PDA

View Full Version : Freedom or control? Thoughts on democracy


Student
11-12-06, 13:27
Hi all!
I've been browsing these forums for some time.:D
Being a TR fan too I'm patiently waiting for the release right now.
However, I've noticed that these boards are visited by interesting people to talk to, so I'd like to discuss with you some topics related to today's society's problems and hopefully hear your opinions.;)

What do you think about any possible compromise between the concepts of freedom and control?
What are your thoughts on democracy and its necessity in our world?

Agent 47
11-12-06, 13:37
erm.............interesting

Democracy is or can be a good thing, but i feel it's abused by those we put in power

it is my perception we are expected to follow like sheep, and become "little nodding yes men"....aint gonna happen(not me anyway)

big brother is already here and it's gonna get worse, slowly but surely our freedoms are going to be compromised.

true freedom will NEVER exist because some muppet will always drag you down and stifle your freedoms and civil liberties

respect is one thing...being treated like cattle is another :mad: :D

angelika
11-12-06, 13:40
Very interesting first post!!!!!

I think you must be a little more in specific in order to get specific answers.

I don't think you will find anyone here against freedom.

rika2
11-12-06, 13:51
erm.............interesting

Democracy is or can be a good thing, but i feel it's abused by those we put in power

it is my perception we are expected to follow like sheep, and become "little nodding yes men"....aint gonna happen(not me anyway)

big brother is already here and it's gonna get worse, slowly but surely our freedoms are going to be compromised.

true freedom will NEVER exist because some muppet will always drag you down and stifle your freedoms and civil liberties

respect is one thing...being treated like cattle is another :mad: :D

agreed, democracy is still better than monarchy

Agent 47
11-12-06, 13:58
agreed, democracy is still better than monarchy

i had a rant about monarchy the other day lol

didn't go down too well, but meh! i'd love a public vote to dethrone them :D

JANKERSON
11-12-06, 13:59
erm.............interesting

Democracy is or can be a good thing, but i feel it's abused by those we put in power

it is my perception we are expected to follow like sheep, and become "little nodding yes men"....aint gonna happen(not me anyway)

big brother is already here and it's gonna get worse, slowly but surely our freedoms are going to be compromised.

true freedom will NEVER exist because some muppet will always drag you down and stifle your freedoms and civil liberties

respect is one thing...being treated like cattle is another :mad: :D


I agree.

The problem is that those in power always want more control and they always seem to get it.

Michiel
11-12-06, 14:03
Democracy sounds nice, once in every years people have to vote for the new leaders. Each person can vote for the person or group they think is best to lead the country.

But that last thing is a big problem as well. How would the avarage person know what is good for the country? Most people have no idea about how politics and economy works. How would someone like that make the right choice?

Many people will vote not knowing if it's good or not. Making good plans on how to make the country better do not make you win the elections. You have to say what the people want to hear, and have a person the people trust and that looks like a good leader.

That is the big problem of democracy. People that have no idea how economy works has to choice what is the best anyway. Making such a choice without knowing anything about it makes it easier to vote the wrong thing. Many people are short-sighted, they know something that looks good for the moment might turn out worse in the future. They will mostly choice the wrong thing.

Geck-o-Lizard
11-12-06, 14:08
The only way to be really free is to be completely detached from society, so nobody else can put any limits on your life. But then, you can't have electricity, a proper house, easily obtainable food, medical care, education, etc. so would you really be free, if you don't have the freedom to use those?

Personally I support giving people more liberty, but there's a certain point after which using less control makes society spiral down into chaos, so a limit is needed. It would be wonderful to have a true anarchist society, but it's just not possible as long as there is even just one single human who wants to be better than everyone else, and wants to tell others what to do, or who thinks that everyone else can do his work for him.

I'd like people to be free to live without a million cameras watching them. I'd like them to be able to live without ancient criminal records preventing them from ever making a new life for themselves. I'd like everyone to be treated fairly, gender/colour/age/religion regardless (thus free of prejudice). I'd also LOVE for all the social privaleges of being a politician to be stripped, so democracy has real meaning again - a government of normal people, rather than a rogues' gallery of corrupt liars with too much power.

JANKERSON
11-12-06, 14:22
I'd also LOVE for all the social privaleges of being a politician to be stripped, so democracy has real meaning again - a government of normal people, rather than a rogues' gallery of corrupt liars with too much power.


