User Tag List

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38

Thread: Democracy as Aristocracy2930 days old

  1. #21
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Are you kidding me?
    I hope it is very apparent to most that… children should not vote, and reproductive people are the core of all societies. What alternative is there???


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    So if someone is gay or can not produce children or does not want to produce children is therefore "worth less" than someone who has children ?.
    First that depends on the particular society in question. There are various countries/societies in the world when & where gays are second class citizens, or worse, criminals with a death warrant if caught. So you need to specify whichever societies you are referring to here. Insofar as I proposed, yes, everybody who sexually does not reproduce, has less social worth than those who do, by a relative degree. I'm not saying that non-reproductive people completely are worthless. I simply am asserting is that they have less social worth in terms of their 'future'. A bachelor billionaire who spends his life helping society has less social value than a man & woman who create a family, yes. Because if the billionaire dies then society continues. Yet if the family dies then the society dies.

    Because: No children = No future = No society. You imply to disagree with this…??

    I'm going to reassert this again later in this response.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Do you even realize how unfair it is that someone who is gay/can not have children/does not want children is paying taxes to raise someone else's children ?
    Life is fair? Who arbitrates "fairness"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Personally I'm not sure whether I can have children since I have never had my "liquid" examined, I'm not gay either, I just dont want to reproduce, the thought of having children terrifies me, since in my opinion children will not only drain my resources but will also limit my freedom and demand so much time and energy that I will go nuts.

    Having offspring is a personal choice.
    Is drinking water a personal choice, or eating food, or sleeping?

    Is sex a personal choice? Or are organisms biologically compelled to sexually reproduce?


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Does having this vision mean that I'm worse than you and that I'm worse than you and that I should not be allowed to vote ?
    I don't have children either. So I guess the answer is: No.

    My proposal counts toward me too. I want children; yet that does not mean I will achieve the goal! There is a difference between what one wants to happen and what (objectively) will happen. Willing and Wanting are not the same concepts.

    Again: people who (objectively) will not have children in life, have no (objective) future in society. Does this fact offend you? Most people are quite aware of the value of their reproductive organs. What happens when a guy gets kicked in the nuts? It hurts a lot, correct? Do you know why that is? Because the brain innately/reflexively knows the biological importance of our reproduction. It hurts a great deal to get hit in the nuts; because our body & mind wants to prevent that from happening again. That pain exists for a reason & purpose, to protect the "vital region".

    You must ignore the truth in order to deny the purpose, of sex.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    what else should be done to me ?
    Done to you?

    I never advocated that people should become punished/criminalized for not having children. I am saying that "Society" cannot exist without at least one, reproducing man & women. If this couple does not reproduce, then the society is doomed to fail, and die… extinction. Why must this become more complicated?

    In a way, becoming extinct is enough of a 'punishment' in my opinion. Who wants that?? Who wants to never reproduce?? Who wants to never have sex, or to experience love or a caring relationship?? Perhaps I erroneously presume that most people, if not all, want to experience some degree of happiness construed by sexual relationships between people.

    I think, Not even people who commit suicide "want to die". They probably "wanted" other things, a better life, etc. They simply gave up Hope?


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    should I be shot when i'm 50 or so ? should I pay waaaaay more taxes to raise your children or something ?
    I fail to see the relevance of this Hyperbole.

    If people do not reproduce then "Nature" is going to take care of things in the end.

    Do you believe in Natural Selection and Evolution, and that organisms which fail to reproduce become extinct??


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Parenting is a choice, IF the choice is made then yes, whoever becomes a parent is obligated to provide for this child(ren).
    "To become a parent" maybe a choice, yes…

    But, Parenting = Providing for your children.

    "Parenting" is not a "choice". If parents neglect their children then "The State" intervenes through "child services" and steals/takes the children from those parents. Animal Rights groups in US do this as well, with abused animals. I think that is a good idea. Dysfunctional people should have their children/animals taken away. Because they are Irresponsible for themselves.

    The alternative is a society where child & animal abuse becomes more common, accepted, and the consequences of such neglect festers & rots a society on more profound scale.

