Is domocracy the best ????
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
By the book, I'd say yes, you have a point. By the book, Iraq is a democracy (after all, he got 100% of the vote, didn't he?) But I think the "popular" definition of a democracy is one in which the people aren't repressed for their opinions and the leaders aren't executed. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
Shamoon wrote: question is that what is democracy A democracy is rule by the people. In theory this means that every citizen has a voice on policy. This is obviously not practical beyond a reasonably small population, and so we have a representative democracy, or republic. Your comparison of a kind and thoughtful dictator and a corrupt republican government is a bit outside reality. It's far more likely that both governments will be corrupt in their own ways. The benefit then of having a representative democracy is that you have other members of the government who can "keep an eye on each other". Who's going to tell the dictator he's going too far?:~ Shamoon wrote: but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader I don't know about Pakistans election, but I seem to remember a recent Iraqi election with 100% participation and all votes for hussein. Just looks funny, doesn't it?:suss: Shamoon wrote: constitutional representative government It is difficult to create a Constitution that is fair and flexible. It is possible to write a constitution the way you state with the Supreme Court creating martial law, but its a crappy Constitution. And the government itself, IMO, has fundemental flaws.:~ The only reason I can imagine a population welcoming martial law is that without this force criminals would just take over everything, making it worse. Once this military force becomes unreasonably invasive to personal freedom the population will revolt. Is democracy the best Human nature being the way it is, yes I believe representative democracy to be the best. It isn't the most efficient, but human beings are not efficient overall, so it gives us the freedom generally to act like the fools we usually are, without feeling to guilty about it.:-D BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
It depends on whether you mean as a theory or a working model. If you mean as an idea, then communism is probably the best. One for all and all for one, and all that. Unfortunately, humans are capitalistic by nature, and tend to try to advance themselves over their peers. This was noted in writing as far back as the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy. Plato wrote Utopia, and then later when he had spent more time thinking and teaching, he wrote The Republic. While the Republic still seems extremely idealistic by todays standards, it was a huge jump from Utopia. Plato realised that you could not force people to do what was best for them, but that many humans would inexplicably head towards self destruction for no good reason. He also realised that we would continue to be greedy, even if we had everything we needed provided for us, work to keep us busy, education for our offspring, etc. In the long run, history has shown that true democracies work best for the country as a whole, although there are always individual cases which suffer at the hands of it because they aren't strong enough to compete with the majority. Just my 2 cents
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some - it won't hurt you'..... - Christian Graus on Code Project outages A moment of silence please. A programmer's best friend has passed beyond that great exception in the sky.... - Mark Conger on "The coffee machine has died"
-
It depends on whether you mean as a theory or a working model. If you mean as an idea, then communism is probably the best. One for all and all for one, and all that. Unfortunately, humans are capitalistic by nature, and tend to try to advance themselves over their peers. This was noted in writing as far back as the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy. Plato wrote Utopia, and then later when he had spent more time thinking and teaching, he wrote The Republic. While the Republic still seems extremely idealistic by todays standards, it was a huge jump from Utopia. Plato realised that you could not force people to do what was best for them, but that many humans would inexplicably head towards self destruction for no good reason. He also realised that we would continue to be greedy, even if we had everything we needed provided for us, work to keep us busy, education for our offspring, etc. In the long run, history has shown that true democracies work best for the country as a whole, although there are always individual cases which suffer at the hands of it because they aren't strong enough to compete with the majority. Just my 2 cents
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some - it won't hurt you'..... - Christian Graus on Code Project outages A moment of silence please. A programmer's best friend has passed beyond that great exception in the sky.... - Mark Conger on "The coffee machine has died"
Megan Forbes wrote: He also realised that we would continue to be greedy, even if we had everything we needed provided for us, work to keep us busy, education for our offspring, etc. I have always been amused at those who complain that capitalism is based upon greed. Human greed is inevitable in any system, as Plato observed. Capitalism merely accepts the inevitable and channels it towards productive purposes. One thing I would say about democracy is that it only works in a free market economy. No one who is dependent upon government for their welfare can ever cast a free vote. They must vote for those most likely to care for their needs. Only a person who is economically independent of government can cast a free vote, and they are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. *That* would be a true democracy. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
