Arab Uprising

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
First of all, I don't believe WE are a true democracy. In this country EVERYTHING is about money. Elections are bought and sold. I don't see why the Arab world would be any different....except for the influence of religion.

Well said.

Money controls everything, look at the political parties available in most western countries, they are basically the same with minor differences. Not only that, they don´t act but only react. They put the dept burdon where the resistance is less, ie the people at the bottom of the see saw holding the wealthy up.

If someone had a brilliant political alternative, they would need backing of business to even start the party. So if your policies arn´t what big business and those with the money like, you havn´t got a chance.

So the rich few rule, that´s not a democracy.

Originally posted by inimalist
our system is flawed = we should hope nobody else becomes free?

They won't be free. It's against human nature to be free.

What is "free" to you? I'd say that the average individual, at least in America, has an awful lot of freedom.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
What is "free" to you? I'd say that the average individual, at least in America, has an awful lot of freedom.

Freedom is not following leaders. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing...but that's what freedom is. Having to answer to no one, nothing. That's what freedom is to me.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
Freedom is not following leaders. I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing...but that's what freedom is. Having to answer to no one, nothing. That's what freedom is to me.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
anarchy essentially?

Call it what you will.

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
They won't be free. It's against human nature to be free.

what human nature?

Originally posted by inimalist
what human nature?

That humans follow leaders and thus aren't free

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That humans follow leaders and thus aren't free

your stance then, is that there is no material difference between oppressive arab regiems and western nations, simply because social compulsion exists in both? and further, we shouldn't hope for nations to become more politically and socially open, because people will still follow leaders?

The problem is the leaders are totaly corrupt , idiotic, fools who egoistically look after themselves, and its these traits when gets them to the top of the ladder in the first place.

We need to have leaders who actualy care and want to look after those who want to follow them. Instead of promising something then not doing what has been promised.

They wouldn't be leaders then. Well at the least, they wouldn't be good ones.

Originally posted by Bicnarok
The problem is the leaders are totaly corrupt , idiotic, fools who egoistically look after themselves, and its these traits when gets them to the top of the ladder in the first place.

We need to have leaders who actualy care and want to look after those who want to follow them. Instead of promising something then not doing what has been promised.

Originally posted by inimalist
your stance then, is that there is no material difference between oppressive arab regiems and western nations, simply because social compulsion exists in both? and further, we shouldn't hope for nations to become more politically and socially open, because people will still follow leaders?

Originally posted by The Dark Cloud
That humans follow leaders and thus aren't free

No. The essence of democracy is that one human cannot rule over another, without that person's consent.

There's a huge difference between a king or tyrant telling you what to do at gunpoint, and an elected official (a public servant) doing what you want them to do, through votes. (Keyword: servant)

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. The essence of democracy is that one human cannot rule over another, without that person's consent.

There's a huge difference between a king or tyrant telling you what to do at gunpoint, and an elected official (a public servant) doing what you want them to do, through votes. (Keyword: servant)

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Bingo. It should be all or nothing. If humanity can't have incorruptible, totally responsible, morally superior leaders, then we shouldn't have leaders or government or society at all. Give humanity perfection or give us anarchy. Middle grounds and compromises just aren't human nature.

At least that was my reading of Hobbes 😛

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Except they totally are, especially if you follow Thomas Hobbes' view of things where humanity is in a state of war where the war has become deadlocked and everyone has become entrenched in what we think of as society with all its compromises and agreements.

At least that was my reading of Hobbes 😛

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
No. The essence of democracy is that one human cannot rule over another, without that person's consent.

I'll be a tad nicer about my reply to this:

What you describe is not democracy but actually controlling for one of the big flaws of pure democracy: majoritarianism.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
There's a huge difference between a king or tyrant telling you what to do at gunpoint, and an elected official (a public servant) doing what you want them to do, through votes. (Keyword: servant)

There are differences, yes, but the way I see it: the difference between someone holding a gun to your head telling you to vote for someone and the metaphorical and societal pressure to vote for someone can sometimes be immaterial. During big US elections, it's very hard to avoid the pressure to vote for one side or the other...unless you're very apathetic or well-informed. The vast majority are NOT well-informed. The vast majority that THINK they are well-informed, are not. So what's the difference between the gun and the metaphorical gun? Not much. There is a difference, though.

If people REALLY wanted change, they'd replace most senators, reps, and the president with someone from a party other than Democrat or Republican. Instead, we have "guns" to our heads telling us to vote for one or the other.

Looks like Libya is heading for a civil war, I wonder who will start supporting each side?

Originally posted by Bicnarok
Looks like Libya is heading for a civil war, I wonder who will start supporting each side?