    Yet people debate about what constitutes "neglect". Some believe that a parent who spanks his/her children constitutes child abuse. In my opinion, that is extreme in the other direction.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Within a reason - yes, beyond reasons NO. You are reading it wrong
    Perhaps you can clarify your meaning for me.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    none of us have future in the society, we are all facing death sooner or later,
    That is incorrect. People who successfully have sex, and have children, have a future in society. In fact these people are the very essence of society. If there are none of these people then the society is doomed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    when we die we seize to exist (at least in this world lol), whether we leave offspring or not is irrelevant at this point.
    My perspective is non-religious in this respect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Choosing to have children is a personal choice,
    I am not so certain of that…

    If it is a "choice" then it is the same "choice" of me "choosing" to drink water, to survive.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    you are not obligated to reproduce,
    I am not "obligated" to drink water too. But I do and I will…

    The difference is… my individual existence, my life, maybe unnecessary for 'Society'. Society only needs one pair, a sexually reproductive man & woman. There are ~7bil people in the world. If I die then many societies will still continue onward.

    There is a difference between "individuality" and "society". Individuals are perhaps unnecessary, and worthless to society.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    many of us cant even reproduce, some cant find a mate, some do have a mate but dont want children or cant have them.
    Perhaps that is a blessing; perhaps that is a curse. It depends on how you value life. That may have nothing to do with social values.


    Quote Originally Posted by Acquisitorz View Post
    Leaving no children at the time of your death is not a crime, and someone who does not leave children should not be treated as inferior or superior.
    You are arguing on behalf of a Negative Rights perspective. I have not mentioned anything about criminalization or inferior/superior social values. My main point was this:

    No children = No future = No society.




    PS. Acquisitorz, notice how I have not said:

    "To become a parent is a social obligation." That is not my position here…

    Because different societies want different individuals to become 'absorbed' by them.

    Some societies are religious, cultural, politickal, economical, military, etc.

    Different societies want/need different types of individuals to integrate into them…
    Last edited by Unome; 2011-08-16 at 00:35.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  2. # ADS
    Advertisement bot
    Join Date
    2013-03-24
    Location
    ForumBiodiversity.com
    Age
    2010
    Posts
    All threads
       
     

  3. #22
    Established Member
    Molecular Biologist GeistFaust's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-01-24 @ 05:16
    Join Date
    2011-04-24
    Posts
    4,018
    Gender
    Race
    Europid
    Phenotype
    Cromagnid
    Metaethnos
    Germanic/Celtic
    Ethnicity
    German Irish-Scot
    Phenotype
    Faelid/North Atlantid
    Politics
    Libertarianism
    Religion
    Master Morality
    Germany Ireland Italy

    Default

    I think it impossible to escape the framework of the aristocracy some of the greatest social enterprises were aristocratic in nature. I don't believe there is such a thing as societal equality and its a farce democracy has concocted up to trick us into believing that conforming to democracy will give us more freedom than in Aristocracy.

    Democracy has practically become an Oligarchical affair that is run by a Plutocracy now a days. Despite the thought which is spread out in the common man's mind and is entrenched in the public perception democracy is more of a slavery than an actual system of freedom.

    Even though we feel that democracy has been giving us equal freedom it has actually been taking freedom away from the socially graced and fortunate. Democracy is an affair which has its original intent set on repressing and oppressing the few aristocratic remnants of culture and society while supposedly freeing the primitive mobs from the control of their aristocratic masters. Simply this is a lie because the new aristocrats are the politicians in charge of the democracy as well as the Plutocrats.


    Elite forces in society have become more powerful than any aristocratic structure in the past has ever gotten and the mobs are becoming more impoverished and ignorant despite them supposedly having more freedoms and opportunities in society. The reasons for this is quite obvious the mobs and the masses are doomed and have their fate restricted to mediocrity and negligence. Its because most people usually desire to have someone higher up to depend on and look up to this is something that has been imbued in most people's minds from a young age.

    The aristocracy exists to this day just under a more sickened and demented form called democracy which has evolved into a Monetarial Aristocracy. The few great men of society and culture who are the aristocrats must stop being so passively acceptive of inferior democratic ideals and rebels affirming their will to power in order to undermine Post-Modernist political, social, and moral affairs.

