Originally posted by Robtard
Oh snap, then at one point, America had a "direct democracy", those must have been the days.
America never had a direct democracy, the founding fathers were intellectual elitists that didn't trust the common man. It just had a really limited form of representative democracy.
Originally posted by jaden101Ah, yes, pure Democracy is about that, I don't know how you could say that its not. But as for what you did say, in a Representative democracy there are difference forms of representation theories, such as Delegate theory and Trustee theory. What you're saying is the Trustee theory, where officials execute their power on the basis of their own ideals/consciences and the ideals of their party, rather than the direct wants and desires of the people.
Democracy isn't about that. It's about electing people to make those decisions for you based on what their political stance is. It's not about people telling their representatives how to vote in their parliments/house of representatives.Give me an example of these old democracies though?
And as for your question, Athens was a pure Democracy, and even some of the early parts of the United States was a pure Democracy at the state level. Present day wise, I think Switzerland has some form of pure Democracy, though to be honest, I'm not too sure.
But all of that is not what I was saying by that. What I meant is that in a Representative "democracy," not everyone is truly equal, meaning you really cant use the argument that "Well, the last three Presidents have been from Harvard and Yale..." because that simply is how it is. And playing devil's advocate here, I don't really know how that argument can be used anyway. Both Harvard and Yale are great schools, and just because people went there does not mean they were rich their entire lives, it just means they weren't lazy in high school and got good grades/great SAT scores/amazing scholarships and worked hard to get a fabulous education. And then people in their party later realized that, and elected them as officials and, eventually, to the Presidency.
Plus, most people in the world but specifically the United States in this subject are idiots and ignorant, and probably don't even know what school Obama went to (in America) or their own political leader went to.
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosThey were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, that's true, and yes they were elitist, but the state level I think had a small form of direct Democracy.
America never had a direct democracy, the founding fathers were intellectual elitists that didn't trust the common man. It just had a really limited form of representative democracy.
Just shut up, all of you. You want to make the world better? Be good to your neighbors. Treat your parents with respect. Raise your children with some values. Quit watching the news. In the end, we as individuals have no real power other than our the priniciples we hold dear and how we apply them to our day to day lives. We're raised to believe that there is no black or white, only shades of grey. That's bullshit. If you go to work and screw your secretary, them come home and kiss your wife, you're an evil prick, not misunderstood. If you find a wallet on the street and pocket the cash, your an *******, not a normal guy. It starts on a microscopic scale and works its way up to our exalted leaders, but there's really nothing we can do about them. The only hypocrisy in this world is that 99% of us consider ourselves to be good people, when in fact, we're evil assholes. That doesn't mean we can't change, and that doesn't mean that changing will lead down the easier path. We won't, though, because it's much easier to be evil, hypocritical assholes. What would you do tomorrow if you were walking behind someone and saw them drop $10,000 dollars in cash. Do right! Encourage others to do right. Shun those that do wrong. There is right and wrong in this world, and the distinction isn't hard to make. If we all do the right things, then trust me, our leaders will follow suit.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Nah, we should support that sort of though. Once the entire world becomes naive on top their stupidity conquest will be fairly simple.
The "quit watching the news" line was interesting
way outta left field.
EDIT: though, seriously, people could stand to be a little less *******-ish to eachother
Originally posted by inimalist
The "don't watch the news" line was interestingway outta left field.
That's too keep people from realizing just how terrible the other effects of his plan would be.
Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: though, seriously, people could stand to be a little less *******-ish to eachother
True, but it's not really worth a philosophy.
Originally posted by tsscls
Not much. It's a big word that no one understands. I'm not even going to look it up on wiki, but I'll submit to your superior inetellect. tintintagle. Tell your socialology prof to give you a B!
Dude.
😐
WTF?
I mean, really?
What the hell.
1. That's something I learned in the 5th grade when we covered the basics of political science...you know...the whole lecture on our founding fathers and the reasons behind our constitution, etc.
2. Just look something up if you don't know what it means. If I don't know what something means, I look it up. First example that comes to mind is "apatheism". I didn't know what that was until Quiero Moto mentioned it. I looked it up. Learned what it was and now I know what it is.
3. It wouldn't be my "sociology" professor, either. It would be a political science professor...and it wasn't even that person, it was my fifth grade home room teacher. 😐
4. You replied to my post and what you posted didn't seem to be a response to my post at all. I simply asked because I was confused, didn't know where that was leading, and gave you the benefit of the doubt. If you didn't know what I was posting about, why the hell did you reply to it? It's okay to be ignorant about something. If you asked me what it meant or you looked it up, I wouldn't judge you for it. You probably already know what it is, but you just didn't know there was a word for it.
5. You could have made yourself look much smarter by providing a tie-in for why your post related to mine, as long as it was factually sound, no one would have known the wiser, you would have looked really smart, and you would have learned something new. 😄 😆
Also, just so you know, what you think I was doing is called pontification. That should help you better describe someone who uses a "big" word.
Originally posted by Darth Macabre
Ah, yes, pure Democracy is about that, I don't know how you could say that its not. But as for what you did say, in a Representative democracy there are difference forms of representation theories, such as Delegate theory and Trustee theory. What you're saying is the Trustee theory, where officials execute their power on the basis of their own ideals/consciences and the ideals of their party, rather than the direct wants and desires of the people.And as for your question, Athens was a pure Democracy, and even some of the early parts of the United States was a pure Democracy at the state level. Present day wise, I think Switzerland has some form of pure Democracy, though to be honest, I'm not too sure.
But all of that is not what I was saying by that. What I meant is that in a Representative "democracy," not everyone is truly equal, meaning you really cant use the argument that "Well, the last three Presidents have been from Harvard and Yale..." because that simply is how it is. And playing devil's advocate here, I don't really know how that argument can be used anyway. Both Harvard and Yale are great schools, and just because people went there does not mean they were rich their entire lives, it just means they weren't lazy in high school and got good grades/great SAT scores/amazing scholarships and worked hard to get a fabulous education. And then people in their party later realized that, and elected them as officials and, eventually, to the Presidency.
Plus, most people in the world but specifically the United States in this subject are idiots and ignorant, and probably don't even know what school Obama went to (in America) or their own political leader went to.
They were afraid of the tyranny of the majority, that's true, and yes they were elitist, but the state level I think had a small form of direct Democracy.
The problem being that the Athenian model of democracy wasn't open to all and while it was vastly better than, for example, the Roman republic which came afterwards, it still wasn't a democracy for all. The quoram (assembly) only held around 6000 max.
So, personally, I'd be hard pressed to call Athens a true democracy...direct democracy yes...but only to a few. Athenian citizenship, male, completed military training as an Ephebe. No women, children, slaves, so called "metics" or resident aliens to Athens or people who had debts to Athens. This resulted in a very small minority being able to vote.