The Democracy thread

[Karmashock]

Because this should have it's own thread.


Explain as best you can what a democracy is and what EXACTLY is required for it to be a democracy.

It has been suggested that all a democracy needs is for people to vote on things occasionally with some kind of binding legal force.

Under this example, Cuba, Iran, and Saddam's Iraq would be technically democracies. People were asked to vote on things occasionally with legally binding force.

I think it is no mistake that political philosophers have spent hundreds of years on this subject and generated thousands of pages of prose. I think it is in fact a more complex entity.


I'll chime in with more later... but the nature of the topic was lost in the stupidity of that other thread. This means that no one is to refer back to that thread. All points must stand alone. If this is not acceptable, you are politely erged to move along.

[2biT]

Democracy is a propergander word that is used to comfort the masses into thinking they do not live under a dictatorship.

[Devon]

It has been suggested that all a democracy needs is for people to vote on things occasionally with some kind of binding legal force.

Saddam's Iraq would be technically democracies.
The people were free to vote in Iraq. However come election day, there was only one name on the voteing paper.

Dont need to tell you all whos name that was...

Also, can women vote in Iran?

So I guess you could reprase it to:
It has been suggested that all a democracy needs is for people to vote on things occasionally with some kind of binding legal force. And that all who are able can vote and that they must be presented with options as to where to cast there vote
Or someting like that

[Karmashock]

what's the difference between supressing public debate and limiting the voting choices? It's the same thing.


What if you 'could' have anyone on the ballot, but only the current president could campaign and make speeches? Would it still be a democracy? Or does freedom of speech become a requirement at some point... at least to some degree.
Democracy is a propergander word that is used to comfort the masses into thinking they do not live under a dictatorship.
you think that's for the masses? I think that's for sloppy western media. Because the people sure as hell know they aren't in a democracy... the beatings and state sactioned rapes being a clue...

[ChatMonitor-q]

"Democracy is a social structure in which its populace has one fundamental right; this is the right to vote. All other rights spring forth from that single right."

================================================== =====

Take a Population with no structure.

-Give them the right to vote on direct decisions, and you have a direct democracy.

-Alter this and now give them the right to Choose representatives from the population to make these decisions on their behalf, and you have a Representative Democracy.

-If said Representatives decide on limiting freedom you lean towards the illiberal end of the spectrum, and if said Representatives decide on protecting freedom you lean towards a liberal democracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_(varieties) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_(varieties)) – extremely good (but check for yourself with cross referencing, it is, after all the Wiki)
http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/demokratie/grundkurs1/Material/typen.htm (http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/demokratie/grundkurs1/Material/typen.htm)
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11171.html (http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/11171.html) - you have to download this .PDF

================================================== =====

Different Democracys/Types of Democracys

Different Democracies are as the word suggests Different. Differences depend on the history in the area, the average level of education, previous social structures, etc, and as such fall under Different classes of democracy.

The unifying freedom in ALL democracies is the freedom to vote.

This however is not the only criteria for a democracy, other criteria include:

A choice between more than one party.
A choice made by the majority to be binding.

http://rdc1.net/forthcoming/dempre.pdf (http://rdc1.net/forthcoming/dempre.pdf) - note this is a .PDF


================================================== =====

Where does this leave Basic Individual freedoms?

In a democracy, the concept is that competing parties vying for a vote will offer greater and greater freedoms. The final manifestation of this is a liberal democracy. (I.e. Australia)

There are historical examples however of parties or individuals abusing trust and power placed in them leading to a change in social structure resulting in a dictatorship, monarchy, <insert your favorite social structure here>.

http://www.alternatives.ca/article1773.html (http://www.alternatives.ca/article1773.html) - Democracy to monarchy
http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken89.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken89.html) - Democracy to Socialism to Dictatorship


Common Forms of abuse of this power include Military coup, Suppression of Votes, Forgery of Ballot Papers, etc. It is possible to have stringent limitations on freedoms, yet continue to be a democracy, so long as the country:

-Allows votes to be held regularly.
-Has more than one political party.
-Binds itself to the decision of the majority.

Also, Liberal democracies historically have evolved from more illiberal ones. (Exceptions largely being in times of war. Examples: Foundation of America, Iraq invasion) This is because implementation of a Liberal Democracy into a society which has not experienced it has not been at all possible Historically due the amount of communication and coordination required (not assisted by communications networks i.e.: internet, radio, satellite, telegraphy, telephony) and is Incredibly Difficult even today.

http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67xb.html (http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y67xb.html) - formation of “Liberal democracies”
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliRosa.htm (http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliRosa.htm)

================================================== =====

For the purpose of clarity, can you (karma) please state who these political philosophers are?

I can’t think of many who wrote extensively on democracy. Perhaps you are referring to freedom?

CMQ

[2biT]

Ok not for the masses, for stupid people.

[Karmashock]

Ok not for the masses, for stupid people.
Exactly... sham democracies exist to confuse morons that think it means something. Read else where in this thread for comic examples.

[ChatMonitor-q]

Just incase this was missed. (Ends of posts are rarely read)

For the purpose of clarity, can you (karma) please state who these political philosophers are?

Are you refering to:

socraties? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=socrates+vs+democracy&meta=

plato? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=plato+on+democracy&meta=

aristotle? http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=aristotle+on+democracy&meta=

locke? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

These men were against democracy in many many ways. some completely against it.

I think it is no mistake that political philosophers have spent hundreds of years on this subject and generated thousands of pages of prose. I think it is in fact a more complex entity.

