PDA

View Full Version : Democratic Dictatorship - Giving this another go but in resonable terms.


Catapharact
26-09-06, 01:15
*Sigh* Ok, I gave it a lot of thought (and I mean a LOT... You have no idea as to how much time I gave to my term paper.)

I've decided not to use the microcosom view of the forum, since I respect the non-biased integrity a certain female member of this forum showed towards me, my views, my position and to all the rest of this forum. It would a total callous act to forget about all the leniency she showed and adhered to the code of conduct of this forum where she could have easily have taken advantage of her position and abused her power. So yes... I am saying sorry (Cat saying sorry to the forumers of TRF... Trust me, its a big step.)

It does hurt when I take into account the fact that this would have been a rock solid paper with the required facts, proof, and the naked truth to back it up and not just some political jargin. However... Betrying someone's trust for personal gain is unexcusable. I for one fell victim to it too many times and I find it ironic that I commited the same act. Yay... I ain't any better than the people I hate (A tragedy.)

So a from the heart apology to all who were mislead.

Still would have been a great paper though LOL! (Kidding, kidding... Chill.)

Anyway, taking a different approach, I'll leave the topic to open discussion:

I'll get to the core question of discussion in a moment, but first a few notes on the past and basic points in general. I'll quote the historic points I posted in the closed thread:

Going back to the basics, one must bulid a foundation of understanding on which he can build his structure of knowledge and well after an intense discussion with experts (details of which I cannot divulage without there permission) We came to obvious conclusions:

a) Humans are frail. Even the most powerful human can easily be taken down.

b) Morality, Laws, and nations are all ideas; Nothing more; And as such, open to questioning.

c) The use of force IS the ultimate authority.

Maybe its best that I start off with a historic example:

During the 1200s, King John ruled over England with the idealisim of the "Divine right of Kings," a theory which argued that certain kings ruled because they were chosen by God to do so and that these kings were accountable to no person except God. Since he was chosen by God, then the King can do no wrong.

However, King John did realize that he had a lot of ground to control. So he decreed the idea of aristocracy by picking the most influential person from the land and proclamed them with titles like Dukes, Barons, etc. They still did John's bidding however. And so John went on passing his decrees that truly taxed the population of his nation to its bare limits. By 1214 A.D. his decrees were just outrageous and the Arstrocrats knew that. The Aristrocrats knew that they were as powerful as the King's army since its the only avalible force strong enough to quell an unrising by the pesents. However, the Nobles now were unsure as to IF King Johan will come to their help or not (hence my earlier basic point about Vunerability; No matter how powerful you are, you're still human.) The Nobles had only one option; They banded togather and stormed King John. Well, now they knew they had the authority to command whatever they want but there was a problem... King John had ruled over for so long that the population that he was indirectly viewed as the legitimate figurehead of authority. To kill him would lead to anarchy (and thus the ultimate form of vunerability since no one is safe in that situation.) So they drafted a parchment saying that the king will discuss any further decrees with the Nobels before making them laws.

King John, knowing that little piece of infromation, put his diplomatic skills into action. He calmly stated to the Nobles that how dare they position themselves into monoarchial role. I am King and by Divine right, I do not acknowladge your rule. HOWEVER.... I will sign your parchment, since I want to... Not because you made me to. And thus the Magna Carta of 1215 was signed.

Fastforwad to 1776; England's King George wants to go to war and an instute formed Parliment (thanks to the Magna Carta) agrees with him. However, they knew they couldn't tax their own people without representation. However... The English colonies did not have any representitives in the parliment and as such weren't represented. And thus an agreement was reached to tax the colonies. Across the sea, the colonial states of North America (later to become the U.S.) saw this as an unjust act since the Magna Carta gave the right to equal representation before any agreement on any laws (see how a concept of a parchemnt can infulence ppl far across the sea? Simply amazing. "No taxation without representation." Most Americans must be familiar with that statement.)

So the founding fathers of the U.S. (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin) togather forged the decliration of independence and the colonists went to war with the "redcoats" with inevitable victory. Now we had a problem... A power vaccume was created since there was no figure head of authority. Well the founding fathers went to George Washington and wanted to declare him as the official King of the newly liberated domain.

George Washington, being as intelligent and well versed in history as he was, knew the danger of being a King (The English have plenty of examples) so he refused. The delimma however of a power vaccume still lingered in the air and the inevitability of anarchy (the ultimate vunerable environment.) The founding fathers then decided to sit down and think it all though. First off, does the divine right of King actually have any thruth behind it? What makes a King powerful? Well, the people off course. Without them, he is as Vunerable as a new born babe. So the collective in itself has the power. And so going back to first truth, the founding fathers drafted the constituation of the United States and backed that parchment up with the "legitimate" use of force (don't kid yourselves people; Without force, that document might as well be toilet paper.)

Now to the core questions:

Does the same right of open representation should be granted to the nations of the world? (i.e. Let one governing body represent each nation on the world and police them accoriding to the set standards agreed by the nations,) or should the power be vested in one main heiarchial power (i.e. the current superpower should have the right to decide as to what is best for the world.)

And can a majority be as dictitorial as a minority? (I.e. take Tibet, Kashmeer and other disputed zones for instance; Their right towards sovernty is deeply undermined by the power nations whose population obviously voted agaist seperation for these regions.)

My view:

A majority can be as dictotorial as a minority. Take the U.S. current stand on World policy ATM. Gerorge Bush clearly stated America's stand; "Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Quite a statement if you put it into prespective... Remember the divine right of Kings? "I can do no wrong for I am King and entusted by God to rule." Frightining similarities. George Bush is essentially undermining the original ideas of the founding fathers of America. Man, they really must be ****ed Lol!

