United DEMOCRATIC Nations
- Thread starter Patrick
- Start date
-
- Tags
- democratic nations united
Never really used AJE, but I've heard it is okay. I can stand by Reuters and Bloomberg as the best American news outlets in my opinion. They tend to focus a bit more on the money too and in reality the majority of news is usually driven by the money- outlets like Fox and MSNBC just like to politicize it for their agendas.
Owner aside, the news really isn't bad- a lot better than the stuff you find on a lot of the other popular sites.
As you point out, even the system of democracy can be a tyranny. And democracy is certainly no guarantee of wise governance. But the advantage of democracy is that the people own whatever problems may arrise as a result of their actions.
Or maybe I should let Winston Churchill answer your question...
"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
-- Sir Winston Churchill
Hope that helps.
gary
"Democracy is good for only 1 thing. It makes people think they rule themselves and once they believe this, they make wonderfully willing slaves."
I would say a constitutional republic is a better choice- it reduces the tyranny of the majority considerably. Why not be the United Republican Nations?
I prefer as much democracy as possible. In my own country (USA) I would get rid of the electoral college for instance. The way I see it, the more democratic, the more people are responsible for their own destiny.
Why do you think a republic would make a better choice? Can you give an example of an issue where less representation is actually better?
gary
The electoral college is just fine the way it is. It is part of the way that there is a representation that the US is a federation, not a monolithic state, like say France.
A republic is better because it protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Jefferson and others wrote about this as did some of the prominent philosophers of the day.
For example, let's say there is a nation of 100 people who all have different net worths. Everyone wants to pay fewer taxes and pass on the burden to others. In that instance and under a democracy the top 51 can pass a law where the bottom 49 pay a greater share (percentage wise) of tax than the top 51. With a constitutional republic, especially with checks and balances, you reduce this risk greatly.
Who rules America, the people or the CEOs? We all know the answer to that but how many people are willing to take up arms when they can just 'vote out the bums' (without ever actually doing so or else replacing them with more of the same as they did in '10)? Our gov't is corrupt to the point that they don't even bother hiding it anymore yet people never rise up because they think they can just vote their way out.
The people clearly run America. I know because I live here and I get to vote. And when the elections don't go my way, I can always pinpoint family and friends who voted for the other guy. So I still trust the system even if I don't like the results. Do the corporations have too much influence? Absolutey. But not because they forcefully took over, but because the American public finds the idea of voting outside the two major parties more of a risk than the corporations. Reminds me of another great quote...
?Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.?
-- George Bernard Shaw
gary
Similar threads
