Do you agree with Democracy?

[New Socialist South Africa]

actually, it's because colonies broke away.

Actually actually, it's probably primarily because WW1 and WW2 wrecked the UK economically and they couldn't keep the empire together any longer. Had WW1 and WW2 been won quickly and efficiently, with as little American support as possible, Great Britain would most likely still be an Empire today.

Not if the African population had anything to say about that, which it certainly did. What broke up the British Empire was them growing tired of killing people that disagreed with them. It became to expensive, particularly with the rise of African Nationalism, and went out of fashion.

[The Sotoan Union]

Actually actually, it's probably primarily because WW1 and WW2 wrecked the UK economically and they couldn't keep the empire together any longer. Had WW1 and WW2 been won quickly and efficiently, with as little American support as possible, Great Britain would most likely still be an Empire today.

doubt it. They gave Hong Kong back to China. Britain would face significant pressure to let go of its other colonies.

I don't see a possibility for Britain to have won the world wars quickly and efficiently, but if it did then it would have had the strength to resist this pressure.

[Arcov]

And the US hasn't established economic empires?

Not exactly a good argument, is it, if it's no better? The nobles are no more concerned for the welfare of the country than elected politicians are.

I haven't heard about assassinating nobles, unless this was pre-1800's, when the empire hit it's golden age.

Nobles used the same political intrigue you so despise. It did not suddenly come into existence with the invention for a democracy.

They did repress natives, but nowhere near as badly as Americas, or possibly the French, and perhaps even the Germans (they actually committed a pseudo-genocide in one of their African colonies). And repressing the common man? No more so than America had been doing at the time.

The UK killed Africans by the thousand. They had torture camps in Kenya. They used Indian serfs. They were just as bad, they committed genocide in everything but name. Stop viewing the British empire through rose colored glasses.

[Shilya]

doubt it. They gave Hong Kong back to China. Britain would face significant pressure to let go of its other colonies.

I don't see a possibility for Britain to have won the world wars quickly and efficiently, but if it did then it would have had the strength to resist this pressure.

In WW2, winning quickly was actually just the thing needed. Instead, they sat around, waiting for another WW1 behind defenses.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Yes. And the British Empire was a despotic, racist, Eurocentric, intolerant, aggressive and altogether terrible institution that should be confined to the dustbin of history. So your point is what exactly?

Ended slavery, spread liberty, gave colonies self rule for most practical purposes, gave stability and unity to the colonised peoples.

Spent many years supporting slavery before opposing it, exploited people and their land, established colonies against the will of the local population, tore apart the way of life of the colonial people and caused massive instability and conflict between the colonised peoples actually. At least it wasn't as bad as the Belgian Empire though.

[Merent]

Nobles =/= the public

Who gives a shite bout commoners?

ignorance=/= insanity

It's hard to be ignorant when you're raised to rule.

If you're not an ignorant voter then congratualations you are small minority of voters.

[Arcov]

Yes. And the British Empire was a despotic, racist, Eurocentric, intolerant, aggressive and altogether terrible institution that should be confined to the dustbin of history. So your point is what exactly?

Ended slavery, spread liberty, gave colonies self rule for most practical purposes, gave stability and unity to the colonised peoples.

Not at first it didn't. The European colonization inf Africa did nothing but economically exploit them. They "unified" them but eradicating tribal identities and killing those that didn't adapt.

[Othelos]

Nobles =/= the public

Who gives a shite bout commoners?

The commoners, which is almost everyone....

ignorance=/= insanity

It's hard to be ignorant when you're raised to rule.

If you're not an ignorant voter then congratualations you are small minority of voters.

it's a good thing our officials can be voted out if they are ignorant, unlike officials in a monarchy.

[New Socialist South Africa]

Nobles =/= the public

1)Who gives a shite bout commoners?

ignorance=/= insanity

2) It's hard to be ignorant when you're raised to rule.

If you're not an ignorant voter then congratualations you are small minority of voters.

1) Me, and 'commoners' themselves.

2) Its very easy to be ignorant about the lives of the common people if you live in a palace I would believe.

[Immoren]

A monarch doesn't have to worry about elections, this leads to them being more focused on the long run. Democracies focus on the next 4 (or a little bigger or smaller number) years until the next election. Concerntrated power in a monarch and nobles (those who focus their life on public policy) rather than trusting voters plagued by rational ignorance. The division on labour is for governments too because a few people specialising will do better than millions who do not care alot, it's the same when it comes to the production of goods and the production of laws.