  4. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to GeistFaust For This Useful Post:

    Hue-man (2011-08-16), Pioterus (2011-08-16), Unome (2011-08-16)

  5. #23
    Established Member
    Hokey Pokey Kwestos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-04-28 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2011-01-04
    Posts
    8,751
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    K1a1
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Pontid
    Metaethnos
    Euro
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    Silvio Berlusconi
    Religion
    Voodoo
    Poland United Kingdom

    Default

    about children: having children is kind of 'repayment' you give back what you received.
    (i dont have any children myself I need to say here).
    Am I right or am I wrong?

  6. #24
    Established Member
    Evolutionary Biologist Hue-man's Avatar
    Last Online
    @
    Join Date
    2010-07-06
    Posts
    910
    Location
    New York, USA
    Gender
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    United States

    Default

    Let's try to clarify the meaning of aristocracy. The word itself derives from the Greek word aristokratia which means "rule of the best". Aristokratia derives from the Greek aristos meaning excellent and the Greek kratos which means power. These men were put first (or highest) in the social hierarchy and were thus considered the "first men".

    Aristocratic social orders have arisen all over the world. An aristocratic elite is the natural outcome of the voluntary transaction between private property owners. In every society, a few individuals acquire the status of an elite through talent. Due to superior achievements of wealth, wisdom, and bravery, these individuals come to possess natural authority, and their opinions and judgments enjoy wide-spread respect. Moreover, because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority are likely to be passed on within a few noble families. It is to the heads of these families with long-established records of superior achievement, farsightedness, and exemplary personal conduct that men turn with their conflicts and complaints against each other. These leaders of the natural elite act as judges and peacemakers, often free of charge out of a sense of duty expected of a person of authority or out of concern for civil justice as a privately produced "public good." This eventually develops into the state (i.e. compulsory government).

    The Greek city-states were, at first, monarchies. Gradually overtime, power was transferred to the aristocracy as a whole and away from a single individual. The aristocracy was derived from a military caste. Social prestige and political office were linked to property and military prowess. Most of the population had virtually no role in political life.

    Some aristocratic rulers seized power on populist sentiments and wielded power arbitrarily and so the Greeks thought that political rule without regard to heredity, property ownership and military prowess was the best form of government. Due to the contributions of Solon, Cleisthenes and Ephialtes, the city-state of Athens became a democracy. Democracy derives from the Greek democratia meaning "rule of the people". They thought that political power would be wielded best if it was placed in the hands of the broader male citizenry instead of a privileged class of nobles. Pericles furthered this idea by changing the policies of the council and favoring the peasants and the foreigners to represent the council through their patrons. These populist policies furthered and sustained Pericles' own power.

    Of course, humans are primarily driven by a will to power and so rule by the mass citizenry without regard to social status did not work out so well. It led to class conflict, the rise of demagogues and state dependency. It actually ended up reducing individual freedom. Aristocratic government was eventually restored.

    Ancient Rome had an aristocratic caste in the form of patricians, who could trace their ancestry to 1 of the 100 patriarchs who founded the city, noble plebeians who could trace their ancestry to a Roman senator, and equestrians (knights). The Roman system of government went through a process similar to that of Ancient Athens. Some nobles used the democratic base of the government to attain personal goals. These politicians were known as populares. Caesar was a populare and he used the Plebeian council to attain political power, which eventually led to the Roman Empire. Populism remained as a sentiment of the Roman state and public, and it eventually led to the fall of the Western Empire. The most productive citizens were overtaxed in the name of the power of the Roman state and the people (the collective). Feudalism and serfdom evolved from the agricultural slavery of the late Roman Empire.

    The last and greatest revolt of the commoners was the French revolution. This revolt brought with it new notions of equality influenced by the Christian idea that all humans are created equally and that every human being has equal moral worth. Aristocracies have either been completely abolished or reduced to show and tell. This is the most anti-aristocratic age in history. A mediocre intellectual elite has taken the place of the aristocracy and it thrives on the ignorance and ressentiment of the masses. This era has also seen the largest increase in the voting franchise in history. As we saw with Ancient Greece and Rome, increasing the franchise is not a good thing. Predictably, most of the people believe that they're freer than ever before and they'll hold faith in the system until the bitter end.
    Last edited by Hue-man; 2011-08-16 at 04:43.