DREWY
26-09-06, 01:34
Assuming you are genuinely interested in the answers, and are not taking the **** out of the members for part of some study.

Does the same right of open representation should be granted to the nations of the world? (i.e. Let one governing body represent each nation on the world and police them accoriding to the set standards agreed by the nations,) or should the power be vested in one main heiarchial power (i.e. the current superpower should have the right to decide as to what is best for the world.)


The United Nations approach doesn't work because not all members have the same say as others while others opinions can be bought ( as in the Japanese whaling debacle) A bit like Animal Farm. All are equal but some are more equal than others. But this is more wokable than theory 2.

The problem with the superpower theory is that they ride roughshod over all others that don't follow their way of thinking. Combine this with different cultures and languages, not to mention religions and can only lead to trouble. Also as one power wanes and another rises up, how is there scope for a peacefull transfer of power?

Mr.Burns
26-09-06, 01:40
An interesting perspective, one that I agree with. I do not like the fact that the Bush administration has taken on the idea that the US is running the show. However, Bush's comment about either being with us or with the terrorists are not the views of all Americans. This country's views on Mr.Bush are very much polarized and even though he managed to be re-elected (to which I personally feel was due in part to the democrats not having a strong candidate, among other issues), it is not the stance of all Americans. The day he made that comment, I rolled my eyes and just thought to myself, "yup, digging a hole George, digging a hole." The original concepts of American democracy have evolved over the years but yes, during Bush's time, we've seen a drastic change from a democracy to more of a plutocracy and a gov't not run for the people by the people but rather for the wealthy by the big corporations.

Catapharact
26-09-06, 01:44
Assuming you are genuinely interested in the answers, and are not taking the **** out of the members for part of some study.

Ouch!

Well in the words of Jack Sparrow: " I may have deserved that."

*Sigh* I just gotta stop being so... moral. It works against me too many times.

Cochrane
26-09-06, 08:18
Does the same right of open representation should be granted to the nations of the world? (i.e. Let one governing body represent each nation on the world and police them accoriding to the set standards agreed by the nations,) or should the power be vested in one main heiarchial power (i.e. the current superpower should have the right to decide as to what is best for the world.)

The problem with the single superpower approach is that this power is acting out of its own interests, not because they care about what is really best for the world (this does not only apply to the Bush government). For this reason, I find this inacceptable.

The problem with the one-government-per-nation approach is that governments vary in importance far more than individuals do. Nobody would doubt that an inhabitant of Luxembourg is should have the same rights as one of the United States, but when it comes to an international crisis, clearly both governments cannot operate with the same authority.

Now that I've written all this, i just realised that my opinion is basically the same as DREWY's. Oh well, that increases the possibility of it being correct.

Mona Sax
26-09-06, 13:52
I agree that the U.N. approach is the "lesser evil". Being governed by a superpower can only lead to massive frustration in other parts of the world, even if that superpower tried to do what it thinks is best for everybody - cultures and religions are just too different, not to mention the almost inevitable disbalance of information (much of the current tension between the oriental and occidental worlds is caused by lack of knowledge about each other's beliefs, societies and intentions).

So, I'd say all countries - no matter how big or small, rich or poor - should have a say about what happens to our planet. It's obvious that some countries should have more weight than others, but nobody should be able to enforce or overthrow a project against a massive majority's will, which means that I'd like to see the veto privileges go. To cut the long story short, I'm in favor of the U.N. model, but it needs to be altered in some parts so it cannot serve as a means of power to a few select countries.

JamesFKirk
26-09-06, 14:11
Well... There's a problem. Total equality between people leads to only one, and that is anarchy. You need governments and superpowers otherwise no larger scale crisis will get solved. For example, take Rwanda or Darfur - no power from outside is/was willing to intervene. In Rwanda it led to over million dead. In Darfur there's already over million refugess and more than 50000 dead in a covertly government supported genocide (that is my personal opinion, but based on facts that go from various sources). World needs superpowers. It's not that it is good - it's because it's necessary out of human nature. I do agree with Mona - U.N. approach is the better possibility, but sometimes it fails to take effect. Like it did before WW2 with it being unable to stop Germany from dismanteling and taking over Czechoslovakia, anexing Austria and invading Poland. Sometimes only power can unfortunatelly solve the crisis. The U.N. model needs to be altered so that it can get more powerful argumenting possibilities. However, this may end in other non-national superpower taking place. Or total chaos.
Damn, I'm being negativistic. Optimistic views, anyone?

Draco
26-09-06, 17:44
The world needs less humans. Guess how nature makes that happen.

jackles
26-09-06, 18:01
Okay I'm probably getting this totally wrong but with all the best intentions in the world I think that 'macro' government as opposed to 'micro' causes many problems. Look at the EU for example which is supposed to help trade etc within the European countries, In reality it imposes petty restrictions or ideas such as English people within their own country cannot use traditional pounds and ounces etc. All lovely and rational that each country should have a common unit of measurement but most English people would prefer to keep traditional currency etc.

In the uk yes parliament have the power....but they only have power as long as the people want them to stay there...a larger governing body such as the UN could not be vetoed or voted out.

The United nations has to work as a police force effectively as opposed to imposing behaviours to a government.

I really think its human nature to rub each other up the wrong way. Maybe its natures way of keeping the gene pool feisty.

Anyway I'm probably getting all befuddled by the political bit. sorry!