never understood the concept of democracy.
the politician are barely ever held accountable.
and they keep on coming up with three point agenda or five point agenda to solve some problem. and most times they have no academic and science backing.
the problem
most of the human race are dumb, or don't give a damn.
and are overly influenced by their environment and cannot see from the other side (internet helps here i suppose).
so obviously these people will vote for someone who can raise emotion rather than actually someone who thinks and has some real solution.
sometimes it is even better not to have real solution, but something that will satisfy locals. example like Israel and Palistain problem. What is better for a Israel politician, remove huge amount of settlers, losing the backing of the settlers, nationalist, war industry, settlement industry and right wings nut job or make peace which will probably save some israel kids in the future. add on top of that huge amount of violence in that short period, like moving borders back, thus radical Islamist start firing rockets and shit. so for a politician, its a good idea to not have a peace solution at all. and no one takes them to court for political decisions like these.
same thing with islamic terrorist problem, the west control most of the wealth in the world. they have most knowledgeable people in the world, most univerities. they can not only fix most of the world problem but eradicate extreme islamist , hell maybe even islam itself.
but instead, we have democracy, where a retard has a vote of equal importance to phd in political science and most smartest person in the world. thus we have shit system where my country men and women and trans people will vote some dick head who says i will make this country truly islamic.
my apologize in advance, i am drunk :singing:
ah fuck aren't American 8 hours behind
even better news, i am marrying my cousin.
and nothing stoping me
fuck you westerners
One of the reason for prohibiting close-family marriages, is that it messes up estate planning, particularly if land or a business is involved. Most marriages were done for economic and political reasons, not because of romance. In any case, felicitations on your upcoming matrimonial ;-)
There are lots of problems with democracy ... that only ideology can hide. Churchill said that democracy is the worst of all possible governments, excepting all the rest. But Churchill was an aristocrat ... who loved the give and take and populism of politics ... that simply wouldn't have happened in an earlier time of British history. Given his prior military failures ... he would have been executed, and thus unavailable in old age to become the greatest British politician of all time. He was a disaster of a man, who mostly made bad decisions, except for a few, and maybe only one. Without democracy this wouldn't have happened. Churchill's idol wasn't just his ancestor the Duke of Marlborough ... but also his political predecessor, a Jew, PM Disraeli. This is not unlike the situation on the Golden Age of Athenian politics ... Pericles was brilliant, but led his city-state/empire to disaster, due to things he couldn't have planned for .. a plague.
Now you come from a very traditional culture ... not just Muslim but Hindu. But I might note, that the traditional Arabic version of chiefs ... is its own rough democracy. Tribal members (adult males) can press for redress of grievances in person. Something hardly possible today in the US. Indian monarchic traditions may have modified this (caste), though I think the Afghan and Mughal influences were similar socially to the Arabic. A warrior society of honor.
It is always odd to me, in history, how people on one side of the globe adopt forms from a far away place, that didn't develop locally. Like the adoption of Communism by China. Similarly the adoption of Athenian forms centuries and thousands of miles away ... when the original form was short lived, local, and a failure compared to more autocratic regimes.
as technology improves , no system of government is "safe" from being stolen. i truly think the next great revolution is going to happen in the US, and it won't be pretty.
the thing about democracy is that it does not seek to create a good government, rather it merely seeks to establish the leaders chosen by the majority of people... which are usually pretty bad.
Quote from: aitm on November 28, 2015, 10:30:04 PM
as technology improves , no system of government is "safe" from being stolen. i truly think the next great revolution is going to happen in the US, and it won't be pretty.
My bet is that we are going cyberpunk: http://the-artifice.com/cyberpunk-cinema/
Quote from: mauricio on November 28, 2015, 10:51:22 PM
My bet is that we are going cyberpunk: http://the-artifice.com/cyberpunk-cinema/
Every action generates an equal and opposite counter-action.
Quote from: CloneKai on November 28, 2015, 07:38:33 PM
even better news, i am marrying my cousin.
and nothing stoping me
fuck you westerners
i definitely don't remember typing this.
forget about this please :pray:
Quote from: mauricio on November 28, 2015, 10:48:20 PM
the thing about democracy is that it does not seek to create a good government, rather it merely seeks to establish the leaders chosen by the majority of people... which are usually pretty bad.
so isn't a better system being developed or something. or we seriously going down the idiocracy (2006) route.
Monarchy is better, as long as I'm the king.
