Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
IMO between the two, the Democracy is a better system because it is for the good of the many, not the few.
Democracy is a horrible system. Historically speaking, it leads to tyranny. Why? Because the will of many can be imposed upon the will of a few without regard to justice.
You can't really have private property in a democracy. Think eminent domain as an unjust democratic principle. Your labor can be taxed and spent without your input. Your rights can and will be taken away at the point of a loaded gun. Democracy doesn't work.
Democracy is a horrible system. Historically speaking, it leads to tyranny. Why? Because the will of many can be imposed upon the will of a few without regard to justice.
You can't really have private property in a democracy. Think eminent domain as an unjust democratic principle. Your labor can be taxed and spent without your input. Your rights can and will be taken away at the point of a loaded gun. Democracy doesn't work.
And a republic is any better. Rome was a republic and became a military dictatorship too. America has lasted quite possibly longer than forms of most Democracy or Republic the world has seen. We can see America turn more towards a republic with the midterms as more people vote Republicans who help the rich at the expense of the many (though voting Democrat is more of the same of late) and turn the nation into an oligarchy where only a few (typically the rich) run it and use the laws to benefit them more than the collective nation.
And a republic is any better. Rome was a republic and became a military dictatorship too. America has lasted quite possibly longer than forms of most Democracy or Republic the world has seen. We can see America turn more towards a republic with the midterms as more people vote Republicans who help the rich at the expense of the many (though voting Democrat is more of the same of late) and turn the nation into an oligarchy where only a few (typically the rich) run it and use the laws to benefit them more than the collective nation.
Republic is not a 'republican' system.
For myself, I'm in favor of a republic but I'm not in favor many of the powers that rich people have in this country.
Especially, I'm not in favor of the right to incorporate, the right to bribe politicians (campaign financing), and I'm not in favor of corporate welfare.
I don't subscribe to the notion that individual rights consist of the giving people power to exploit others.
Republic is not a 'republican' system.
For myself, I'm in favor of a republic but I'm not in favor many of the powers that rich people have in this country.
Especially, I'm not in favor of the right to incorporate, the right to bribe politicians (campaign financing), and I'm not in favor of corporate welfare.
I don't subscribe to the notion that individual rights consist of the giving people power to exploit others.
The issue is an individual (you or I for instance) thinks that this is a republic but yet the rich may not and think that through bribes through campaign finance and Super PACs, they can control and exploit and while it may not be exactly moral, it is legal. I may want the society to be more important than the individual and you want the individual to be more important than society but we can agree that what the rich have done is not right.
The issue is an individual (you or I for instance) thinks that this is a republic but yet the rich may not and think that through bribes through campaign finance and Super PACs, they can control and exploit and while it may not be exactly moral, it is legal. I may want the society to be more important than the individual and you want the individual to be more important than society but we can agree that what the rich have done is not right.
Oh, absolutely we can agree.
I believe, at its core, the problem is not necessarily the form of government that is the heart of the matter.
At its core, those charged with upholding justice must be willing and able to do so.
For example, with regard to campaign financing/bribes, that should most certainly be illegal.
But what do we do if government won't write the law and/or the police and court system won't enforce it?
Voting them out isn't an acceptable answer. If someone robbed me at gunpoint, would the answer to being robbed be for me to vote for another politician?
Of course not. And that, essentially, is why the system doesn't work.
Which is because there was a lot of industry shifts that required less workers and we have barely covered the jobs lost 6 years later and also the rising population of millennials who entered the workforce in numbers similar to the boomers 40 years ago.
Right so retool.
It's not exactly that simple because a lot of the stuff that's really in demand is more advanced. For example, there's not really a huge shortage of nurses but there's a huge shortage of skilled nurses. Nonetheless, it's something you can work up to pretty safely. There's ALWAYS jobs for CNAs because the turnover is so high. So you get your CNA certificate, then move up to an LVN, RN. Thing is no one wants to do that. They just want to goof off in college and have fun and then land that RN gig making good money and then enjoy the easy life. There's too many people coming out with a degree and zero experience or skills. Not saying you can't do that, but the people who go that route and don't have a problem getting a job are top of their class and got work experience while in school.