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Hue-man For This Useful Post:

    Danielion (2011-08-16), EclectYummination (2011-08-16), Pioterus (2011-08-16), Unome (2011-08-16)

  8. #25
    Established Member
    Theorist EclectYummination's Avatar
    Last Online
    2017-06-30 @ 19:30
    Join Date
    2011-06-03
    Posts
    1,458
    Gender
    Metaethnos
    North American
    Ethnicity
    Afro-American
    Phenotype
    sort of like Ice Cube
    Politics
    MildlyLiberal/Centrist
    Religion
    I believe in Yahoshua
    United States

    Default

    That's called a Republic isn't it? Government where reps (representatives) vote. Which would still be a form of Democracy.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to EclectYummination For This Useful Post:

    Kwestos (2011-08-16)

  10. #26
    Established Member
    Theorist Unome's Avatar
    Last Online
    2015-03-30 @ 21:41
    Join Date
    2010-06-29
    Posts
    4,341
    Location
    Jupiter
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Y-DNA
    R1a
    mtDNA
    U4b
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Prussian/Slavic
    Ethnicity
    New World White
    Phenotype
    KN, Atlantid
    Politics
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Lead by Example
    United States Poland Germany Sweden

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    My first thoughts, maybe quite chaotic but that's mine biggest flaw - I tend to have problems with explaining my thoughts in well organized way (in non-native language)

    In ancient Greece, in Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, in XVII/XIX century Anglo countries there was a kind of democracy of owning classes, only people of specific status were able to vote (citizens of Athens, Szlachta of PLC, burgois / aristocracy of anglo countries). Slowly those system decayed -> in case of Commonwealth it was caused by some families gathering too much power (Magnates) and starting to fund some of poorer nobility to abuse Liberum Veto and thus destroy the Parliament sessions.
    Now something similiar happened imo in USA - with middle class thinned out and huge wealth discrepancy the "all can vote" is a complete fail. The powerful are keeping the rest in the pseudo-democracy wherein all important things are already decided and the smaller bullshits as who will be president (to constitue what Powerful want from their puppets) or such are left for "demos" to decide.
    I definitely agree with you. The Rzeczpospolita must have been an interesting & prosperous time. The thing about 'Republikan' ideology is that it must become reasserted from generation to generation. That is why it is a "Re"-Publik. It is a constant process of society. If a society fails to maintain classical Republikan values then the society can falter or cease to exist.

    Aristocracy and a Noble class implies that some (select few) have both a Duty and Obligation to maintain any State Government. State Governments ultimately cannot exist without some forms of Duty. The concept of "Duty" is foreign to US, these days. People develop this type of victim mentality and "everything is owed to me-me-me", etc. It is anti-social. There must exist a balance between the 'individual' and his 'society'.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post
    The point now:

    The right to vote should not be hereditary it should be composed of:

    1. Being productive member of society (=businessmen, craftsman, employed etc... = paying taxes, bringing surplus to society thus becoming a shareholder of the society);

    2. Passing some basic exams in history of ideals, economy and logic thinking (not to make everyone think the same way, rather to make sure people who vote can think for themselves);

    3. Having will to reproduce (not all people can...), don't ask me how to make it tick, it's just my opinion that we cannot exclude people who simply cannot reproduce;

    ...yeah that's it for now I suppose, let others say their mind.
    I agree with those propositions. They maybe very difficult to implement. Perhaps it is improbable in some ways. I mean, who knows who will reproduce in society, and contribute something (positive) back? Some parents neglect or spoil their children, causing many compounding social problems later.




    ________________________
    ________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    nope aristocracy and democracy aren't the same, you can have aristocracy in a democracy but when you have aristocracy without democracy you have an oligarchy.

    also communism isn't the only form of egalitarianism and facism has a equality among the national group, democracy is also about equality but political one not material one,

    infact communism is just an inflexible material focused form of democracy, and the funniest of all is that anarchists who are supposed to be against authority tend to use democracy when it comes to making decisions as the fairest of all systems lol.
    Yeah, I have noticed that weakness within Anarchist rationales, too…


    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    i dissagree there should be an specific entity, be it a social class or an individual governing others, i believe that the strongest eventualy will be the one making the decisions and affecting others, be it democracy, communism, facism or monarchy.
    If the strongest rule then how do different types of government become formed in the first place? All essentially should represent a form of Tyranny, and one over many. So do you mean "the strongest" as-in, one person or many? See, it comes to a dichotomy between Totalitarianism (one) and Egalitarianism (versus many).

