point is: i doubt they would have done it if they didn't have some gain of their own.
so..why wouldn't they deserve freedom? they are people just like us. only ruled by a tirant. history and culture is what sepparates us. yes they deserve it. (if one can DESERVE such a thing)
3) see no 2)
What was that guy called who ruled when Romania was a Soviet Satellite State?
Yeah... one of them had a terrible reputation even by the standards of Soviet Satellite rulers! I think you're right in that case.
I think so.
what has ciausescu got to do wiv it?
Any system which doesn't include him must be alot better than one which does.
you can add several other ppl to that list, but sometimes the rule of the one is better than the rule of the many.
well just to give a few examples the roman empire, which was at its prime a very fine example of good leadership allowed (again at its prime) for quite a few ppl to be the sole ruler until the upcoming crisis was averted
yes and the emperors were such a lovely lot, especially the Caesar household
<<"would you like to be a little minnow?"
If the many were as bad as the Inner Party in 1984, then maybe, but a system whereby just some of the population have ALL the power is in every instance worse than one where power is at low levels.
Caesar did amongst other a great job of ruling the roman empire
so did Octavianus and above all Sulla and they were all appointed tyrrans.
only some people deserve liberty those that do evil to other deserve no human rights. And those that deserve should only have limited demococy
lol snakehead what do you define as evil?
causing pain or destrucing to others
their was a huge bombng yesterday and many other voilent actions in that country. they cant handle the freedom. the iron fist type system they had in place probably worked best. because the divsions of islam have violent views against each other. iraq is the new west bank. their will be violence their fo are kids to deal with and their kids etc. so no some dont deserve democracy.
so inherently to that all soldiers are evil snakehead?
what kind of opinion is that bardock:
just because their country is in the ban of terror they should not be allowed to live in peace and enjoy freedom?
i see where you're ging and i do agree with you. though that is not generally applyable. take china for example...would you eliminate communism there?
the chinese are hardly what you can call hardcore communists dexx
indeed...but would you allow them a truly democratic system?
no, causeing harm FOR SELF GAIN is evil not defending someones country.
communism is a failed system
yes..because it wasn't applied correctly. at it's basics..it's hardly a terror domination like most think..
Democracy is not for all
Snake you didnt say for self gain the first time
now I can agree wiv you a tad more still not entirely tho.
To quote Homer J. Simpson "Communism works in theory, in theory."
I don't think man kind is ready for the ideas of communism dexx, and snake we have hardly seen any real communism put to the test. the russians first had Leninism followed by Stalinism (yes there is a difference) and the Chinese have or better had Maoism
Stalin and Mao Tse Tung were psychopaths. It is well known that their systems were no more than very efficient methods of oppression.
Ash> “I have been doing a lot of thinking lately, basically because it is one of the few things i do well.” I always get sceptical when people claim to be extraordinarily good at something they obviously themselves think is an advantage.
So what WERE you thoughts on the matter?
Raven> “direct democracy leads to anarchy and tyranny when implemented on large scale.” Why do you think that is the case?
Indirect democracy can hardly BE called democracy. Ask yourself this: What can you really and truly influence in your country?
Why is it that democracy is the best form of government?
Nero was the best!
TO: I believe that Democracy is the best form of government ATM because it puts you more in charge of your own destiniy than others.
Ideally Anarcy is the best form of Government. But the concept of idealism is impossible so Pure Anarcy is impossible.
(edited to add) there is something to be said for the concept of anarchy.
I think it's strange that America invaded Iraq claiming they we're bringing them democracy and freedom (Along with the phantom weapons of mass destruction). They were led to war by President George W Bush. There is overwhelming evidence that suggests that Bush used personal connections to turn the tide of the last American Election and other underhanded tactics that defy the very ideals of freedom and democracy itself.
See Fahrenheit 9/11 if you haven't already, it's an awesome film/documentary.
Nero was an emperor not a dictator their is quite a lot of difference.
I agree with you on the fact that indirect democracy hardly can be called democracy. actualy a lot of countries (belgium being a fairly nice example) have a form of government called particracy. (which stands for the ruling by the political parties) cause it is actualy the political parties that decide everything (not even the individualis in those parties).
One person on his own can influence almost nothing in a democracy.
I don't consider democracy as being the best form of government IMO the best form of government IN THEORY is enlightened dictatorship (with a fairly enlightened dictator).
I do agree with raven that direct democracy would lead to anarchy when implemented on large scale. I think it would be impossible to organize logisticly and I think their would be a massive amount of corruption.
Tpt> But being able to choose among jobs and educations doesn’t require democracy as a form of government, does it?
Why is “the concept of idealism” impossible? 300 years ago the aristocracy laughed at the idea of indirect democracy, thinking peasants couldn’t possible decide anything.
I’m wary of saying anything is impossible, just because it is impossible right here and now.
Fire> Ay, we have the same form of government in Denmark. A lot of parties, you vote for one, and they rule.
Describe enlightened dictatorship, please.
I think that every aspect of life must be taken into account when defining an entire system. In the UK the education system went very far downhill when the career politicians were controlling it completely. A better education system would be one where the people themselves have some control over it, eg there should be parent governors etc.
To Fire: My Dad espoused the virtues of the hypothetical "benign despotism" once too, but I don't quite see the merit of it, even were it possible.
I'll explain my views in a few hours
It leads to alienation and manipulation by local intrests which bend it and cause the other forms of government. Originally if you think about it all civilization started as direct democracy meaning tribes lead to cheifs cheifs to warlords warlords to kings, revolution then democracy
Elightened dictatorship is basically a monarchy
but a smart ruler and a policestate
Well I'll explain it within two weeks, so you all hold on to your panties till then
The system in the UK with one vote encompassing all, coupled with the fact that the major parties are made up of the same clique with the same agendas with regards to a variety of key issues makes the system semi-oligarchic. The effects of this have benn alot more detrimental than a democratic system would have been.
I have mentioned the education system and the governmental policy of holding back classes of mixed ability to the pace of the slowest pupils. The agenda here is too prevent excellence from the majority of pupils and thereby insure the same clique continues to rule. I think C.S Lewis mentioned when describing the UK system an ancient Mediterranean despot who demonstrated that he had the same policy by knocking off the heads of the tallest stalks in a field of corn...
Surely the emperor was an autocrat
The practise of Rhetoric ended under the Empire. Imagine what rhetoric under an autocracy would be like; very stilted if even in existence, bleehhh
not following you there shaber
The art of Rhetoric was no longer practised under the empire...
I know but what does Rhetoric have to do with Nero being an emperor which is a lot different from a tyran.
Text-only Version: Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.
Copyright 1999-2013 KillerMovies.