Quote from: CloneKai on November 28, 2015, 07:08:43 PM
never understood the concept of democracy.
the politician are barely ever held accountable.
and they keep on coming up with three point agenda or five point agenda to solve some problem. and most times they have no academic and science backing.
the problem
most of the human race are dumb, or don't give a damn.
and are overly influenced by their environment and cannot see from the other side (internet helps here i suppose).
so obviously these people will vote for someone who can raise emotion rather than actually someone who thinks and has some real solution.
sometimes it is even better not to have real solution, but something that will satisfy locals. example like Israel and Palistain problem. What is better for a Israel politician, remove huge amount of settlers, losing the backing of the settlers, nationalist, war industry, settlement industry and right wings nut job or make peace which will probably save some israel kids in the future. add on top of that huge amount of violence in that short period, like moving borders back, thus radical Islamist start firing rockets and shit. so for a politician, its a good idea to not have a peace solution at all. and no one takes them to court for political decisions like these.
same thing with islamic terrorist problem, the west control most of the wealth in the world. they have most knowledgeable people in the world, most univerities. they can not only fix most of the world problem but eradicate extreme islamist , hell maybe even islam itself.
but instead, we have democracy, where a retard has a vote of equal importance to phd in political science and most smartest person in the world. thus we have shit system where my country men and women and trans people will vote some dick head who says i will make this country truly islamic.
my apologize in advance, i am drunk :singing:
Democracy might fail only because it is based on certain assumptions that might not be sustainable in the long run. Take US democracy. The founding fathers were primarily concerned that a president could become the next king/dictator, so they put in place a system of checks-and balance. On the whole, it was successful as no president ever became a dictator. However, the founding fathers were only humans - had no crystal ball to read the future - and missed out on two very important assumptions: 1) they did not foresee the rise of big corporations with big money that would eventually thwart the system; 2) a judiciary that would be politically neutral - that is, judges would be nominated to SCOTUS on the basis of personal merit. In the 200+ years, the big corporations, with big money, were able to duly influenced the politicians, who in turn, nominated judges to SCOTUS who have "interpreted" the constitution in favor of big money, big corporations, as we have right now in the US. The third assumption is that for democracy to be vital you need a free press that well informs the public on the issues on which politicians will run. Again, big corporations with big money own most the media through which information is filtered to the public, and so you have voters who are more often than not badly informed and vote not necessarily in their best interests.
In regard to Israel, there, democracy must survive in face of continual existential crisis, as Israel has been continuously attacked since its founding in 1948. In such circumstances, people tend to vote for their most right-wing politicians who are perceived to stand strong on security issues. So it's not a good example as a democratic model.
Jefferson was pretty clear as to what was required of citizens ... but had no idea that the corporation idea of Hamilton would trump everything else. Per Marx, the control of the means of production passed from agriculture to industry with the coming of the US Civil War. Lincoln came close to dictatorship and assassination was used to limit his power ... and similarly with Kennedy, by which time finance had taken the lead.
In my understanding, all US presidents since Kennedy are vetted by the CIA, because the two party system produces two nominees who are pulled from the pool of vetted candidates. Control over nuclear policy would be the ostensible reason, that the permanent part of the government is the caretaker, and the elected officials are the temporary figureheads. In social development ... I think that finance rule is the end of the line.
im never going to accept libertarian or republican views
Let's try Technocracy.
Quote from: CloneKai on November 28, 2015, 07:38:33 PM
even better news, i am marrying my cousin.
and nothing stoping me
fuck you westerners
actually it is perfectly ok to marry a second cousin as scientifically we are all as related to each other as second cousins. AKA there is enough genetic difference between second cousins that it is safe to marry. First cousins not so sure about but hey I'm not one to judge.
Quote from: CloneKai on November 28, 2015, 07:38:33 PM
even better news, i am marrying my cousin.
and nothing stoping me
fuck you westerners
Joke's on you! I'm already married to her!
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/319/almostpolitically.gif)
People, don't like them and think their stupid!
But dogs don't speak, so I guess they're all we've got...
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on November 30, 2015, 02:45:21 PM
People, don't like them and think their stupid!
But dogs don't speak, so I guess they're all we've got...
I love dogs, but can't afford one!
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on November 30, 2015, 08:26:31 PM
I love dogs, but can't afford one!
I can afford one, but I don't think I could properly care for it.
Quote from: doorknob on November 30, 2015, 11:39:56 AM
scientifically we are all as related to each other as second cousins.
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/masonry/000/969/573/7c3.jpg)
A little more distant than 2nd cousins ...
After 200 years, you have 1024 ancestors, after 400 years, you have one million ancestors, after 600 years, you have one billion ancestors ... more than the total human population of 1415 ... so we are double counting at that point, cousins definitely marrying cousins. Anyone alive today is distantly related to a minimum of royalty. In the first century CE, every Jew was related to King David (we can thank his sexual interests and that of his son Solomon) ... because that was way over the number of Jews in just 1000 years after King David. So that means I am descended from King David too, same as Jesus and Paul. Some of my ancestry I can trace back almost 2000 years.