    Plutocracy, Oligarchy, Aristocracy, etc. do represent some balance between the extremes. Anarchy is the rule of All against All, or social chaos/dissolution, absolute lack of leadership (and responsibility).


    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    the difference is that systems like oligarchy or pseudomonarchy are herreditary and they fail in exactly the same way many rich kids tend to be failures despite the wealth of their parrents, democracy on the other hand has no herreditary concept of power, its actualy like having a real monarchy (or oligarchy) with practical rules and moral restrictions.

    and while as i have said a democracy is bound to be the "average situation" while monarchy tends to the extremes, these goverment systems differ not on what they can achieve, but on how people percieve them.
    I completely agree with your points.


    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    as a free man i can only accept to be governed by people i have chosen, and while i could easily imagine myself as a monarch, as everybody could, i feel that its better to have more free men than people who suffer from a "subjects mentality".
    How are you still "free" when you place your "freedom" into the hand of another (Representative)??? And how do you "choose" to elect? And why would anyone sacrifice this volition of self-government?

    There is a definitive trade-off between Freedom and Security. Either individuals usurp rule to themselves, and lead society… otherwise a "Status Quo" emerges and becomes lethargic, or even cancerous to the society. Success breeds hedonistic tendencies. What is the counter-force to this?


    Quote Originally Posted by ageladakos View Post
    i dissagree, i think where we begin has no connection to where we end up.
    think of jesus parabole about the "bad son" or the "vineyard workers" and you'll get what i mean :P
    I have not heard it. What is this parabole?




    _______________________
    _______________________
    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    I see both sides of this. Producing and raising future generations is a critical contribution to your nation, no doubt. However, there are many others. What of the childless man who fights in a war, or his childless surviving widow when he is killed?
    Men seem to take risks in order to reproduce. Many of those risks, especially including "fight for your country", implies potential death. Not all men succeed in sexual reproduction. That is an obvious, apparent fact. Men also take higher risks to seduce & compel more beautiful and sexually attractive women.

    Greater risks = Greater (reproductive) rewards. Society makes it its business to manage these risks. War is perhaps the singular, primary example of such a risk. "If you fight for us, our Society, then we guarantee you women."

    Why are females/women sexually attracted to "Men in Uniform"? Is it not biological?

    "I love a man in uniform!"


    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    What of the childless scientist who advances technology to give his nation a competitive advantage against others?
    Females/Women sexually are attracted to these types of men.

    Success breeds sexual attraction. Or perhaps vice-versa, sexual attraction breeds Success.


    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    What of the childless teachers who educate, and police who enforce order in society?
    They are great & wonderful, but are they necessary to society?

    Are they more necessary than families who reproduce??

    I think not… no reproduction = no families (?) = no society. I mean, it is possible for people to reproduce without forming families. But families essentially represent 'society'.


    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    Any of them could be infertile, or gay, or whatever.
    Nature is cruel, and the risks of life are great. Not everybody will succeed in terms of sex. However people can still contribute to society, despite the failure. I am not advocating one way or the other.

    Individuals will either support society, or attempt to tear it down, rebel, etc. Some individuals are anarchic, and anti-social too… psycho-pathological.


    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    Conversely, what of the irresponsible parent who spawns a pack of delinquents on the government dole, who burden society's welfare systems and prisons?
    I will argue that these parents have less social worth than "Good, Upstanding Families" who "contribute" to society. Taxpayers obviously are favored by the government over those who refuse to fund society & government. That is very obvious.

    Question: how can states/government exist without taxes???




    _____________________
    _____________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    Interesting ideas.Should people who have no debts, good morale character, high intelligence,and no criminal record, be the only ones allowed to vote?
    That seems ideal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    Something of interest I noticed with regards to human behavior, most humans like to take the easy route, that gives the most gratification with the least amount of effort, so does that play a role in decisions?
    Absolutely… people want big rewards with minimal effort.

    However that requires a great degree of intelligence, to move energy with very little force (physics 'work' function). In other words, intelligent people actually can achieve great work with minimal effort. Although not everybody is intelligent… intelligence is a form of "risk management", to make larger success out of minimized risks. There is always a degree of risk in the end.


