Seconds ago: The Republic of Dave or The BrahminPen was founded. LOL FALLOUT 3 REFERENCE (on Shock's website that he posted)
I believe our government lost a lot of credit when it started taking the State's place. The more localized a community, the easier it can function on its own. That said, America had it goin' great. You had communities that took care of each other rather than depending on tax payer's money. When you allow the state/county to handle things, that frees up federal dollars for useful spending. Your "Wal-Marts" and "Targets" haven't helped much. When I buy groceries or general necessities, I try to go to somewhere local. Sure, you pay a little more, but I know the person I'm giving money to. I can look him/her in the face and complain or congratulate or whatever the hell I want. When I shop at Wal-Mart, my money's going off to some guy gettin' 50K with benefits to dust corporate meeting rooms. The bottom line is that the democracy we have functioned wonderfully. This post is not even trying to say that things like welfare and social security can't be used. The system itself is just frustrating. I've met countless people who's profession is "sitting at home." That's all well and good, if you're searching for a job, disabled, or something of the like. However, that money's goin' to plain lazy people. Something about that percentage of my check that allows every deadbeat to remain a deadbeat pisses me off. /semi-rant
Exactly why I didn't want a complete welfare state...or Obama. I feel like an old man when I say today's people are lazy and they just want to hold out a hand for Uncle Sam (taxpayers) to feed him and put a roof over his head and close on his back. Quite basically, America should go back to small time government and not have the federal government control most of this. In the words of a confederate flag wavin' southerner from 1850, STATES RIGHTS! But for a different reason. Smaller government. That type of government is the best possible form, but America today is straying away from that.
Fragism. >.> <.< No, I'm not being proud. Okay, Republican. I believe they have less stupider methods than a democracy. No offense to you guys, but I believe Republican government is more for the rights of every single human being.
Dented_drum, what do you propose we do with people that sit at home? We can't just let them die, but obviously we don't want them to sit around and put a hand out for the government, either. Education and a good work ethic is obviously important. Any other solutions?
First off, it depends on the size of the land governed. A small country can easily get by well with a direct democracy, because it doesn't take long to get everyone's opinion and get accurate votes of what the people want. The other benefit democracy has to a small country is that it most likely won't have more currency then what the people need to live decent lives. Meaning large corporations and corrupt polititians have less chance of inter fearing. Large countries are better served by a system that has several different governing body's and slightly communist ideals. Having several different departments of state that govern specific things means that no one person could ever hold to much power. The communist ideals such as shared wealth and government control and distribution of wealth insure monopolies don't exist. However, people would still have complete freedom to start businesses, and train for whatever profession they want. In turn, not the job, but the quality of work would determine how well you get paid. Essentially, success is not measured by how much you get paid, but by how many people prefer to buy your goods or pay for your trade. When the government sees that your serving more people, they increase the allotted amount of money you receive, when service goes down, cash flow goes down. A good medium between the two, a communistic-democratic republic, is what I believe would work the best. It covers both important failures of government by making it near impossible for a corrupt politician to get into power; while it also makes it hard for big business to dominate the market. At the same time, this allowes for elements of a free market to still exist.
I like to think that democracy is the best way because everyone would have some say in what happens. But all this is erelivent because when bungie or topgear comes to power the world will be a dictatorship.