Yep. :)

Student
11-12-06, 14:37
Personally I support giving people more liberty, but there's a certain point after which using less control makes society spiral down into chaos, so a limit is needed. It would be wonderful to have a true anarchist society, but it's just not possible as long as there is even just one single human who wants to be better than everyone else, and wants to tell others what to do, or who thinks that everyone else can do his work for him.
Agreed. Seeing as the principles of democracy support individual interests and rights, the general intention is to try to please everyone which almost always results in further complications.

Geck-o-Lizard
11-12-06, 14:41
Political correctness is a nice example of trying to please everyone. :whi:

JANKERSON
11-12-06, 14:46
Political correctness is a nice example of trying to please everyone. :whi:

Yeah and what a joke that is. :rolleyes:

To get freedom in one area you have to give up something in return usually.

If I was truly free I wouldn't have to put up with assholes all day long. :hea:

In a free world I would just carry a bat and beat the crap out of them. :jmp:

Student
11-12-06, 15:05
Political correctness is a nice example of trying to please everyone.
To the point it gets ridiculous.:D

Seriously, though. Some are busy choosing "inoffensive" words, others flame up when there's no reason for it. Proves, that, no matter what, everyone has their own understanding of what freedom of right and opinion is.

The more the better: to ensure that everyone has equal rights we restrict ourselves even more. Ironic.

PirateRose
11-12-06, 15:44
Democracy is one of those things that sounds great on paper, just isn't well executed and could actually still be great if we had the right people running it.

Cochrane
11-12-06, 17:23
There is no such thing as total freedom, as soon as two or more people start to interact. It is not possible for both to be free at the same time in the same respect. I cannot have the freedom to stand where you are currently standing without robbing you of that freedom. There's just no way we can both be free.

It is a common misconception that there is a possible truely free world. An example of this is:
In a free world I would just carry a bat and beat the crap out of them. :jmp:
This is wrong, because it's not freedom. It's freedom for JANKERSON, but not for the ones he'd be beating. There is still control in this situation, he only doesn't percieve it as such because it's not happening to him.

Control and limits for freedom will always appear in any situation. It's just a natural effect. The basic idea behind any democracy is that the control is evenly distributed amongst the people, and that all have their freedom impacted in the same ways. While this doesn't allow for the absolute freedom of single persons, it also forbids absolute lack of freedom for single persons. In terms of mathematics, democracy, in it's ideal form, has a standard deviation of zero in terms of freedom. Every other system has more.

The actual implementation is a very different question. Countries that are, theoretically, monarchies (like Great Britain) are far more democratic than countries that claim to be democratic (like China). Issues like DMCA and Patriot Act, or their local equivalent laws in most countries, seem to put the freedom system out of balance. That does not change the fact, however, that democracy has still less freedom deviation than anything else. Also, democratic systems allow for such changes to be undone, something that is very difficult with most other systems.

JANKERSON
11-12-06, 17:30
This is wrong, because it's not freedom. It's freedom for JANKERSON, but not for the ones he'd be beating. There is still control in this situation, he only doesn't percieve it as such because it's not happening to him.




What I ment was when at work, dealing with the public the public has the freedom to treat you like **** while you have to stand there and take it. ;)

Like I said before:

To get freedom in one area you have to give up something in return usually.

But we have to put up with their ****. :hea:

That's not freedom to me in anyway. ;)


Personally I think quality of life is important. :)

Ward Dragon
11-12-06, 18:18
There is no such thing as total freedom, as soon as two or more people start to interact. It is not possible for both to be free at the same time in the same respect. I cannot have the freedom to stand where you are currently standing without robbing you of that freedom. There's just no way we can both be free.

It is a common misconception that there is a possible truely free world. An example of this is:

This is wrong, because it's not freedom. It's freedom for JANKERSON, but not for the ones he'd be beating. There is still control in this situation, he only doesn't percieve it as such because it's not happening to him.

Control and limits for freedom will always appear in any situation. It's just a natural effect. The basic idea behind any democracy is that the control is evenly distributed amongst the people, and that all have their freedom impacted in the same ways. While this doesn't allow for the absolute freedom of single persons, it also forbids absolute lack of freedom for single persons. In terms of mathematics, democracy, in it's ideal form, has a standard deviation of zero in terms of freedom. Every other system has more.