    Quote Originally Posted by Silesian View Post
    Another interesting phenomena, I noticed the other day, all the electricity was out in a certain area of the city. Even the traffic lights, were not functioning, and yet people of all backgrounds were yielding and respectfully allowing one another to use the intersection in an orderly manner, there was no police presence, bureaucrat, lawyer, people were managing remarkably just fine. Does this show people can make a secular society better outside the election process?
    It demonstrates to me that social indoctrination is a good thing, and creates order… but who knows how long it lasts without the 'Authorities' around to maintain it???

    If the electricity goes-out for 1 week then that is one thing.

    If the electricity goes-out for 1 century then that is another thing…




    ________________________
    ________________________
    Quote Originally Posted by TheExorcist View Post
    greek democracy was a real one because it was for natives

    PS : i forggot to add that my opinion for this democracy is in my signature
    Which social system or state government do you propose as an alternative to Democracy?




    ______________________
    ______________________
    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    Well, rational thinking would suggest that not everyone should vote. The problem is that theres no way to achieve a compromise who should be included, so the compromise is that ...everyone can vote.

    In theory, in democracy we dont vote on specific issues anyway, we vote on our representatives, and these are the people who 'really' vote. Average voter does not vote for 10 or 11.5 % ox tax, they vote for Obama or Pallin. The problem with democracy is in my opinion then one level higher than on voters level, its on representatives level.
    Indeed…!

    In US, people vote based on popularity, beauty, moral character, and wealth.

    Poor people stand almost no chance in hell of winning elections. Because corporations will not endorse them. State representatives are expected (by corporations) to maintain the "Status Quo". Big businesses can monopolize candidates through various means, including the control of Media.

    Can people win elections without being recognized by anyone, with no "face time" on television and whatnot?


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    Its obviously a two way mechanism. In ideal situation, representatives would present their general programme and attitude and then the public would choice who is in charge. There should be status qou however among all parties, that there are some basics which noone touches. There no such a status quo now.
    People should pass a basic history & civics exam, in order to vote. If people do not know who the previous 3 presidents were then they obviously are not paying-attention to government and governing issues. If they do not know very basic politickal information then they should not vote.

    "Who was the first president of ________ (insert your country here)?" Things like this…


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    The real problems of parliaments are now that
    1/ representants are corrupted and they dont represent voters or interest of country neither voters
    2/ representants are often not prepared to make decisions.
    A lethargic state-government system begins to produce less competent voters, who vote for less competent leaders. There is no counterweight, balance against this force.

    How does anyone inspire greatness and leadership??? Is that the role of state-government??? No, I do not think so…


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    In my opinion, parliament should be based on lawyers mainly- like 50%, as they make law. Then, some economists, some humanists, some representants of every profession one each etc.
    Government should employ only professionals too.
    I agree, Governments and Representation should become adapted to the particular demands of distinct times.

    For example, US relatively is in a good situation today. There is not a major threat of war (at this moment). But our economy is suffering. Therefore we should elect businessmen and men who can turn our economy around. The specialization should suit the time. During war, we should elect a great military leader and whatnot. US government does not have specific protocols for this…


    Quote Originally Posted by Kwestos View Post
    Parliament should be not a Big brother hoouse when MPs speak to the public and ant to gain points/ become celebrities. They should be serious, wise, independent.

    But theres no ethos of a politician, I dont know if it was better 100 years ago, I think yes, I think we have worst times now, parliament is a circus.
    Ethics have always been a problem of politicks.

    That is a very philosophical complaint against politicks.

    Should politicians become held to higher ethical & moral standards than others? I believe they mostly are… but how does this standard become lower or higher? Sometimes it should become pushed-up, raised to demand more from Representation. Again this is the concept of 'Duty' and 'Obligation'.
    A Finngolian barbarian reaches his intellectual capacity and exposes his true nature:
    Quote Originally Posted by Motörhead Remember Me View Post
    You're so wrong, you should be shot.
    Anthro Info: European Haplogroup Spreads
    Quote Originally Posted by Unome's Eurogenes DIY 2.0 View Post
    47.07% Western European
    35.58% Northeast European
    7.59% West Asian
    5.20% East Mediterranean