Quote from: aitm on November 28, 2015, 10:30:04 PM
as technology improves , no system of government is "safe" from being stolen. i truly think the next great revolution is going to happen in the US, and it won't be pretty.
With all the rioting going on in our streets, I think it's already beginning. Don't think the mobs will get less violent before they get bigger and nastier, and I can only hope they will organize behind a group which actually understands what it is in our present Constitution which is worth preserving and fighting for.
Quote from: peacewithoutgod on December 01, 2015, 03:06:41 PM
With all the rioting going on in our streets, I think it's already beginning. Don't think the mobs will get less violent before they get bigger and nastier, and I can only hope they will organize behind a group which actually understands what it is in our present Constitution which is worth preserving and fighting for.
People riot all the time. If you're human and disgruntled about anything from the color of your skin to who lost the World Series, it's just what you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_civil_unrest_in_the_United_States
It just seems like it's more prevalent because of the 24 hour news cycle and social media.
You think democracy is stupid? Or do you think what passes for democracy in the USA is stupid? These are not the same thing.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 01, 2015, 06:16:36 PM
You think democracy is stupid? Or do you think what passes for democracy in the USA is stupid? These are not the same thing.
Both.
All people having equal vote is something that i have problem with. there are people who are interested in politics and others who are not (thus not equally aware), their vote shouldn't be equal. and then we have smart people and dumb people, they shouldn't have equal vote either. and then there are poeple who believe in fairy tales.
and sometimes sacrifices have to be made by the voting population for something that might benefit their grandchildren. i don't think democracy delivers very well then either.
politician can make whatever decisions they want, and still won't get punished for it. so its simply easier to gain money or votes or whatever rather than try do something that will benefit people.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on November 30, 2015, 01:47:02 PM
Joke's on you! I'm already married to her!
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/010/319/almostpolitically.gif)
Ah i was too drunk to notice
now i can go back to searching for 4 hot bisexual Pakistani girls who love each other and wants to live the rest of their lives together.
The four wifes, muslims are allowed to have, are all allowed to sleep in the same bedroom, right? :angel:
Quote from: CloneKai on December 01, 2015, 06:40:29 PM
Both.
All people having equal vote is something that i have problem with. there are people who are interested in politics and others who are not (thus not equally aware), their vote shouldn't be equal. and then we have smart people and dumb people, they shouldn't have equal vote either. and then there are poeple who believe in fairy tales.
You can still have an effective democracy without universal suffrage. There are political theories that assert democracy would be better off by taking voting away from people who don't want it or requiring people to earn their vote. My opinions on that differ, but it still seems like your problem has more to do with the way modern society executes democracy, and not democracy itself.
As everyone knows, originally not every adult citizen could vote in the US. It was designed that way, not for universal suffrage. But then again ... it was designed for a society made up of 90% farmers.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:56:52 PM
You can still have an effective democracy without universal suffrage. There are political theories that assert democracy would be better off by taking voting away from people who don't want it or requiring people to earn their vote. My opinions on that differ, but it still seems like your problem has more to do with the way modern society executes democracy, and not democracy itself.
possible, i don't read that much.
but yeah, i have a problem with 'the way modern society executes democracy'.
Quote from: TomFoolery on December 01, 2015, 06:56:52 PM
You can still have an effective democracy without universal suffrage. There are political theories that assert democracy would be better off by taking voting away from people who don't want it or requiring people to earn their vote.
(http://www.theoryserum.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/starship-troopers-citizenship1-300x225.jpg)
Quote from: Hydra009 on December 02, 2015, 05:38:14 AM
(http://www.theoryserum.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/starship-troopers-citizenship1-300x225.jpg)
I was afraid of going full circle. Among various veterans groups that I'm on, this idea gets brought up about once every five minutes after someone gets mad at something currently going on in politics. The idea that only veterans would get to vote is scarier than letting children vote. They say no one prays for peace more than a soldier: not true. Peace puts a soldier out of a job and very few people would gladly vote themselves out of a job.
Of course the parameters in the novel are a little different, as no one can be denied the right to perform federal service regardless of disability. I hate it when veterans act like the only way to fully support your country is to serve it by taking up arms. It's a minority of the population medically qualified to serve in the military in the first place. I was initially denied and had to get a waiver because I have poor eyesight (that corrects to 20/20 with glasses). So I feel like if someone tells me that I should only get to vote if I serve in the military, then for me to try to join the military only to be refused because I wear thicker glasses than most, that's essentially telling me I can't vote because my vision sucks. Imagine what that would be like for people in wheelchairs, people with diabetes, people with ADHD, people who were only born with one testicle... <-- yeah, you can get disqualified for that.
It truly is a sad state of affairs that so many people fought so hard for so long to get the right to vote for so few people to use it today. But one of my favorite parts about the process is that on election day, it doesn't matter if you're Donald J. Trump or Boxcar Willy who fought a dog for half a sandwich found in a dumpster, on that one day, both possess the same amount of power in that their votes count equally.
