rileyj Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 are we really a democarcy? and is a democracy true freedom or just a step in that direction and if so what is the next step?
geko Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 Im pretty sure democracy is the many against the few. I see no freedom in this. geko
rileyj Posted April 10, 2004 Author Report Posted April 10, 2004 well i don't think its the many "against " the few it's just the majority needs are met. which is a fair way to be, because we allknow it is impossible to make everyone happy.however,i feel that certain things should change. if we lived in a free country, the popular vote would have putgore in office not bush. it does seem that the rich get what they want. i think weshould havefree health care and free schooling at all levels. some may say that's socialist. but if it's what the people want then it is a true democracy
geko Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 ok. Democracy is when the wants of many are met and the few are left disinfrancised. I still see no freedom in this. Nor the fairness that you spoke of, and certainly no equality. geko
rileyj Posted April 10, 2004 Author Report Posted April 10, 2004 Disenfranchised? they still have a vote. however, that vote is usually the lesser of to evils. It ismany the wealthy who are afforded a better education. This i think is key. Not because they have a great deal of knowledge, but if you have a degree from yale that gives you the appearence of greatness. they do however have the the background we look for in a leader, which is are result of their wealth. I think the overall education and class of our society has declined. We need to address the to major problems health care and education. both should be giving for free by the government. If the government is for the people by the people, the basic needs of the people as a whole should be met 1st. not just allotted to the rich
geko Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by: rileyjDisenfranchised? they still have a vote. however, that vote is usually the lesser of to evils. It ismany the wealthy who are afforded a better education. Just because they had the chance to vote doesnt deny the that what they voted for they didnt get. So yes, i think they're disenfranchised because they get only what the many wanted. Does having an better education mean that you are wealthy? If so where is the problem with this and democracy? Most people have had the opportunity to gain an education i would say. ...This i think is key. Not because they have a great deal of knowledge, but if you have a degree from yale that gives you the appearence of greatness. Did they only get the degree because they are wealthy (back-handers etc.,)? Or did they have to get the same mark in exames etc., as anyone else who graduated as they did? The poor could get into yale if they were thought smart enough - all they'd have to do is borrow the money to pay for entry. ....they do however have the the background we look for in a leader, which is are result of their wealth. Isnt this 'the result of their wealth is due to their background/personality/education as a leader?' Maybe im wrong. I think the overall education and class of our society has declined. I agree that education is definately favourable on a global and long-term scale. We need to address the to major problems health care and education. both should be giving for free by the government. If the government is for the people by the people, the basic needs of the people as a whole should be met 1st. Do you believe that a government will meet the basic needs of the people as a whole first? I dont profess to be able to run a country, or even understand politics too well, but it's shocking to me that people believe that we do actually live in this ideal. If health-care and education are given free then levies would increase. Who pays these levies? The citizens, even the disenfranchised who may not have wanted anything to do with it in the first place. Im from the uk and private health-care (such as the american style etc.,) seems like a step forward in my opinion. Im sorry to quote and argue but this type of political ideal i just dont get the reasoning behind. For the record (....dare i say it?........), i dont see what's wrong with true laizze-faire capitalism, not that i expect governments to fall and tumble and our world be rid of them forever. Nor do i hold onto such a eutopia. Of course, much argument would be against this. Not least the argument that people the world over would resort to force to gain benefit. But economies run on a capitalist regime wouldnt mean no 'police force' as it were, i doubt.
geko Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 ^^ i messed up that quote. The quote would have to be read because some of my writing is in there B)
Freethinker Posted April 10, 2004 Report Posted April 10, 2004 Originally posted by: rileyjare we really a democarcy? and is a democracy true freedom or just a step in that direction and if so what is the next step? OK, we (assuming you mean the US) are NOT a Democracy. We are a Representitive Republic. In a Democracy, every single person woould have the right to vote directly on each and every issue. In the US, we vote for REPRESENTITIVES. People that gather to vote on things FOR US. We pick people for some variety of reasons and those people do the voting. A true Democracy is basically mob rule. What ever the largest mob wants, goes. No protection for the little guy/ minority. Where will we go? Fi you read Plato's Republic, he explaims the evolution of the politcal systems. After a Democratic gov would come a Facist state. It would he headed by someone that was ELECTED and whose father had served before. The new head would use WAR and fear as a tools to get the people to give up their freedoms. As incredible as this seems, Plato predicted Dubya over 2500 years ago!
geko Posted April 11, 2004 Report Posted April 11, 2004 Originally posted by: Freethinker<blockquote OK, we (assuming you mean the US) ........... are a Representitive Republic. I never new the US people chose representatives to do the voting, i thought they just voted for the leaders. Thx "The..... head would use WAR and fear as a tools to get the people to give up their freedoms". This is what it's been like for a long time do you think? What concerns me is that people ask for these freedoms to be removed because they think that what they're getting is greater security for themselves.
rileyj Posted April 12, 2004 Author Report Posted April 12, 2004 People in our country (U.S.) say we live in a democracy( a country where the people govern themselves) or that we live in a republic ( a country where people elect officals to govern for them). Both these statements are true. We live in a democratic republic. The type of democracy we have is called indirect democracy; that is, we as citizens do not handle the affairs of government ourselves, as is done in a direct democracy, but we elect representatives (persons who speak and act for others) to make our wishes known in the government.