    2.88% Volga-Ural
    1.46% Middle-Eastern
    0.22% N/A
    jr1 wrote: …if a pig's born in a stable is it a horse?
    Wickedgirl wrote: In my personal opinion only radical feminists really want absolute gender equality. Normal women don't, they want to be women …what I believe in is the very essence of femininity.
    Acquisitorz wrote: Is a chain made of gold a nice chain when its placed to restrict your brain?
    Archangel wrote: The meek shall inherit the Earth… because the strong shall inherit the Stars!
    Wojewoda wrote: Burqas are for women, what guns are for men: Great Equalizer.
    Kwestos wrote: I don't know what a commie is to be honest. A kid of a rich lawyer in New York who wants to be cool, or a desperate peasant in Bolivia who protests because government stole his land…



    All words are,
    Are infectious,
    Affections.

  11. #27
    Established Member
    Infidel Snowman 2.8% Neanderthal
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 21:51
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    1,255
    Location
    West Pretannia
    Gender
    Age
    68
    Y-DNA
    N1c1*
    mtDNA
    H4a1
    Race
    Europid
    Phenotype
    Lappid
    Metaethnos
    Reindeer follower
    Ethnicity
    Shellfish gatherer
    Phenotype
    Boreal
    Politics
    bottom right quadrant
    Religion
    property is freedom
    England Northern Ireland Norway Sweden Finland Sami

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pioterus View Post

    The point now:

    The right to vote should not be hereditary it should be composed of:

    1. Being productive member of society (=businessmen, craftsman, employed etc... = paying taxes, bringing surplus to society thus becoming a shareholder of the society);
    2. Passing some basic exams in history of ideals, economy and logic thinking (not to make everyone think the same way, rather to make sure people who vote can think for themselves);
    3. Having will to reproduce (not all people can...), don't ask me how to make it tick, it's just my opinion that we cannot exclude people who simply cannot reproduce;
    ...yeah that's it for now I suppose, let others say their mind.
    My thoughts on 3 are that one doesn't have to reproduce but take a personal & contractual responsibility for a child as in adoption. A childless wealthy gayer could make a formal contract with a baby mama - no sex involved - but the gayer & the mama get a franchise and the baby father doesn't - unless he has property and acknowledged children elsewhere or perhaps refusal to acknowledge a proven offspring could result in disfranchisement.

    ---------- Post added 2011-08-16 at 10:28 ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by amerinese View Post
    Here in the States most convicted felons can't vote. How does that work in other parts of the world?
    In UK one has to be on the electoral roll and that involves a form sent to each address annually, so in < year prisoners are off the roll but on release they can join again. There has been some recent aggro about this with the Euro Court of Human Rights which didn't approve of prisoner's disfranchisement. IMAO if they allowed the short term prisoners who were still on the roll a postal vote that would be enough.
    Quote Originally Posted by mary
    There was no poverty in the Soviet time. It was only in the 80's that it started to happen due to incompetent leadership. People in the Soviet Union lived better than Americans do today.

  12. #28
    Established Member
    Turboslavic Caveman Pioterus's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-07-30 @ 07:14
    Join Date
    2010-12-21
    Posts
    2,511
    Location
    Lasy Pomorza
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Y-DNA
    I2a1b2a1a1 (A2423+)
    mtDNA
    U3a1a(1)
    Race
    Europid
    Metaethnos
    Slavic
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    laissez faire
    Religion
    Metalhead
    Poland Lithuania Grand Duchy

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by OldPretan View Post
    My thoughts on 3 are that one doesn't have to reproduce but take a personal & contractual responsibility for a child as in adoption. A childless wealthy gayer could make a formal contract with a baby mama - no sex involved - but the gayer & the mama get a franchise and the baby father doesn't - unless he has property and acknowledged children elsewhere or perhaps refusal to acknowledge a proven offspring could result in disfranchisement.
    While putting aside (easily) any moral limitations to such a solution I would rather propose that this wealthy gayish man should anyway send his own "prosperous" genes forward within his society. I believe we're highly successful animals (in scale of earth), we procreate in order to refine our genetic code into godlike being (in far future of millennia to come).

    Now something blasphemous -> as I already mentioned Turing here (btw as a Pole I hate how western world gives him credit for Enigma code breaking, it was NOT him) -> I would prefer such people procreate and raise their children themselves leaving their superb DNA code combined with their own memes to the benefit of their people.