Quote from: CloneKai on November 29, 2015, 03:34:10 AM
i definitely don't remember typing this.
forget about this please :pray:
Sorry, this is one of those things, I can't forget, even if I wanted to. Not that marrying you cousin upsets me. It actually doesn't.
Any form of government can and probably will be corrupted.
Eventually all governments will be dictatorships run by our beloved robot overlords. Realistically, it's the only way we could ever have a perfect government.
The AI snake oil salesman and a robot in every garage salesmen are hard at work. Already some idiot salesman is proclaiming how using AI to decide who to hire is so much better than using fallible humans ;-) Sucker born every minute!
Quote from: widdershins on December 02, 2015, 01:35:07 PM
Eventually all governments will be dictatorships run by our beloved robot overlords. Realistically, it's the only way we could ever have a perfect government.
At least until we pour our brains into computers, and the cycle begins again due to our flawed programming.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 02, 2015, 07:50:08 PM
At least until we pour our brains into computers, and the cycle begins again due to our flawed programming.
So, you're thinking Cybermen? What could possibly go wrong?
Quote from: widdershins on December 04, 2015, 12:21:20 PM
So, you're thinking Cybermen? What could possibly go wrong?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyenRCJ_4Ww
Quote from: CloneKai on December 01, 2015, 06:40:29 PM
Both.
All people having equal vote is something that i have problem with. there are people who are interested in politics and others who are not (thus not equally aware), their vote shouldn't be equal. and then we have smart people and dumb people, they shouldn't have equal vote either. and then there are poeple who believe in fairy tales.
and sometimes sacrifices have to be made by the voting population for something that might benefit their grandchildren. i don't think democracy delivers very well then either.
Eh, people vote for different reasons. A 60 year old won't be voting for the same reasons as an 18 year old, even if they both chose the same candidate.
How would you determine who's dumb and who's smart? Or whether people care enough (or are informed enough) or not? Would you take a person's vote away if they're voting for Bernie Sanders because of his views on marijuana only? Technically, they are not considering his social, economic, foreign policy, etc. views and thus are not informed enough.
Quote from: CloneKai on December 01, 2015, 06:40:29 PMpolitician can make whatever decisions they want, and still won't get punished for it. so its simply easier to gain money or votes or whatever rather than try do something that will benefit people.
In the US, voters hold politicians accountable by not electing them if they fail on their campaign promises. That much is true in theory. In practice, that may not always be the case.
American voters are lazy, ignorant and fickle, except when reelecting incumbents ;-)
As a 60 year old, I vote for different reasons now I did when I was 20. I am different and the world is different.
In answer to your question, who is dumb ... I am smart, everyone else is dumb. This is the view of every American. This is what makes us so "exceptional" that the US must exist to boss the rest of the world around.
The idea of democracy isn't that it is smart ... it isn't. The idea is to gain a little stability (against revolution) and a little buy-in (vs dictatorship) than we would have otherwise. Essentially a con, but for good reasons. The 99% really are superfluous to us 1% folks. The alternative is to get the 99% to kill each other off, except for the necessary butlers, maids, chauffeurs and pool boys. What is smart is being part of the 1% ... we not only have more money and are smarter, but we are more beautiful and attractive in every way. Eat your 99% hearts out, losers. How do I know I am part of the 1% ... because relative to the whole human population, I actually am. We got this the old fashioned way ... we are criminals. Comparing to my neighbors is a false scale. If I lived in Hollywood, then I wouldn't be exceptional unless I was a multi-millionaire.
Quote from: Baruch on December 05, 2015, 09:12:20 AMAs a 60 year old
I knew you were older than me, but the way you conduct yourself I would have pegged you for 40 at most. So whatever's keeping your mind sharp, keep doing it and teach us your secrets.
More reading ... less TV. Unless it is a YouTube documentary. I was an officially measured genius when I entered first grade ... so it is better to start high and work your way down, than start low and work your way lower ;-) The ability to read and write and cipher really are the most important skills you can have. That and boundless curiosity ... but then I am part cat.
We have a democracy for now because a less corruptible government isn't in existence yet. Personally, I can understand a voter not necessarily being informed, but I firmly believe a politician should be well informed about the issues they are discussing. Furthermore, their evidence need to be cited from reputable and if possible, peer-reviewed sources. Lastly, a politician is a secular government official, so they should be expected to not mention religion, especially when name-dropping a religion to win over votes.
Oh, and Congress shall be unable to vote for their own wages. All politicians should have a base salary, which improves according to the positive impact they've had on economy, community, and environment within the scope of their level of authority. Those who fail to do so shall be demoted or removed from office at the voters' discretion.
It won't fix everything, but it's a start.