Shamoon wrote: I don't know too much about Pakistan Hmmm. Your profile says you live in the USA. But aren't you from Pakistan?[^] Shamoon wrote: but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Links please. :zzz: Shamoon wrote: Consider two countries... You can prove anything with contrived examples. :suss: Shamoon wrote: Pakistan made more progress in Military rules than in Civilian rules. That says a lot about the Pakistani citizens. X| Shamoon wrote: Whenever military arrived in the past, people welcomed them. Could you elaborate a bit on that please? I mean why would people welcome a military rule, as opposed to their own rule? Seriously though, where are you really from? ;)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Megan Forbes wrote: He also realised that we would continue to be greedy, even if we had everything we needed provided for us, work to keep us busy, education for our offspring, etc. I have always been amused at those who complain that capitalism is based upon greed. Human greed is inevitable in any system, as Plato observed. Capitalism merely accepts the inevitable and channels it towards productive purposes. One thing I would say about democracy is that it only works in a free market economy. No one who is dependent upon government for their welfare can ever cast a free vote. They must vote for those most likely to care for their needs. Only a person who is economically independent of government can cast a free vote, and they are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. *That* would be a true democracy. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: No one who is dependent upon government for their welfare can ever cast a free vote. They must vote for those most likely to care for their needs. But then why would we bother to vote if we had nothing to gain or lose? Stan Shannon wrote: Only a person who is economically independent of government can cast a free vote, and they are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? PS: Your email address, dude. The notifications sent to you when I reply to your posts get bounced back to <> me!
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No one who is dependent upon government for their welfare can ever cast a free vote. They must vote for those most likely to care for their needs. But then why would we bother to vote if we had nothing to gain or lose? Stan Shannon wrote: Only a person who is economically independent of government can cast a free vote, and they are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? PS: Your email address, dude. The notifications sent to you when I reply to your posts get bounced back to <> me!
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Provided laws are designed to help you become independent, this setup does provide added motivation to be self-sufficient. I admit it is a bit unorthodox, though, and can be very dangerous. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
Shamoon wrote: Shamoon wrote: Is domocracy the best ???? I've always prefered accessing XML through the DOM, rather than SAX. But sometimes, SAX is the best. Shamoon wrote: My question is that what is democracy ??? An elegant lie. The people have no power, it is simply taken away more subtly in a 'democracy'. Shamoon wrote: Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Yes, unless the people have the right to vote on that government and elect their chosen representatives. Shamoon wrote: Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. That is the point at which a democracy is not what it promises to be. The point though is that in theory if the corruption of government affects the people, they have the right to fire that government come election time. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution that Supreme Court can make any change in it and so Supreme Court allows Military rule in country for certain time period, then is it against constitution and is it approprate to call such government a non-constitutional government??? This is word games. Can people in Pakistan elect their government ? Can they, through an established process, indicate their support or otherwise for the current government with no fear of reprisals, and as a result of that indication, see total change of government ? Can any member of society present themselves to be considered by this process ? If not, it is not a democracy. Shamoon wrote: In a nut shell just suppose that a military rule is fully compliant with the definition of democracy, now is it justified to oppose such rule and force that country to return to democracy?? If a country is happy, if it's people are happy, then no-one else has the right to tell them how to govern themselves. The USA has tried to do this in the past ( think Vietnam ) and failed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
By the book, I'd say yes, you have a point. By the book, Iraq is a democracy (after all, he got 100% of the vote, didn't he?) But I think the "popular" definition of a democracy is one in which the people aren't repressed for their opinions and the leaders aren't executed. Marc Help! I'm an AI running around in someone's f*cked up universe simulator.
Marc Clifton wrote: (after all, he got 100% of the vote, didn't he?) :laugh::laugh::laugh: Yes, but who is allowed to vote in Iraq ? Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No one who is dependent upon government for their welfare can ever cast a free vote. They must vote for those most likely to care for their needs. But then why would we bother to vote if we had nothing to gain or lose? Stan Shannon wrote: Only a person who is economically independent of government can cast a free vote, and they are the only ones who should be allowed to vote. So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? PS: Your email address, dude. The notifications sent to you when I reply to your posts get bounced back to <> me!
