United DEMOCRATIC Nations

Patrick · Sep 2, 2011

myp said:
There are believers in communism who want no such thing- those whole believe in the version Karl Marx hoped to see. We even have some on this forum.

And those people might call you a social misfit and nutcase It's all relative.

You can adopt your own definition of nutcase - to me, someone who has conceived a system which has killed about 100 million people over a century qualifies.

CatholicCrusader · Sep 3, 2011

myp said:
.........People in the mideast and other areas throughout the course of history have at times supported and believed in fundamentalist or authoritarian leaderships.........

Specifics please.

gdstark · Sep 3, 2011

UDN proposal

I think it's a great idea. Turns out that the domain name UnitedDemocraticNations[dot]org was available, so I created a proposal for such an organization. Let me know what you think. I'm open to feedback.

gary

Patrick · Sep 3, 2011

gdstark said:
I think it's a great idea. Turns out that the domain name UnitedDemocraticNations[dot]org was available, so I created a proposal for such an organization. Let me know what you think. I'm open to feedback.

gary

Wow - THAT was quick!

Lots of agreement with what you said, BUT:

Non-democratic nations should NOT have a presence, either formal or non-formal. in the UDN. One of the main purposes is to draw a bright line between the democracies and dictatorships of the world. The UN is flawed because it lends status and legitimacy to dictatorships, which are simply gangs who have seized power in a country. Of course, as a matter of practical reality, UDN nations will continue to deal with such nations separately, but without the imprimatur of the UDN.

While you are correct that democracy can be difficult to define, the definition should be made and incorporated in the charter. To prevent a gradual definition "drift" that ends up over time with almost any nation eligible, the definition can only be modified with say a supermajority of 80%.

That no non-democratic governments have a right to exist should be part of the charter.

gdstark · Sep 3, 2011

Patrick said:
Wow - THAT was quick!

Lots of agreement with what you said, BUT:

Non-democratic nations should NOT have a presence, either formal or non-formal. in the UDN. One of the main purposes is to draw a bright line between the democracies and dictatorships of the world. The UN is flawed because it lends status and legitimacy to dictatorships, which are simply gangs who have seized power in a country. Of course, as a matter of practical reality, UDN nations will continue to deal with such nations separately, but without the imprimatur of the UDN.

While you are correct that democracy can be difficult to define, the definition should be made and incorporated in the charter. To prevent a gradual definition "drift" that ends up over time with almost any nation eligible, the definition can only be modified with say a supermajority of 80%.

That no non-democratic governments have a right to exist should be part of the charter.

Patrick,

I like your ideas. Let me know what specifically you think I should change and feel free to take a stab at additional charter provisions. All help is appreciated. And if it should get close enough that you support it, I can add your name to the petition on the last page.

As for the 80% supermajority, I don't like anything beyond a simple majority as I see it as less democratic. I dislike term limits for the same reason (although not applicable here).

gary

myp · Sep 3, 2011

I don't support this idea and I don't think it is feasible for the real world, but that aside, I ask you whether you would want true democracies to be able to join in this model. Or would it be limited to republics?

David · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
Not surprising coming from an obamabot, but the natural, normal state of a human being is freedom.

Genius, I didn't vote for Obama and I'll likely be voting for Perry if he wins the nomination.

Patrick · Sep 4, 2011

David said:
Genius, I didn't vote for Obama and I'll likely be voting for Perry if he wins the nomination.

Yaaaaaaaaaa riiiiiiiiiiiiiight - and I'm voting for Fidel Castro.

David · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
Yaaaaaaaaaa riiiiiiiiiiiiiight - and I'm voting for Fidel Castro.

Egg on your face? But as usual you don't own-up.

Patrick · Sep 4, 2011

David said:
Egg on your face? But as usual you don't own-up.

Egg on MY face?????

BLAHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

David · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
Egg on MY face?????

BLAHHHHHHH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!