Tormod Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 Only elections to Congress is done by direct vote. The presidential vote is not direct, it is doubly indirect. The US is a democratic republic bound by its constitution and laws. The people elected to handle the affairs of the state are divided into three branches - legislative, executive, and judicial. The legislative branch is the Congress, the executive is the President (and his staff), and the judicial is the Supreme court. In a parliamentary system, you usually have a prime minister (like in Norway, England, and India) who is head of state. In some parliamentary states you also have a non-governing head of state (for example, a monarch like a King or a Queen, or both) - this is called a parliamentary monachy (or democratic monarchy). The French "think different" - they have both a prime minister and a president. You find this in states like France (obviously) and South Korea. In a parliamentary system, you usually have many parties which campaign for seats in parliament. Seats are distributed based on election results, so if a party gets 30% of the votes they get a relative amount of seats (there is often some compensation to allow small parties to gain a seat). To form a government in a parliamentary system, the largest party (often a faction of several parties) in parliament forms the government. The leader of the largest party is then usually elected as Prime Minister and is the chief of state. Thus, while parliament members are elected directly by the people, the Prime Minister is indirectly elected. The members of government do not need to be elected to parliament. However, the parliament retains legislative powers (like the Congress) while the government has executive power (like the President's office). In the US, you have a further complication. People do not vote directly for a presidential candidate. They vote for electorates, which is a "first past the post" system. There is a huge number of electorial districts, and provinces with few people get as many electorates as provinces with many people. Thus, even if you win every large province, you can still lose because the other candidate can win all the small provinces (and get more electorates). So in several elections the candidate with the least popular vote won (most recently, 2000). Tormod
Tormod Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 Now, I completely forgot to address the "freedom" thing... I don't think a citizen of any nation is truly "free". It does, however, depend on what you define the term as. In a country where the executive, legislative, and judicial branches are separate and function well (as in "do the best for the people", if that can in any way be defined), citizens enjoy a greater sense of freedom than in, say, totalitarian states or extremely poor states. However, there are things in a democracy (no matter which kind) which will be seen as oppressive by the citizens. Examples are state regulations which limit people's freedom in certain areas (like the right to smoke cigarettes), or a health care system which means that the people with the most money get the best treatment. Another example is compulsory military service, which is seen in most countries. In Israel they actually draft both men and women. "Freedom" is bascially impossible to define - I think you will find loads of Americans who call themselves "free" but what they mean is that they are free to drive their gaz guzzlers to the mall to spend money they dont have with their credit cards. But the US does not have a particularly good record when it comes to civil rights (the end of racial segregation in the south happened only a few decades ago, and is still seen). The state kills more people than any other country. These killings are constitutional but that means that for some, the constitution is a part of the oppression. I live in a country where there is a long tradition for nationalism, although not of the extreme kind. Norway has chosen to not join the European Union because we fear that joining the union will make us less free the do as we choose. But can we really do as we choose under the current parliamentary system? It is a mater of definition. If you look at living standards, we are extremely free. Yet we are heavily regulated by the state and we pay blood money for gas (even though we are among the world's largest producers of oil). I certainly feel "free". But I am married and have children, a steady income and a large family. To some, that would mean I am *not* free. So I guess my answer is --- I don't know what freedom is. I just know what it isn't. Tormod
rileyj Posted April 14, 2004 Author Report Posted April 14, 2004 to your first post i said we live in an indirect democracy. and know how i'm system and others work.to your second, "The US is a democratic republic bound by its constitution and laws" - the constitution is made so it can be changed. we as a country are only bound by what we are able to do ourselves. if a new form of government were to emerge that we as a people felt was better, we could in theory change. we have are great and poor qualities like an other nation. i feel overall our system is the best, because it was established by people who knew that it wasn't perfect and needed to change with the times. i think that every person in the world should be able to have the best health care andeducation for free. these are things the we as a species need to improve notonly our countries but the world. "I think you will find loads of Americans who call themselves "free" but what they mean is that they are free to drive their gaz guzzlers to the mall to spend money they dont have with their credit cards." whyis that the "thing" to say about americans. look i'm sure you have poeple thatdo that from your country. thats like saying people from texas wear boots and cowboy hats,when in fact it's more like one small town. people for the most part are the same. "But the US does not have a particularly good record when it comes to civil rights (the end of racial segregation in the south happened only a few decades ago, and is still seen). The state kills more people than any other country. These killings are constitutional but that means that for some, the constitution is a part of the oppression. " WHAT! please tellme where you got that? freedom is like love you know your in it when you feel it. and its different for evryonebut i don't understand why people think of the small things when the basic things need work. like food, education, health care, shelter basic things people need whynot worry about thatfirst
lindagarrette Posted April 15, 2004 Report Posted April 15, 2004 The USA is a Republic. There are many important distinctions between our form of government (rule by law) and a democratic (majority rule) form of government. I you are confused, look on the internet for democracy vs. republic. This topic may deserve a hypography, even though it's not exactly a matter of science and technology.
lindagarrette Posted April 15, 2004 Report Posted April 15, 2004 Freedom is relative. The degree of freedom a person has depends on how much power that person can exert or, to put it another way, how much influence one has over the surrounding environment. I suppose freedom could be absolute in some circumstances. In this country (USA) we live with managed freedom. Managed primarily through our system of capitalism that allocates resources according to whoever has the appropriate power. On the Starship Enterprise, freedom is determined by need and ability within the society -- quite socialistic, and Captain Picard has less freedom than Data.
rileyj Posted April 17, 2004 Author Report Posted April 17, 2004 I you are confused, look on the internet for democracy vs. republic. i think your confused look at the constitution.
Recommended Posts