From the RN you go into skilled nursing, say CNRA. Bam, now you're making $150k-$200k/yr. It's not a Staples Easy Button in real life. To me, however, that beats arguing about how it's the government's fault and it was inevitable that as a person you'd fail because of corrupt politicians and rich people influencing elections. That's just not reality. Plenty of people are succeeding and plenty of people are succeeding at making excuses. Seriously, people blame government for the fact that they can't compete with an illegal Mexican with less than a fifth grade education and they don't see that the problem lies much closer to home than rich people and politicians.
Democracy is a horrible system. Historically speaking, it leads to tyranny. Why? Because the will of many can be imposed upon the will of a few without regard to justice.
You can't really have private property in a democracy. Think eminent domain as an unjust democratic principle. Your labor can be taxed and spent without your input. Your rights can and will be taken away at the point of a loaded gun. Democracy doesn't work.
Democracy is an utopia system. It could do great things for a society. It also propelled Hitler to power.democracies biggest enemy isn't dictators, but it's own people who, as history has shown again and again, destroyed the very democratic system they loved him. Democracy eventually fails because it is too ideal for messy human beings. We are taught how great democracy. But it's record has not necessarily been amazing. China isn't democratic but it has lifted millions of people out of poverty in the last 30 years. It's poverty rate went from 60% to 10%. For that reason alone, the Chinese Communist Party should be awarded the Nobel peace prize. India and Brazil are sad to be more democratic than China but how well are India and Brazil doing? Urban slums shared bathrooms messy schools dirty hospitals unsafe conditions. Are these what their democracy is supposed to do? Does this show the competency of their democracy?
China is actually more like around 30%. That's defining poverty as living on less than $1.25/day. It's impressive, don't get me wrong. But then so was Russia's first and second five-year plans. Like anything, it's good and bad. Both China and Russia had horrible human rights abuses. For example, the '23-'33 famine was largely perpetuated for no reason other than politics. Stalin regarded the subsistence farmers as politically dangerous as they were not dependent upon the state. So he starved about 7 million of them to death, arrested "agitators" who complained about all the food they were growing being taken by the state and either executed them or sent them to Siberia.
But as I said, good and bad. America's treatment of Native Americans was really almost exactly the same as Stalin's treatment of the Ukrainian peasants. Both saw an ethnic group within their nation as a political enemy standing in the way of progress. Both used genocide and and planned dependence upon the government to pacify them and bring them into line.
China is actually more like around 30%. That's defining poverty as living on less than $1.25/day. It's impressive, don't get me wrong. But then so was Russia's first and second five-year plans. Like anything, it's good and bad. Both China and Russia had horrible human rights abuses. For example, the '23-'33 famine was largely perpetuated for no reason other than politics. Stalin regarded the subsistence farmers as politically dangerous as they were not dependent upon the state. So he starved about 7 million of them to death, arrested "agitators" who complained about all the food they were growing being taken by the state and either executed them or sent them to Siberia.
But as I said, good and bad. America's treatment of Native Americans was really almost exactly the same as Stalin's treatment of the Ukrainian peasants. Both saw an ethnic group within their nation as a political enemy standing in the way of progress. Both used genocide and and planned dependence upon the government to pacify them and bring them into line.
This is exchange rate conversion rather than purchasing power parity, right?
China is actually more like around 30%. That's defining poverty as living on less than $1.25/day. It's impressive, don't get me wrong. But then so was Russia's first and second five-year plans. Like anything, it's good and bad. Both China and Russia had horrible human rights abuses. For example, the '23-'33 famine was largely perpetuated for no reason other than politics. Stalin regarded the subsistence farmers as politically dangerous as they were not dependent upon the state. So he starved about 7 million of them to death, arrested "agitators" who complained about all the food they were growing being taken by the state and either executed them or sent them to Siberia.
But as I said, good and bad. America's treatment of Native Americans was really almost exactly the same as Stalin's treatment of the Ukrainian peasants. Both saw an ethnic group within their nation as a political enemy standing in the way of progress. Both used genocide and and planned dependence upon the government to pacify them and bring them into line.
The accomplishments the Chinese communist party has made far exceed those of the Democratic Party in the usa. The Chinese understand the value of hard work, work ethic, etc. They are practical and focused in making their people richer and safer and their country richer and more powerful. And its a good thing. For too long Americans have been living in myths and complacent laziness. China's rise is going to challenge us, increase competition, and make Americans learn to survive in the global economy.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
