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.
Originally posted by The Omega
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?
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.
Originally posted by The OmegaRaven> “direct democracy leads to anarchy and tyranny when implemented on large scale.” Why do you think that is the case?
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 😄 .
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...