Democracy, don't like it and think it is stupid

Started by CloneKai, November 28, 2015, 07:08:43 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

CloneKai

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:

CloneKai


CloneKai

even better news, i am marrying my cousin.
and nothing stoping me
fuck you westerners

Baruch

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.

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

aitm

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.
A humans desire to live is exceeded only by their willingness to die for another. Even god cannot equal this magnificent sacrifice. No god has the right to judge them.-first tenant of the Panotheust

mauricio

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.

mauricio

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/

Baruch

Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

CloneKai

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:

CloneKai

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.

Atheon

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca

josephpalazzo

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.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Draconic Aiur

im never going to accept libertarian or republican views

Sal1981