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: But then why would we bother to vote if we had nothing to gain or lose? I'm obviously alluding to the Jeffersonian ideal here. The theory being that by being independent of the government for which one is voting would tend to make people vote for the public good and not out of greedy self interest. Rohit Sinha wrote: So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Well, any party which derives its power from making people dependent upon it for their welfare would certainly have difficulty in my proposed democracy. All I am saying is that only free people should be allowed to participate in the democratic process. If you are a ward of the state, than you are not free, and cannot cast a free vote. In my system there would be no other barrier to voting. If you are producing more for the economy than you are consuming than you can vote. Otherwise not. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Provided laws are designed to help you become independent, this setup does provide added motivation to be self-sufficient. I admit it is a bit unorthodox, though, and can be very dangerous. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
Hmm, very interesting. I hadn't thought of this from this angle. However, since the voters are not (economically) affected by the outcome, what's the guarantee that they will vote for the best government? Why will they even bother to even think about the matter? Why will they bother to vote? What stops them from voting based on other criteria (his name is Richard, and I hate dicks)? Plus, assuming that the voters do indeed vote for the best party, how will such a situation come about? I mean the lawmakers are the ones who are currently in power. Why will they allow such a thing to happen, and jeopardize their own chances of winning in the next election? They need to have something to hold on to. Besides, they can't let go of such a huge vote bank. This might have been good in an ideal situation, even then I have my doubts, but let them be, but the real world is slightly different. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
It depends on whether you mean as a theory or a working model. If you mean as an idea, then communism is probably the best. One for all and all for one, and all that. Unfortunately, humans are capitalistic by nature, and tend to try to advance themselves over their peers. This was noted in writing as far back as the ancient Greeks, who invented democracy. Plato wrote Utopia, and then later when he had spent more time thinking and teaching, he wrote The Republic. While the Republic still seems extremely idealistic by todays standards, it was a huge jump from Utopia. Plato realised that you could not force people to do what was best for them, but that many humans would inexplicably head towards self destruction for no good reason. He also realised that we would continue to be greedy, even if we had everything we needed provided for us, work to keep us busy, education for our offspring, etc. In the long run, history has shown that true democracies work best for the country as a whole, although there are always individual cases which suffer at the hands of it because they aren't strong enough to compete with the majority. Just my 2 cents
I knew it would end badly when I first met Chris in a Canberra alleyway and he said 'try some - it won't hurt you'..... - Christian Graus on Code Project outages A moment of silence please. A programmer's best friend has passed beyond that great exception in the sky.... - Mark Conger on "The coffee machine has died"
Megan Forbes wrote: If you mean as an idea, then communism is probably the best I wouldn't say the best, but maybe the most fair. Communism tends to stifle productivity and innovation. I wouldn't call that the best scenario. Democracy, on the other hand, is the rule of the mob. The majority is not always right.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Hmm, very interesting. I hadn't thought of this from this angle. However, since the voters are not (economically) affected by the outcome, what's the guarantee that they will vote for the best government? Why will they even bother to even think about the matter? Why will they bother to vote? What stops them from voting based on other criteria (his name is Richard, and I hate dicks)? Plus, assuming that the voters do indeed vote for the best party, how will such a situation come about? I mean the lawmakers are the ones who are currently in power. Why will they allow such a thing to happen, and jeopardize their own chances of winning in the next election? They need to have something to hold on to. Besides, they can't let go of such a huge vote bank. This might have been good in an ideal situation, even then I have my doubts, but let them be, but the real world is slightly different. :)
Regards,Rohit Sinha
As think about it a little more, I can imagine that taxes should go down as less people are dependant on the government. If this is true then those self-sufficients, who are essentially the tax-payers, would be motivated to vote for government rules which help decrease dependency. If the lawmakers do this, they will be re-elected. and so on..... The constitution in this country would have to ensure, however that those who rely on government are not abandoned. Rohit Sinha wrote: This might have been good in an ideal situation, even then I have my doubts, but let them be, but the real world is slightly different It has aspects which rely on good intention I think and probably wouldn't work as is, but interesting none the less.:) BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: But then why would we bother to vote if we had nothing to gain or lose? I'm obviously alluding to the Jeffersonian ideal here. The theory being that by being independent of the government for which one is voting would tend to make people vote for the public good and not out of greedy self interest. Rohit Sinha wrote: So you mean people who are not affected by which party is in power should be allowed to vote and those who are affected, those who do care, shouldn't be allowed to vote? Well, any party which derives its power from making people dependent upon it for their welfare would certainly have difficulty in my proposed democracy. All I am saying is that only free people should be allowed to participate in the democratic process. If you are a ward of the state, than you are not free, and cannot cast a free vote. In my system there would be no other barrier to voting. If you are producing more for the economy than you are consuming than you can vote. Otherwise not. "Any clod can have the facts, but having opinions is an art." Charles McCabe, San Francisco Chronicle