Indeed. A big rotten egg but you're incapable of owning up.

gdstark · Sep 4, 2011

myp said:
I don't support this idea and I don't think it is feasible for the real world, but that aside, I ask you whether you would want true democracies to be able to join in this model. Or would it be limited to republics?

The best seats would go to the true democracies. Seriously, republics (representative democracies like the United States) would most likely still qualify since we hold elections to determine our leaders. That's a fairly easy cutoff criteria. But keep in mind...the purpose of a UDN would not just be encouraging new democracies, but improving existing ones as well. A member can be voted out as quickly as it was voted in.

gary

myp · Sep 4, 2011

gdstark said:
The best seats would go to the true democracies. Seriously, republics (representative democracies like the United States) would most likely still qualify since we hold elections to determine our leaders. That's a fairly easy cutoff criteria. But keep in mind...the purpose of a UDN would not just be encouraging new democracies, but improving existing ones as well. A member can be voted out as quickly as it was voted in.

gary

Okay, that is what I thought you might say. My question then, is why democracy? Why is democracy valued so much in this organization if you believe in true representation of all peoples? The tyranny of the majority is not something to be forgotten. It is why the founding fathers (United States) believed in a republic over a democracy.

Patrick · Sep 4, 2011

myp said:
Okay, that is what I thought you might say. My question then, is why democracy? Why is democracy valued so much in this organization if you believe in true representation of all peoples? The tyranny of the majority is not something to be forgotten. It is why the founding fathers (United States) believed in a republic over a democracy.

Oh no, not this "democracy versus republic" crapola.

Except for switzerland, all modern 'democratic' countries are democratic republics - people vote for representatives who do the voting on laws. Such countries are what people mean which they refer to with the common shorthand as "democracies", and that's all I'm talking about. I don't desire to get into chickenshit razor sharp distinctions between the two - the REAL issue is the difference between murderous dictatorships like iraq under saddam hussein versus the US, not the US versus switzerland.

myp · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
Oh no, not this "democracy versus republic" crapola. Except for switzerland, all modern 'democratic' countries are democratic republics - people vote for representatives who do the voting on laws. Such countries are what people mean which they refer to with the common shorthand as "democracies", and that's all I'm talking about. I don't desire to get into chickenshit razor sharp distinctions between the two - the REAL issue is the difference between murderous dictatorships like iraq under saddam hussein versus the US, not the US versus switzerland.

Not true. If you want to represent all peoples fairly (although fairly is as always still somewhat subjective) then it does matter. And before I get some response from you about how that is a liberal thought, the founding fathers wrote extensively on the topic- notably Jefferson and they took the difference very seriously as it should.

Patrick · Sep 4, 2011

myp said:
Not true. If you want to represent all peoples fairly (although fairly is as always still somewhat subjective) then it does matter. And before I get some response from you about how that is a liberal thought, the founding fathers wrote extensively on the topic- notably Jefferson and they took the difference very seriously as it should.

You claim people aren't being represented fairly in the US? How so?

myp · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
You claim people aren't being represented fairly in the US? How so?

That is not what I am claiming (although it is arguable the 17th amendment undid the founding fathers' intention for fairness, but again that isn't my point here). My point is that our REPUBLIC was made to give fair representation to the minority. An actual democracy by popular vote does not.

David · Sep 4, 2011

Patrick said:
You claim people aren't being represented fairly in the US? How so?

Socialists are more popular then TPers but the TP controls the House. Maybe we should have a democracy and fix that mix up.

DodgeFB · Sep 4, 2011

David said:
Socialists are more popular then TPers but the TP controls the House. Maybe we should have a democracy and fix that mix up.

I will pick the tea party over socialists anytime. I want nothing to do with socialism. I might as well live in Cuba or somewhere.

Patrick · Sep 4, 2011

David said:
Socialists are more popular then TPers but the TP controls the House. Maybe we should have a democracy and fix that mix up.

No actually, Tea Partiers ran for office and won, socialists didn't.

United DEMOCRATIC Nations

Similar threads