NationStates

Heh, not really propagandist, just the most fitting term I could think of at the time. Obviously people -should- uphold the vows they make, but the world isn't perfect and I don't see much value in forcing someone to stay married who truly doesn't want to.

Albrenia wrote:Heh, not really propagandist, just the most fitting term I could think of at the time. Obviously people -should- uphold the vows they make, but the world isn't perfect and I don't see much value in forcing someone to stay married who truly doesn't want to.

Then perhaps I am wrong, and in free contract strong marriages will die out.

If so, I don't mind. But I think secure lifetime marriage does have value in giving people the financial and emotional security they need to raise children.

Nuevo Dixie wrote:Democracy is an utterly overrated system of government because having uneducated turds make important national decisions seems like it would be detrimental to a country. As Socrates once said, "Who would you want want steering a boat; an educated Captain, who has spent his life learning to sail, or an uneducated peasant mob?". That same logic should go for countries as well, right? Wouldn't it be better if educated elites ran a country?

What makes democracy great is because it allows citizens to vote for who they want leading their country, to make their laws, etc. Though people are opt to vote for someone who has experience in whatever they're voting for. Can't really bring Trump under this category sense it was the electoral college that got him in.

Socio Polor wrote:

Nuevo Dixie wrote:Democracy is an utterly overrated system of government because having uneducated turds make important national decisions seems like it would be detrimental to a country. As Socrates once said, "Who would you want want steering a boat; an educated Captain, who has spent his life learning to sail, or an uneducated peasant mob?". That same logic should go for countries as well, right? Wouldn't it be better if educated elites ran a country?

What makes democracy great is because it allows citizens to vote for who they want leading their country, to make their laws, etc. Though people are opt to vote for someone who has experience in whatever they're voting for. Can't really bring Trump under this category sense it was the electoral college that got him in.

I agree with all of this. The electoral college isn't democratic as it makes certain votes count more than others.

San Lumen wrote:

Socio Polor wrote:What makes democracy great is because it allows citizens to vote for who they want leading their country, to make their laws, etc. Though people are opt to vote for someone who has experience in whatever they're voting for. Can't really bring Trump under this category sense it was the electoral college that got him in.

I agree with all of this. The electoral college isn't democratic as it makes certain votes count more than others.

*rural screech*

Computer Lab wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
Well I primarily don't vote because I greatly value my free time. There's simply no good return for using the time for that.

>highly values free time
>posts regularly on NSG

I randomly post here and there between League of Legend marathons. It takes 10+ mins sometimes to find a match that will start.

Infected Mushroom wrote:

Computer Lab wrote:>highly values free time
>posts regularly on NSG

I randomly post here and there between League of Legend marathons. It takes 10+ mins sometimes to find a match that will start.

>highly values free time
>plays LoL

Herador wrote:

Infected Mushroom wrote:
I randomly post here and there between League of Legend marathons. It takes 10+ mins sometimes to find a match that will start.

>highly values free time
>plays LoL

time is IP

Most importantly, there's strange view, that parliamentary 'liberal democracy' of western type is the only way for democracy to work.

There are many kinds of democracy. Is Iran democracy? Not by western standards, but you can't call it dictatorship. Would Swiss type of direct democracy worked everywhere? Perhaps not, perhaps it's too local and incomparable case, and France, for example, would exploded, considering they are unstable state since they stormed Bastilla. But why not try it?

In Czech Republic, current government promised, finally after 25 years we have mentioned it in constitution, that 'Popular referendum' will be finally a thing - so far, they passed only one, when citizens vote to join EU. More than year it's stucked in parliament, and elections are coming now. I guess they feel threatened by something more resembling will of the people.

If you need to argue, that people are too stupid to decide things like staying in NATO or having death penalty, then you don't believe in democracy and you should admit that dictatorship or oligarchy is completely acceptable and justified.

Socialist Czechia wrote:Most importantly, there's strange view, that parliamentary 'liberal democracy' of western type is the only way for democracy to work.

There are many kinds of democracy. Is Iran democracy? Not by western standards, but you can't call it dictatorship. Would Swiss type of direct democracy worked everywhere? Perhaps not, perhaps it's too local and incomparable case, and France, for example, would exploded, considering they are unstable state since they stormed Bastilla. But why not try it?

In Czech Republic, current government promised, finally after 25 years we have mentioned it in constitution, that 'Popular referendum' will be finally a thing - so far, they passed only one, when citizens vote to join EU. More than year it's stucked in parliament, and elections are coming now. I guess they feel threatened by something more resembling will of the people.

If you need to argue, that people are too stupid to decide things like staying in NATO or having death penalty, then you don't believe in democracy and you should admit that dictatorship or oligarchy is completely acceptable and justified.

Some things shouldn't be up for referendum

So another one who don't believe in democracy. Either you believe people to rule themselves or not.