Stan Shannon wrote: Jeffersonian ideal Sorry, I don't know about the Jeffersonian ideal. My ignorance, I admit. But even without that knowledge (I'm looking on google at the moment for more info on the Jeffersonian ideal), I think I can say that it's an unattainable goal, if what you say is anything to go by. Though I might be wiser after googling a bit. :) Stan Shannon wrote: by being independent of the government for which one is voting would tend to make people vote for the public good and not out of greedy self interest. 1. People will never vote for the public good, but their own. 2. Greedy self interest is not necessarily a bad thing, especially if contained by other people's greedy self interest. Stan Shannon wrote: Well, any party which derives its power from making people dependent upon it for their welfare would certainly have difficulty in my proposed democracy. Well, I agree, to an extent. But given a scenario in which there are two parties, one of which lets you become more and more independent (assuming for a moment that it is indeed possible to become independent from your government), and the other party does just the opposite. Extreme cases yes, but let's go with this for the moment. Now, aren't both these parties basically deriving their power from making you dependent on themselves, in a way? Think about it. You depend on the first party to get your economical independence, you depend on the second party to get your money (let's say it's money, but then this will lead to your independence, so I think I need a better example here. But you get my point, don't you?). And even after some people have become independent of the government, they will have to depend on the government for keeping things like they are, right? A really bad government could really mess things up and things go back to square one. Fallacy? Contradiction? Or is it just me confused? Stan Shannon wrote: If you are producing more for the economy than you are consuming than you can vote. Otherwise not. If an economy is producing more than it can consume, won't it "settle" down? Prices will come down, supply will go up, blah blah, till you end up on a balance level? So for this scenario to happen, you always have some people always dependent on the government, some people always providing for the rest. Not a good thing, IMO.
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
As think about it a little more, I can imagine that taxes should go down as less people are dependant on the government. If this is true then those self-sufficients, who are essentially the tax-payers, would be motivated to vote for government rules which help decrease dependency. If the lawmakers do this, they will be re-elected. and so on..... The constitution in this country would have to ensure, however that those who rely on government are not abandoned. Rohit Sinha wrote: This might have been good in an ideal situation, even then I have my doubts, but let them be, but the real world is slightly different It has aspects which rely on good intention I think and probably wouldn't work as is, but interesting none the less.:) BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
brianwelsch wrote: I can imagine that taxes should go down as less people are dependant on the government. What I fail to understand is, how can people stop depending on the government? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
brianwelsch wrote: I can imagine that taxes should go down as less people are dependant on the government. What I fail to understand is, how can people stop depending on the government? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Regards,Rohit Sinha
Rohit Sinha wrote: how can people stop depending on the government They really can't. What I mean by less dependence is that someone is economically capable to survive without government help. (ie. welfare, education, food, etc.) Your only reliance would basically be military. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
-
Rohit Sinha wrote: how can people stop depending on the government They really can't. What I mean by less dependence is that someone is economically capable to survive without government help. (ie. welfare, education, food, etc.) Your only reliance would basically be military. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson
So basically this is a scenario where people can pay for what they use. The government makes atleast as much money as it spends on roads, healthcare, education, social security, etc etc. Isn't this already the case in the US? :cool:
Regards,Rohit Sinha
-