The actual implementation is a very different question. Countries that are, theoretically, monarchies (like Great Britain) are far more democratic than countries that claim to be democratic (like China). Issues like DMCA and Patriot Act, or their local equivalent laws in most countries, seem to put the freedom system out of balance. That does not change the fact, however, that democracy has still less freedom deviation than anything else. Also, democratic systems allow for such changes to be undone, something that is very difficult with most other systems.

Very well said. My personal view is that the best system would be a benevolent monarchy, but then the country is screwed when that monarch dies. So, democracy probably ends up being the most reasonable to implement fairly (although it still has tons of flaws).

Terminatorvs
11-12-06, 18:24
I don't like democracy. It's not about letting the people decide what to do, but about controlling the minds with propaganda. In the end people believe that they made a choise which has already been made for them. Sadly, I can't think of an alternative.

Mona Sax
11-12-06, 20:14
I don't like democracy. It's not about letting the people decide what to do, but about controlling the minds with propaganda. In the end people believe that they made a choise which has already been made for them. Sadly, I can't think of an alternative.
Not really. Democracy as a concept is perfectly neutral, it just describes a state in which the people decide. This can range from a direct democracy in which people can decide everything by referendums and initiatives to a representative democracy in which they can only elect politicans as their (as the name says) representatives.

What you describe is the abuse of said system.

Personally I think democracy is the best way. Of course many people have no idea about politics, but that's still better than spending your life in dependence being led by some kind of benevolent father figure (in the very best case) - In a democracy, if something goes wrong, at least you have noone else to blame but yourself. It's just a matter of time until a tyrant will take control in a monarchy / presidential system anyway. People can be influenced or even brainwashed in a democracy, but at least that's a hurdle every wannabe Hitler has to take. In an oligarchy or monarchy, you don't have to convince anybody once you're the leader.

Terminatorvs
12-12-06, 14:57
Well, where I used to live for 19 years it was just like I said. Something like that, in any case. When the elections are far behind, you rarely hear about a certain politic actually doing something. But right before the elections the streats are wallpapered (can't find a better equivalent) with election commercials (forgot the word, sorry) that desribe how good a politic is, what good things he's done to his country, etc. etc. The only thing you see on television is future elections. But when the politic is elected to be someone special, he only cares about himslelf - the money, actually - not the people. There were once the presidential elections. And one politic became the president (ever predictable). He was the one, who actually tried to do something good. After that a ridiculous anti-presidential campaign took place. The opposition was so strong, that this president was impeached.
So, now I'm convinced, that democracy is all about making money while you're elected for a term.

Cochrane
12-12-06, 15:24
Where did you live for 19 years?

stereopathic
12-12-06, 15:34
democracy can be wonderful in the beginning when everyone appreciates the freedom, but subsequent generations who take it for granted will inevitably push the boundaries to a point where new restrictions need to be put into place. with each new restraint, a small chunk of freedom is lost. soon more restrictions are needed and more freedom is lost until the system you live in is a mockery of the system the fathers put into place. therefore, democracy is inherently a finite system, lasting for a period and then needing to be replaced by (or more likely evolving into) a more centralized government. the strengths of democracy are ultimately its weaknesses.

Cochrane
12-12-06, 15:54
Actually, I disagree. The scenario you described can be said about any system. Take the roman emperors: The second one already went mad at the end of his life (Tiberius), the third one was mad for his whole time in office. They took the freedoms they had for granted and decided to test their boundaries, destroying themselves and parts of their population in the process.

Can the same thing happen to a democratic system? Absolutely. However, democracy allows for the fastest peaceful government changes, and when people get fed up enough with the current situation, things are likely going to change again. Take the longest running large-scale experiment in democracy: The USA. While they had phases where freedom was limited (think of McCarthy or the current Patriot Act), there is also a good record for giving freedom back, like in 1965. It can be said that overall, even after 230 years, the USA still remain a mainly free country. It is difficult to say this about any (true, not UK) monarchy.

Mona Sax
12-12-06, 16:26
Well, where I used to live for 19 years it was just like I said. Something like that, in any case. When the elections are far behind, you rarely hear about a certain politic actually doing something. But right before the elections the streats are wallpapered (can't find a better equivalent) with election commercials (forgot the word, sorry) that desribe how good a politic is, what good things he's done to his country, etc. etc. The only thing you see on television is future elections. But when the politic is elected to be someone special, he only cares about himslelf - the money, actually - not the people. There were once the presidential elections. And one politic became the president (ever predictable). He was the one, who actually tried to do something good. After that a ridiculous anti-presidential campaign took place. The opposition was so strong, that this president was impeached.
So, now I'm convinced, that democracy is all about making money while you're elected for a term.
Sure, but that's a problem that's caused by human nature, not by democracy. Many politicians only want power and money, that's the same in every political system one could possibly imagine. Personally, I'd prefer ads and campaigns to governmental terror any day.