If you really think that we need councils of 'elder/wise citizens', as Plato already wanted, then we can scrap democracy completely.

For anyone in this forum who deposes democracy, are you familiar with Ben Franklin's old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government"?

Yes, it can have its problems, I'm not denying that. The issues presented in this game are a perfect example of that. But there is a reason that the idea of democracy, while it may be unstable in its embryonic stages, has stuck around for so long.

There have been studies that show that all primates, not just humans, are wired to have an innate sense of fairness. As a species, we would rather have that need satiated, even if the initial means are unstable, than have a "stable" regime that deliberately oppresses its people ("stable" is in quotes here because authoritarian regimes, with their constant coups, civil wars, internal power struggles, and need to put down rebellions, can be just as unstable as embryonic democracy). And it is because of this satiated need, once it is established, that democracy is actually more stable than authoritarian regimes. Everyone is satisfied and calm, as no basic human urges (for fairness) are being suppressed. to put it in very simple terms, everyone is happy, so no one feels the need to destabilize the government, even if problems do arise.

This is why, "everyone thinks democracy is so great". Because it's the best system for everyone. And if your authoritarian brains can't comprehend this, then you can die off with the rest of the 14th-century schools of political thought, for you're about 700 years out of place (though if you want to get really technical, you're about 3,000 years off, given the first prototypical democracy arose in ancient Athens).

An absolute government can do a lot more than a democracy. Some examples come from the greatest empires of history such as Macedonia. However, they can easily turn downhill due to bad leadership. Another example of this is Nazi Germany's downfall or various corporations with terrible CEOs. Throughout history, democracies have been shown to be effectively "okay" most of the time in addition to giving their people numerous more rights than the governments of other nations.

Socialist Czechia wrote:Most importantly, there's strange view, that parliamentary 'liberal democracy' of western type is the only way for democracy to work.

There are many kinds of democracy. Is Iran democracy? Not by western standards, but you can't call it dictatorship. Would Swiss type of direct democracy worked everywhere? Perhaps not, perhaps it's too local and incomparable case, and France, for example, would exploded, considering they are unstable state since they stormed Bastilla. But why not try it?

In Czech Republic, current government promised, finally after 25 years we have mentioned it in constitution, that 'Popular referendum' will be finally a thing - so far, they passed only one, when citizens vote to join EU. More than year it's stucked in parliament, and elections are coming now. I guess they feel threatened by something more resembling will of the people.

If you need to argue, that people are too stupid to decide things like staying in NATO or having death penalty, then you don't believe in democracy and you should admit that dictatorship or oligarchy is completely acceptable and justified.

Iran has little respect for human rights, and can therefore not really claim to be a democracy. I'll explain this in more detail if you want.

Referenda are good tools in theory, but in practise they give no real indication of popular will: only an idea of which side can rally the most people. Therefore, referenda are not the democratic tools they're hyped up to be. They are skewed in favour of people who want a certain change to happen, as people who support the status quo or the people who are unafflicted simply don't turn up.

Aguaria Major wrote:For anyone in this forum who deposes democracy, are you familiar with Ben Franklin's old saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for every other form of government"?

That was Churchill.

Nuevo Dixie wrote:Democracy is an utterly overrated system of government because having uneducated turds make important national decisions seems like it would be detrimental to a country. As Socrates once said, "Who would you want want steering a boat; an educated Captain, who has spent his life learning to sail, or an uneducated peasant mob?". That same logic should go for countries as well, right? Wouldn't it be better if educated elites ran a country?

And people like you make me think why does everyone think the 1st amendment is so great?

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Iran has little respect for human rights, and can therefore not really claim to be a democracy. I'll explain this in more detail if you want.

Referenda are good tools in theory, but in practise they give no real indication of popular will: only an idea of which side can rally the most people. Therefore, referenda are not the democratic tools they're hyped up to be. They are skewed in favour of people who want a certain change to happen, as people who support the status quo or the people who are unafflicted simply don't turn up.

As I said, Iran is not democracy by western standards. But it doesn't mean that regime must be necessarily dictatorship. There's amount of theocracy and authoritarianism, but no one can claim it's military state or totalitarian state.
There would be much more democracy, if current constitution of Islamic Republic was interpreted a little differently. If main religious leader was less pushy and Revolutionary Guards stopped directly interfering with elections, that would do it as well.

Yeah, they are indication of popular will - and people who doesn't vote no, who doesn't even bother go to vote, is saying yes, by my opinion.

But it can be easily solved by compulsory voting system. List of countries where people must have an opinion:

Austria
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Fiji
France (senate only)
Gabon
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mexico
Nauru
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay

So it's pretty usual and in case almost everyone votes, such voice of the people is much more convincing.
After all, same as you don't have right, but you have duty to pay taxes, why you should have right to ignore voting?