Shamoon wrote: Shamoon wrote: Is domocracy the best ???? I've always prefered accessing XML through the DOM, rather than SAX. But sometimes, SAX is the best. Shamoon wrote: My question is that what is democracy ??? An elegant lie. The people have no power, it is simply taken away more subtly in a 'democracy'. Shamoon wrote: Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Yes, unless the people have the right to vote on that government and elect their chosen representatives. Shamoon wrote: Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. That is the point at which a democracy is not what it promises to be. The point though is that in theory if the corruption of government affects the people, they have the right to fire that government come election time. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution that Supreme Court can make any change in it and so Supreme Court allows Military rule in country for certain time period, then is it against constitution and is it approprate to call such government a non-constitutional government??? This is word games. Can people in Pakistan elect their government ? Can they, through an established process, indicate their support or otherwise for the current government with no fear of reprisals, and as a result of that indication, see total change of government ? Can any member of society present themselves to be considered by this process ? If not, it is not a democracy. Shamoon wrote: In a nut shell just suppose that a military rule is fully compliant with the definition of democracy, now is it justified to oppose such rule and force that country to return to democracy?? If a country is happy, if it's people are happy, then no-one else has the right to tell them how to govern themselves. The USA has tried to do this in the past ( think Vietnam ) and failed. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002 Hey, at least Logo had, at it's inception, a mechanical turtle. VB has always lacked even that... - Shog9 04-09-2002 Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002
Christian Graus wrote: The USA has tried to do this in the past ( think Vietnam ) and failed. in all fairness, so has England, France, Portugal, Germany, Italy, Holland, Spain, Turkey, China, Japan, Egypt, etc.. it's probably easier to count the countries which haven't tried to control the innards of other countries. -c
A conclusion is simply the place where someone got tired of thinking.
-
I was reading the post below that discusses the topic of Democracy in Pakistan. The thread was started by person who himself live in democratic country and replied by others who are themselves living in democratic countries. All of these people were not pleased by the military rule in Pakistan and their way of expression reflects that they like democracy. I don't know too much about Pakistan so any PAkistani CPian correct me if i am wrong. My question is that what is democracy ??? I searched www.dictionary.com, and obtained something like: Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, a constitutional representative government; a republic. Just a while concentrate on the first sentence: Government by popular representation Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? Ofcourse yes. Military may include different people living at various parts of a country. Example that of India, China or many others. Similarly Pakistani milirary comprises of people that belong to various parts of country. A referendum was held to ask the people whether they like General or not. A hype created that the referendum is non-constitutional, but the polling was crystal-clear in which people accepted General as their leader, and also independent street surveys shows that Military dictator is popular among masses. Then is it appropriate to call such government non-democratic ?? Take a glance of second sentence: a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people Consider two countries one where there is a democratic government which is corrupt. This country is not making any progress and going to become defaulter. The other which is ruled by a military dictator who is not much corrupt and is supported by large number of people. This country is making progress by leaps and bounds Now, is it still appropriate to support such democracy that is under the hands of currupt civil rulers and oppose the popular military regeime?? Have a look at third sentence: a constitutional representative government I think that all the democratic countries in the world today, follow certain constitution. But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Constitution has certain scope and limited boundaries. Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. Now suppose if it is written in your constitution tha
Shamoon wrote: Now can't a Military represents all sort of community members? For a while, possibly. However, "a Military" presumes or implies a dictatorship, which is ultimately bad (my opinion, obviously). Shamoon wrote: But it is not guarantee that constitution gives you the solution of all problems. Depends on what problems worry you. The constituition of the USA is a "living" document that can be changed through a documented process. So, if and when it falls short of the peoples' needs it can be changed to address the shortfall. Shamoon wrote: Frequently situation arises when there is need to consult the Supreme Court of that country to find the solution. In the USA, this is done only to interpret an existing law in the context of the constituition. While imperfect this tends to work since Supreme Court judges are appointed for life and do not answer to a particular administration. Shamoon wrote: In a nut shell just suppose that a military rule is fully compliant with the definition of democracy, now is it justified to oppose such rule and force that country to return to democracy?? I would. Once again, the implication of military rule is dictatorship. My personal assessment of dictatorships are that the prevalent view is that the individual is "the property of the state". I would rather be shot in the street laboring against this concept than live in compliance. Now we get to one of the additions to the constituition, the 2nd amendment. This amendment give US citizens the right, a guaranteed right, to possess arms. Regardless of what anyone might say, that right is so we as American citizens can equip ourselves with fire power to protect ourselves from the military. Mike