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

Joke's that feudalism was result of impossibility of creating strong central power due ot social system or technology or both.

[Arcov]

Except the nobility will sill care more about gaining more power for themselves than the helping the country. Do you think feudal vassals cared about improving their country?

Joke's that feudalism was result of impossibility of creating strong central power due ot social system or technology or both.

It was certainly formed because of that.

Thank god we left it.

[Anollasia]

Atatürk encouraged democracy. If it weren't for him, maybe Turkey never would've been democratic.

Exactly. Even the best dictators encouraged democracy.

I prefer President, but sure.

[Dalcaria]

And Britain did the same. Democracies aren't better for citizens outside their country, but they certainly are domestically.

You could just as easily say the same thing for dictatorship. I mean, even Nazi Germany benefited from their dictator, unfortunately he was insane and did bad things, but then again, so did the US (to the natives). And frankly, genocide aside, people lived better lives in Nazi Germany than any American did in the US, because Fascism was actually working.

The UK massacred the Africa natives. The US killed people it did not consider it's citizens. The anti-war protestors were only killed in one incident, when the police, separate from their order, fired on them.

Which natives did the UK massacre exactly? And also, how does the US killing people it doesn't consider citizens justify it? At least the UK left most of the people they conquered alive. Tell me how many natives are still alive in America, hmm?

And for every kill Stalin or Hitler made, the US killed much less.

Yes, but we're not talking about Hitler or Stalin exclusively are we? Yes they killed millions more, which is criminal to no end, but it doesn't justify what the US did, or what Britain did, or what France did, or what anyone did frankly. But I'm going to make a point again of drawing a comparison with the goods and the bads of both. Germany was the strongest nation probably to have ever existed, economically speaking for sure. If Tito had had that but stuck to his social principles, Yugoslavia may have been a lot stronger. But then again, he had to deal with ethnic tensions in the region too. So perhaps Tito in charge of Nazi Germany would have been better. But I'm struggling to imagine the US or any democratic nation becoming economically stable for all people within it any time soon. The system of economics just isn't working, and no matter how you change it to make it better, some genius can always come along and ruin everything. One of the "virtues" of democracy.

For the French revolution, I'll bring this delightful little quote from Mark Twain.
“There were two ‘Reigns of Terror,’ if we would but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the guillotine, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

– Mark Twain, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”"

And so that justifies murdering innocent people too? It's an argument I've heard Pro-Russian activists make a few times in regards to Crimea. "The Tartars had been slavers, so we were justified in taking their land". So all Tartars are slavers, even if they haven't been actively slaving for a few decades or more? Likewise, I'm sure much of the aristocracy of France deserved punishment, but whom was the judge? A man who cared not for their guilt or innocence, but for their blood. What's a crime is thinking an act is justified when justice was never involved.

[Leritorius]

For the French revolution, I'll bring this delightful little quote from Mark Twain.
“There were two ‘Reigns of Terror,’ if we would but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the guillotine, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

– Mark Twain, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”"

Has Mark Twain even lived in France, to begin with ? Has he been there during the French Revolution ? or did he come from the same temples as those who planned it ?

Samuel Langhorne Clemens was born in 1835 and died in 1910. lived in USA all his life. He never met a single monarch of France. And he talks about the French Revolution. But I don't blame him, he felt the need to change his name, like all those bastards of his breed...

[Immoren]

For the French revolution, I'll bring this delightful little quote from Mark Twain.
“There were two ‘Reigns of Terror,’ if we would but remember and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the guillotine, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.”

– Mark Twain, “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court”"

Has Mark Twain even lived in France, to begin with ? Has he been there during the French Revolution ? or did he come from the same temples as those who planned it ?

#hat're ye tryinh to say?

[Merent]

it's a good thing our officials can be voted out if they are ignorant, unlike officials in a monarchy.

Ignorant voters can't fairly vote out the ignorant officials if they are ignorant themselves.

[Dalcaria]

And the US hasn't established economic empires?

Not exactly a good argument, is it, if it's no better? The nobles are no more concerned for the welfare of the country than elected politicians are.