    I do not personally care who they sleep with, I just think the loving care of (if possible) both natural parents (of both genders) is necessary to "create" normal human being. All of us needs mother and father, those male and female elements to every human being psyche cannot be neglected. I personally do not think there is any problem for the child if it's parents sleep in separate rooms.

    Science brought already ways for gays to procreate... no sex needs to be involved and no one is making those people to live against their nature (so they are fulfilled and happy = more productive).
    Last edited by Pioterus; 2011-08-16 at 10:54.
    and the IEEE Milestone for breaking the Enigma Code goes to... Polish Cipher Bureau 1932-39

    “We know each other,” he agreed. “They say that you follow in my steps.”
    “I go my own way. But you, you had never, until just now, looked behind you. You turned back today for the first time.”
    Geralt remained silent. Tired, he had nothing to say. “How... How will it happen?” he asked her at last, coldly and without emotion. “I will take you by the hand,” she replied, looking him straight in the eye. “I will take you by the hand and lead you across the meadow, through a cold and wet fog.” “And after? What is there beyond the fog?” “Nothing,” she replied, smiling. “After that, there is nothing.”
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski
    Świat się zmienia, słońce zachodzi, a wódka się kończy [The world is changing, sun is setting and we're running out of Vodka.]
    ― Andrzej Sapkowski

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Pioterus For This Useful Post:

    larali (2011-08-16)

  14. #29
    Established Member
    Infidel Snowman 2.8% Neanderthal
    Last Online
    Yesterday @ 21:51
    Join Date
    2009-10-23
    Posts
    1,255
    Location
    West Pretannia
    Gender
    Age
    68
    Y-DNA
    N1c1*
    mtDNA
    H4a1
    Race
    Europid
    Phenotype
    Lappid
    Metaethnos
    Reindeer follower
    Ethnicity
    Shellfish gatherer
    Phenotype
    Boreal
    Politics
    bottom right quadrant
    Religion
    property is freedom
    England Northern Ireland Norway Sweden Finland Sami

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EclectYummination View Post
    That's called a Republic isn't it? Government where reps (representatives) vote. Which would still be a form of Democracy.
    A republic has a constitution that defines what are the state's concerns i.e the public matters or Res Publica. Interestingly Res is Latin for thing and Thing is a germanic word for parliament as with Iceland's Althing or
    Tynwald - the Manx parliament, from Old-Norse Thingvollr and originally written similarly to Icelandic with a þ which is pronounced [θ]. The thing means an assembly or court of justice and the vollr is a field or plain
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manx_English

    Democracy should be just the means of choosing/ejecting a government not legitimising the tyranny of the majority.
    Quote Originally Posted by mary
    There was no poverty in the Soviet time. It was only in the 80's that it started to happen due to incompetent leadership. People in the Soviet Union lived better than Americans do today.

  15. #30
    Established Member
    Hokey Pokey Kwestos's Avatar
    Last Online
    2019-04-28 @ 17:32
    Join Date
    2011-01-04
    Posts
    8,751
    Location
    Poland
    Gender
    Y-DNA
    R1a1a
    mtDNA
    K1a1
    Race
    Caucasian
    Phenotype
    Pontid
    Metaethnos
    Euro
    Ethnicity
    Polish
    Politics
    Silvio Berlusconi
    Religion
    Voodoo
    Poland United Kingdom

    Default

    Democracy may be direct or indirect and the latter is quite rare, famous example is Swisserland with its referenduums. In other cases, peoples only power is to vote on the one who will vote, and yes I agree, the problems is they appeal to lowest instincts not highest, the most succesfull election slogan is "they are thieves".
    Am I right or am I wrong?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Weakness of Democracy
    By Papa Anodyne in forum Current Affairs & Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 2011-04-06, 14:14
  2. Politickal Dispute: Democracy!?!
    By Unome in forum Politics & Law
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 2011-03-19, 20:09
  3. Democracy, the best way?
    By Fedex in forum Politics & Law
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 2011-02-26, 22:12
  4. The origins of European nobility/aristocracy
    By Wojewoda in forum History
    Replies: 76
    Last Post: 2010-08-05, 14:07
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-02-22, 13:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
<