Socialist Czechia wrote:

Great Confederacy Of Commonwealth States wrote:Iran has little respect for human rights, and can therefore not really claim to be a democracy. I'll explain this in more detail if you want.

Referenda are good tools in theory, but in practise they give no real indication of popular will: only an idea of which side can rally the most people. Therefore, referenda are not the democratic tools they're hyped up to be. They are skewed in favour of people who want a certain change to happen, as people who support the status quo or the people who are unafflicted simply don't turn up.

As I said, Iran is not democracy by western standards. But it doesn't mean that regime must be necessarily dictatorship. There's amount of theocracy and authoritarianism, but no one can claim it's military state or totalitarian state.
There would be much more democracy, if current constitution of Islamic Republic was interpreted a little differently. If main religious leader was less pushy and Revolutionary Guards stopped directly interfering with elections, that would do it as well.

Yeah, they are indication of popular will - and people who doesn't vote no, who doesn't even bother go to vote, is saying yes, by my opinion.

But it can be easily solved by compulsory voting system. List of countries where people must have an opinion:

Austria
Argentina
Australia
Belgium
Bolivia
Brazil
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Egypt
Fiji
France (senate only)
Gabon
Greece
Guatemala
Honduras
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Mexico
Nauru
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Singapore
Switzerland (Schaffhausen)
Thailand
Turkey
Uruguay

So it's pretty usual and in case almost everyone votes, such voice of the people is much more convincing.
After all, same as you don't have right, but you have duty to pay taxes, why you should have right to ignore voting?

I dont agree with compulsory voting in a democracy. Not voting is your right but you lose your right to complain about whose in office and what they do.

At least with compulsory voting, then is no doubt that party/candidate with majority of votes represents actual majority of citizens.

As I mentioned, why voting isn't perceived as citizen's duty, same as paying taxes or conscription?
Then again, many people thinks these things are highly tyrannical too

Socialist Czechia wrote:At least with compulsory voting, then is no doubt that party/candidate with majority of votes represents actual majority of citizens.

As I mentioned, why voting isn't perceived as citizen's duty, same as paying taxes or conscription?
Then again, many people thinks these things are highly tyrannical too

I agree it should be perceived as a civic duty but if someone doesn't want to vote that is their right but in my opinion they have no right to complain about whose in office or what they do. You have even less right to complain if your not registered.

Socialist Czechia wrote:At least with compulsory voting, then is no doubt that party/candidate with majority of votes represents actual majority of citizens.

As I mentioned, why voting isn't perceived as citizen's duty, same as paying taxes or conscription?
Then again, many people thinks these things are highly tyrannical too

Both are also punishable for not taking part and people still don't.

I agree with the idea in theory but it doesn't tackle the underlying issue of voter apathy in America which I think is mostly down to gerrymandering, the FPTP system, restrictive two-party system, and the electoral college. All that shit just reinforces people's beliefs that their votes don't matter and things don't change, and if you talk to people who have a habit of not voting I think those would usually be their reasons.

Herador wrote:

Socialist Czechia wrote:At least with compulsory voting, then is no doubt that party/candidate with majority of votes represents actual majority of citizens.

As I mentioned, why voting isn't perceived as citizen's duty, same as paying taxes or conscription?
Then again, many people thinks these things are highly tyrannical too

Both are also punishable for not taking part and people still don't.

I agree with the idea in theory but it doesn't tackle the underlying issue of voter apathy in America which I think is mostly down to gerrymandering, the FPTP system, and the electoral college. All that shit just reinforces people's beliefs that their votes don't matter and things don't change, and if you talk to people who have a habit of not voting I think those would usually be their reasons.

I like the idea of FPTP. Your much more likely to have a majority government. The electoral college should absolutely be gotten rid of as should gerrymandering

Do you like the ice-cream right?. If i would a dictator maybe i'll give you an ice-crem at breakfast, another at lunch, another at dinner. Tomorrow 3 more, The next week 20 ice-creams more, and again, and again.... within 30 years you hates the f#&ing ice-cream and you can't refuse it. You could to suffer torture or death.

People who knows well how is a dictatorship could tell how is necessary the democracy.

P.D. I lived a dictatorship

San Lumen wrote:

Herador wrote:Both are also punishable for not taking part and people still don't.

I agree with the idea in theory but it doesn't tackle the underlying issue of voter apathy in America which I think is mostly down to gerrymandering, the FPTP system, and the electoral college. All that shit just reinforces people's beliefs that their votes don't matter and things don't change, and if you talk to people who have a habit of not voting I think those would usually be their reasons.

I like the idea of FPTP. Your much more likely to have a majority government. The electoral college should absolutely be gotten rid of as should gerrymandering

FPTP is also restrictive and forces people, at least in the US, to choose the safe option rather than the option they want, leading to voter apathy.

Q: Why does everyone think democracy is so great?

A: Because North Korea exists. And because it is the least worst system because is distributes power relatively widely.