Music Banter

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)
-   Current Events, Philosophy, & Religion (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/)
-   -   democracy (https://www.musicbanter.com/current-events-philosophy-religion/78659-democracy.html)

DwnWthVwls 09-02-2014 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishlessExistence (Post 1484380)
I think history demonstrates that class systems, aristocracies, and caste based systems eventually end in revolution. At best it would evolve into a cult like state where the glorious leaders at the top always know what's best.

Caste system already in place, if it wasn't Bush wouldn't have ever made it close to office. It's just accepted and/or ignored.

FishlessExistence 09-03-2014 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls (Post 1484720)
Caste system already in place, if it wasn't Bush wouldn't have ever made it close to office. It's just accepted and/or ignored.

Yeah. I think money and nepotism influencing democratic elections is a wee bit different than the caste system that violated human rights in India for decades. I don't disagree U.S. Politics can be unfair but that's a touch hyberbolic

DwnWthVwls 09-04-2014 01:53 PM

It goes beyond politics. The real wealthy members of this society that have the "old" money have their hands in a lot more than elections. I agree it doesn't exactly fit the traditional definition of a caste system but I think it mirrors it closely enough to accuse it of being one.

Economy, media, war... it's all controlled to benefit "them".

Franco Pepe Kalle 09-04-2014 02:19 PM

I am for democracy.

Because we are given the rights to say what we like to say even if some of us not enjoy it. Democracy allows healthy debates for the souls and minds of the people. If we have no debates then how it can move forward or let alone be a credible country.

At least in America, we are stilled allowed debates.

John Wilkes Booth 09-04-2014 03:17 PM

there's not a caste system in the US because the classes are not quite as rigid... but beyond that we have a virtual plutocracy where money and power breeds even more money and power.

i have toyed with an idea similar to batlord's except without the birthright. civil servants would be appointed based on merit and credentials much like scientists and researchers are. if they do a poor job then they are fired.

Xurtio 09-06-2014 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord (Post 1484381)
And democracy may very well be leading to terminal government stagnation and paralysis. People are willfully ignorant, petty, self-satisfied in their over-simplified concepts of politics, and not just easily, but eager to be led like sheep. What proof do we have that the rule of the people is going to end any better? A couple hundred years of hit-and-miss successes is a blink of the eye compared to many historical governments. I think my idea is at least interesting to think about, if only to get people out of the habit of treating democracy like some kind of secular religion.

Tyranny of the majority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

+

Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

=

Plutonomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But it's hard to determine whether we should blame Democracy or just bad policy and human nature. Democracy correlates with more civility for most cultures. I think the US has tried to force feed Democracy on cultures that are still pretty feudal and it hasn't worked out for us. So maybe it's not so much that Democracy is fundamentally flawed as much as human nature isn't ready for something like that.

John Wilkes Booth 09-10-2014 09:54 AM

seems pretty obvious right.

Quote:

“You now have the potential of 200 people deciding who ends up being elected president every single time,” Obama told the group in response to a question about the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in a case called Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission, which gutted campaign finance restrictions and marked the beginning of a new big-money era in American politics.

Unless things changed dramatically, Obama predicted, “I may be the last presidential candidate who could win the way I won, which was coming out without a lot of special-interest support, without a handful of big corporate supporters, who was able to mobilize and had the time and the space to mobilize a grassroots effort, and then eventually got a lot of big donors, but started off small and was able to build. I think the capacity for somebody to do that is going to be much harder.” He continued, “In this election, I will be able to, hopefully, match whatever check the Koch brothers want to write,” referring to the billionaire industrialists Charles and David Koch. “But I’m an incumbent president who already had this huge network of support all across the country and millions of donors. I’m not sure that the next candidate after me is going to be able to compete in that same way.”

Obama turned to face Gates, who stood awkwardly, his hands stuffed in his suit pants pockets. “And at that point, you genuinely have a situation where 10 people—hey, you know, Bill could write a check.” And, Obama pointed out, it wasn’t just Gates, whose fortune, then estimated at $61 billion, Democrats had been hoping to tap in a big way. “Actually, there are probably five or six people in this room,” Obama said, gesturing to Ballmer and others, as nervous laughter spread through the crowd. Obama plowed ahead insistently, eyebrows raised, his voice rising with agitation as he stepped toward the donors. “I mean, there are five or six people in this room tonight that could simply make a decision—this will be the next president—and probably at least get a nomination, if ultimately the person didn’t win. And that’s not the way things are supposed to work.”
Big Money, the Koch Brothers and Me - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO Magazine

let's be honest.. how can we expect any other result when we combine capitalism with democracy? democracy makes a man's opinion valuable and capitalism makes a man's opinion buyable. this is exactly what you should expect. i'm not sure if obama is being disingenuous or naive when he says "that's not the way things are supposed to work."

The Batlord 09-10-2014 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Wilkes Booth (Post 1486606)
seems pretty obvious right.



Big Money, the Koch Brothers and Me - Kenneth P. Vogel - POLITICO Magazine

let's be honest.. how can we expect any other result when we combine capitalism with democracy? democracy makes a man's opinion valuable and capitalism makes a man's opinion buyable. this is exactly what you should expect. i'm not sure if obama is being disingenuous or naive when he says "that's not the way things are supposed to work."

I think this thread I made a while back is relevant to this discussion.

http://www.musicbanter.com/games-lis...votes-com.html

John Wilkes Booth 09-10-2014 03:00 PM

i know you weren't being serious but that business would be brilliant if only there was a way to check up on who voted for who to make sure you got your money's worth. cause if someone paid me 100 dollars to vote for them i would just take the money and not vote anyway since they'd never know the difference.

djchameleon 09-10-2014 03:16 PM

I don't think they would just give the money up front.

You'd have to show proof that you voted for the person in order to get the money.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39 AM.


© 2003-2024 Advameg, Inc.