In the end, the best way is to give politicians only as much power as absolutely needed to get their job done. The more power the ordinary citizens of a state have, the better. I'm convinced a direct democracy is the best safeguard against any kind of tyranny, or as Kant put it (in a philosophical, not political way) - we have to break out of our self-induced (by laziness) immaturity. I don't want to spend my life being led by anyone else.

stereopathic
12-12-06, 18:09
Actually, I disagree. The scenario you described can be said about any system. Take the roman emperors: The second one already went mad at the end of his life (Tiberius), the third one was mad for his whole time in office. They took the freedoms they had for granted and decided to test their boundaries, destroying themselves and parts of their population in the process.

Can the same thing happen to a democratic system? Absolutely. However, democracy allows for the fastest peaceful government changes, and when people get fed up enough with the current situation, things are likely going to change again. Take the longest running large-scale experiment in democracy: The USA. While they had phases where freedom was limited (think of McCarthy or the current Patriot Act), there is also a good record for giving freedom back, like in 1965. It can be said that overall, even after 230 years, the USA still remain a mainly free country. It is difficult to say this about any (true, not UK) monarchy.

if you charted the freedoms given to the majority of US citizens on a line graph, you'd see them slowly ebbing away. are we free? yes, for the most part, but not as free of restriction as we were a hundred years ago. the trend is headed the wrong direction.

to reverse it, the USA should give more say to the people. we are really a republic in which the individual voter has very little say. we are ruled by our representatives who are concerned only with their own re-election and therefore pander to the majority of their voters instead of looking after the needs of the minority. democracy calls for referendum, which Americans have very little at the federal level. and so the will of the minority is often cast out (especially in terms of civil rights, historically speaking) and democracy with it.

it's disturbing. i personally feel as if the wheels are coming off and feel powerless to stop it. we're governed by lobbyists and therefore greed and corruption. the citizenship is mostly disinterested and apathetic, and though some semblance of change seems a possibility, it is certainly a long way off.

Cochrane
12-12-06, 20:19
if you charted the freedoms given to the majority of US citizens on a line graph, you'd see them slowly ebbing away. are we free? yes, for the most part, but not as free of restriction as we were a hundred years ago. the trend is headed the wrong direction.

to reverse it, the USA should give more say to the people. we are really a republic in which the individual voter has very little say. we are ruled by our representatives who are concerned only with their own re-election and therefore pander to the majority of their voters instead of looking after the needs of the minority. democracy calls for referendum, which Americans have very little at the federal level. and so the will of the minority is often cast out (especially in terms of civil rights, historically speaking) and democracy with it.

it's disturbing. i personally feel as if the wheels are coming off and feel powerless to stop it. we're governed by lobbyists and therefore greed and corruption. the citizenship is mostly disinterested and apathetic, and though some semblance of change seems a possibility, it is certainly a long way off.

If we look at the average figures, you'll see a huge increase of freedom for example at 1965, when "all men are equal" was finally expanded to african americans, or in 1920, when voting rights were given to women. In addition, don't forget the invention of the internet, which has had a huge impact on personal freedom, because it allows free communication in a scale not known before. This is not only freedom in itself. Since it gives access to a real lot of information about any issues, decisions on who to vote get a much better foundation. Making well-reasoned decisions instead of the ones given by the media is freedom, too, and the ability to do so has increased. Freedom is not just a political issue, it's one that is defined by the whole society.

That the citizenship is disinterested and apathic might not be an issue that is that new after all. The ability for all people in the US to even know what is going on in Washington, D.C is something relatively new.

You also might want to compare the US to other countries. The USA are very unusual in that they allow direct election of key official in the executive and judicative branches, something that many other democratic countries lack. I don't know whether that freedom is necessary, but it is certainly one you have and one that could be taken away without making your country really unfree.

Terminatorvs
13-12-06, 16:17
Where did you live for 19 years?

I lived in Lithuania. The ex-president I mentioned is Rolandas Paksas.
By the way, are there any other countries where the president was impeached?