Trying to see if im mistaken i had a look. [yeah I look at both sides]

I cant find much:

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=prose+on+democracy&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=political+prose+on+democracy&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=historical+prose+on+democracy&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=historical+political+prose+on+democracy&btnG=Search&meta=
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=where+the+hell+is+the+prose+on+democracy%3F&meta= [hehe]

can you help direct my search?

I can’t think of many who wrote extensively on democracy. Perhaps you are referring to freedom?


CMQ

[Devon]

Hitler was voted in in a fair democracy wasen't he?

[Karmashock]

exactly my point... you could claim that, but he bullied his way to power more then he was elected.

[ChatMonitor-q]

exactly my point... you could claim that, but he bullied his way to power more then he was elected.

Can we have a link (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=142791#post142791)?

CMQ

[Karmashock]

I'll give a link if anyone in this conversation asks for one...

[Devon]

I'll give a link if anyone in this conversation asks for one...
Thats kind of lame karma

[Karmashock]

Thats kind of lame karma
Kind of, but not really...

are you asking for a link to prove that hitler's rise to power was hardly democratic and used bully tactics and terrorism as much if not more?

I do not regard those who are only in a conversation to destroy it and belittle the process. I do not regard those that lack the intrest in real discussion. I do not regard those on my ignore list unless it amuses me.

You know there is no need for a link on that point... you are not an idiot. But if you ask for one, it will take no time and will only serve to vindicate my point.


Now please, don't cloud this disgussion with those unfit to participate in it.

[ChatMonitor-q]

Wow.

First i state an opinion (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=141812#post141812)
Then i get THIS (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141829&postcount=24) for trying to defend it

So i supply this (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141836&postcount=29) in my defence, as per your request (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141836&postcount=29)
And you supply this (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142791&postcount=61), despite my request (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=141858&postcount=34)

Then you start a new thread because you cant supply credible defence (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142791&postcount=61)

So i move on and supply alternate evidence in my favor (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142451&postcount=5), as per your instructions (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142148&postcount=1)

Then you:

Ignore me. - by adding me to your ignore list.

Ignore the FACT we BOTH want YOU to IGNORE ME (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142805&postcount=65)

Harass me despite ignoring me (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142810&postcount=66)

Get made a fool (http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=142823&postcount=67) of for it - repetedly

And now try to communicate your feelings through the ignoring you setup in the firstplace.

As these links to posts point out, i havnt done anything wrong, save for argue my point.

Grow up karma. Either completely ignore me, or Completely address me.
For someone who has alot to say, you sure are stupid.

All i asked for, was proof. Grow up man.

CMQ

[Devon]

Kind of, but not really....
No I thought it was lame that you replyed as you did.
"anyone in this conversation"
Please... , thats a lame responce if ever i saw one. The "I dont want to talk to you because of what you said" belongs in the playground.

Oh I'm sure you will respond with some sort of comment along the lines of how your in the right and we are all in the wrong.

But to be honest,
I dont give a shit

[Karmashock]

Ignore the FACT we BOTH want YOU to IGNORE ME
If that were true then you wouldn't protest your removal from my conversations. You resent being ignored and if I am wrong, then all you have to do is stop talking to me. You are the one who after all continues to try and keep some kind of dialog going on here...

I have asked you to piss off and yet you are still here asking me questions... Please, if anyone is making a fool of themselves, it is you. Your pathetic attempts to get at me have all failed... you have vindicated me at every turn with your irrational hostility that I detected boiling beneith your passive aggressive bullshit long before you started foaming at the mouth. You are a posterboy for the ignore list.

Piss off or stop trying to ruin perfectly good conversations. I have unignored all that have done either of the above.
================================================== ==============================
No I thought it was lame that you replyed as you did.
"anyone in this conversation"
Please... , thats a lame responce if ever i saw one. The "I dont want to talk to you because of what you said" belongs in the playground.
That's not what I said though DR. And further, he has been on the ignore list for awhile, don't you find his consistent attempts at getting attention to be a little pathetic?

But to be honest,
I dont give a shit
The irony of that statement is that you just got finished telling me I'm closed minded by saying "you'll just say you were in the right"... and then finished your post by saying "no point in replying because my mind is closed"...


Little hippocritical... but that's nothing new...

Love and peace, Karmashock.

[ChatMonitor-q]

Karma......

YOU ignored ME...

You cant talk to me, because you arent supposed to read my posts.

This does not apply to me because i have not decided to limit myself. I have the option on commenting on your opinions. Just like i have the option on commenting on any one of the other posters here.

If you find requests for proof for your arguement offencive, then you need to let other people argue for you.

Yet again you have demonstrated that you take everything personaly, because my latest postings of your behavior has made you cry.

CMQ

[Devon]

The irony of that statement is that you just got finished telling me I'm closed minded by saying "you'll just say you were in the right"... and then finished your post by saying "no point in replying because my mind is closed"...
No, thats just how you read it.

There is no point in replying to further posts that are just going to be slaging matches. It means I dont care as to what you post here after. I am only replying to this to give you some clarity on the defenition of what "I dont give a shit" means.

[Karmashock]

No, thats just how you read it.

There is no point in replying to further posts that are just going to be slaging matches. It means I dont care as to what you post here after. I am only replying to this to give you some clarity on the defenition of what "I dont give a shit" means.
I am not having a slagging match with you... and your message does clearly mean that your mind is closed... so the hypocrisy remains... which is fine... I noted it, you don't care that you're being hypocritical and we can move on...