But is democracy the best way? You only have to look at the way democracy in many countries has crumbled, in the past and the present. You could also argue that many things done under the leadership of democracy has in fact slowed the growth of nations. P.S - England is not spelt Engalnd so if you wouldn't mind changing that in you location to the correct spelling
It is my belief that there is no "end all, be all" solution to the problem that is the self-governance of man. We as a species are too keen to think that everything has an ultimate and perfect solution when in fact nothing does or ever will. I wholeheartedly believe that certain systems of government are more appropriate at certain times than others, however. Depending on the current state of mankind, different methods of government are appropriate. At present, I feel that true Democracy (not this representative system masquerading as Democracy that we have going now) is actually a feasible prospect and I hope to see it blossom during my lifetime. The linchpin of Democracy is the enlightenment of the masses - man will make the right decision if he has all of the right information to enable him to do such. With the advent of the Internet, there has been a marked increase in freedom of communication. No longer must the masses be uninformed - the truth is always somewhere on the Internet, warped/distorted/separated though it may be. The problem with the implementation of a true Democracy isn't so much the scale as it is the current institutions of society. Most people in first world countries receive their news from TV; newspapers are a dying media and the Internet is a developing one. At present, most TV channels (at least the main ones) are in some way owned/puppeted by the ruling aristocracy of the world, a select group of people holding high influence over the goings-on of modern society. Because of this, as well as TV's one-sidedness, the dissemination of propaganda is facilitated immensely. People trust what is said on TV because they have no reason to believe that things said may be wrong. The complacency of the masses has rendered the prospect of true Democracy a long shot, and it will take a fundamental shift in the population's paradigm for any meaningful change to happen. This is not unnatural - those currently in power by means of the present human institutions would like to keep their power, as such is human nature. Localized Democracy is a far more realistic prospect that could only be brought about by the transferring of quite a few federal powers to the state/province/county/city levels. As is expected, this isn't likely to happen because the current federal leaders are hand-in-hand with the ruling aristocracy (Bilderbergs, Trilaterals, yada yada yada) and very keen on keeping the power that they think to be secure. Not to mention the obvious rebuttal from the ruling class to such a proposal that they would use to denounce such radical ideas - "we wud hav redoosed securdee cuz da armeeez wudnt b so big." In the world of near-instant communication in which we live and the relative accessibility of the accompanying technology required for said communication, it's a wonder that we haven't transitioned or at least began to transition away from the Republic phase. The Republic worked because of the fact that it was impractical for all of the governed to be included in decision-making, as well as the fact that properly informing all involved parties was far too arduous a task. In the current day and age, I feel that true Democracy is the most realistically appropriate form of government. That's not to say that a Republic doesn't work though. At present the current Republican institutions function semi-soundly, enough so as to not jeopardize the natural rights of man living under the government. I just feel that Democracy is actually possible now, and that it would better protect those inherent rights of man.
All forms of government have failed at one point. Also sorry about the misspelling i have changed it now.
Debo, what do you mean by a "true democracy"? Do you mean a direct democracy? I'm struggling with the practicalities of one, at least in the United States. While it is certainly possible,i n this day and age of mass communication, to give everyone the ability to vote on issues. But would most of the population even care? That seems pessimistic. But in the 2008 Presidential Election, one of the most important elections of our lifetime, only 61.7% actually voted. 40% of our population doesn't even care, or didn't find it important enough to vote. That's awfully troubling if we're about to hand over voting to the masses. Instead, how about ridding ourselves of this petty two-party system? The framers warned against such system and we're seeing the effects now. Washington, Paine, Jefferson, they all were against political parties, and if they had to have them (as that could be argued now as to run for a political office one may need financial support) then have many. Most other democratic nations have more than 2 parties, so why not America? I apologize that most of this is U.S. related but that's how it seemed to go as I typed. Basically, I believe a representative democracy is the best choice in such a large country, but not with petty party divides.
Don't assume so much. Some people can't afford to take time off of work to cast their vote. 13% of the population comprises the working poor, 30% is the working poor (which adds up to 40%). Although there are some people who get the opportunity to vote and simply refuse to or like you said don't care, you can't say 40% of our population didn't care or thought it wasn't important enough. And we do have more than two political parties.
We have more than two, but only two are actually able to have a candidate that can legitimately run for president with a chance of winning. You aren't going to see the Green Party have a president any time soon, and all of Congress is (D) and (R). Even still, the U.S. is one of the greatest countries to live in in the world. Economic excuses aren't going to cut it. We usually have around 58% voter turnout, which is one of the lowest in all democratic nations. Most are in the 80% range.
thers no best goverment, all have there weaknesses and advantages communism: supportive but easy to get corrupted despotism: do what you want but just like communism, its easy to get corrupted by it fundamentalism: normally worship a religeon, which is cultureal, but normally dosnt get along with other countries monarchy: ruled by a family tree, it has alot of culture but if a bad king/queen rules, its very hard to get rid of him/her theres a few others but im too lazy to list them all
What? those aren't even right. Communism: a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. However the community as a whole so far has become one man or group that has all the power. despotism: Incorrect what i think you mean is... Fascism: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism. in other words, Hitler-Germany or Mussolini-Italy as examples fundamentalism: you mean a... Theocracy: a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities. And they only don't get along with Theocracies that aren't the same religion. ex: Iran-Israel Monarchy: You obviously haven't studied European History. I suggest you do before you say anything about monarchies. even if it is just a little study on your own. laziness such as yours is the reason there is a perfect government, so get cracking!