The "nobles"? I don't think you're particularly well versed in the history of the UK, are you? Nobility was certainly involved, but businesses were built up and became massive often times with the influence of average, everyday men, much like in the US.

Nobles used the same political intrigue you so despise. It did not suddenly come into existence with the invention for a democracy.

Yes, and that quickly disintegrated as Parliament became integrated. It might be worth noting at this point that the British Empire was primarily a democracy. The Queen and "nobility" had about as much power as parliament let them have, which wasn't much more than they have today. But also, I don't really support nobility either. As I said, Non-Sovereign Monarchy is my thing.

The UK killed Africans by the thousand. They had torture camps in Kenya. They used Indian serfs. They were just as bad, they committed genocide in everything but name. Stop viewing the British empire through rose colored glasses.

America continued to hang black men, tie them up behind cars and drive around with them, and beat them to death in broad day light LONG after your nation outlawed slavery, and your glorious "democratic" government didn't bat an eyelash until people protested. We had torture camps in Kenya? You had torture camps EVERYWHERE. We had Indian Serfs? You BEAT your African Serfs, sometimes to death. I don't view the British Empire in any color of glasses, I view the quite realistically. I suggest you stop viewing them as the pinnacle of merchants in human suffering, because when it comes to real human suffering, the British Empire hardly scratches the surface. The worst thing they've done frankly is left an ethnic mess across their colonies, having different groups brutally murder each other because they shouldn't have gone together. But, at the very least, these people are still alive and able to rebuild, it may take decades or even centuries, but it's not out of the realm of the possible. Tell me how you think Native Americans will rebuild?

[Sun Wukong]

What's important is that Democracy agrees with me.

[Merent]

The commoners, which is almost everyone....

Wrong.
The right answer was the monarch who looks after his people and not their own place on the polls.

[Dalcaria]

it's a good thing our officials can be voted out if they are ignorant, unlike officials in a monarchy.

Ignorant voters can't fairly vote out the ignorant officials if they are ignorant themselves.

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population? Pretty much, you don't, because they don't want to care, which is (to be totally honest) the greatest pitfall of democracy. People too ignorant to choose what might be best for them. By this point, American citizens could have created their own new political party and voted that in, and if they were smart, it might have actually fixed some of the countries problems. But they don't care, so it hasn't happened.

[New Socialist South Africa]

And Britain did the same. Democracies aren't better for citizens outside their country, but they certainly are domestically.

You could just as easily say the same thing for dictatorship. I mean, even Nazi Germany benefited from their dictator, unfortunately he was insane and did bad things, but then again, so did the US (to the natives). And frankly, genocide aside, people lived better lives in Nazi Germany than any American did in the US, because Fascism was actually working.

The UK massacred the Africa natives. The US killed people it did not consider it's citizens. The anti-war protestors were only killed in one incident, when the police, separate from their order, fired on them.

Which natives did the UK massacre exactly? And also, how does the US killing people it doesn't consider citizens justify it? At least the UK left most of the people they conquered alive. Tell me how many natives are still alive in America, hmm?

Well many Zulus, Mau Mau and Ashanti to name three.

[Leritorius]

Ignorant voters can't fairly vote out the ignorant officials if they are ignorant themselves.

Which raises the important question, how do you raise a politically intelligent population? Pretty much, you don't, because they don't want to care, which is (to be totally honest) the greatest pitfall of democracy. People too ignorant to choose what might be best for them. By this point, American citizens could have created their own new political party and voted that in, and if they were smart, it might have actually fixed some of the countries problems. But they don't care, so it hasn't happened.

Truer than truth.

[Dalcaria]

What's important is that Democracy agrees with me.

No offense intended, but I find it often doesn't agree with me, otherwise my country would have started investing in itself, rather then selling off our resources. Unfortunately, democracy seems to agree with whoever votes, and unfortunately whoever votes tends to be low information voters that don't understand that when you lower taxes, it makes it difficult to fund the free things you like so much (like health care for us, speaking from Canada so you know).

[New Socialist South Africa]

The commoners, which is almost everyone....

Wrong.
The right answer was the monarch who looks after his people and not their own place on the polls.

Except for those monarchs that didn't give a shit about a great number of their people, like Ivan the Terrible and Louis the 14th.

[Communal Ecotopia]

Democracy, like anything else, is a highly imperfect institution suited to highly imperfect beings (all of us humans), but it is the best system we have.