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.
That quote is from the old Robin Williams flick "Man Of The Year". But it got me thinking -- are we about the clash of ideas? And if so, in today's climate of hot clashes, is that good or bad?
I think it is great. The extreme alternative is tyranny where one person decides everything. I believe everyone's opinion is valuable and every attempt should be made to accommodate as many diverse opinions as possible when drafting laws. There is always the possibility of mob rule, but I would take that over tyranny.
What we have now is not really a democracy but a "two-party-ocracy". One party supports an issue 100% and the other is 100% against it. Anyone with a differing view or a viable compromise is shut out.
Democracy is - self government. People that consist of individuals that can govern themselves create ideal society.
"Ideas" are great, sure. Problem is, everyone has idea and everyone's idea is geared towards that particular person personal benefit and interest. And if you somehow manage to change them to the point they put everyone's else benefit above their own - well, read sentence one.
Do you actually realize, how advanced has to be each individual in a given society for democracy to really work? Did such society ever exist? Look around, in your close circle. How many of those individuals will you trust to have THEIR ideas implemented? Or, even united into a workable idea? Heck, stand in front of a mirror and look at yourself impartially and honestly. Are YOUR ideas, education, expertise, values, character suited to govern a society? Others? Are you without a sin to raise your hand?
I am surely not.
What's wrong with "tyranny"? I'll use better word. What's wrong with a suitable, enlightened individual to run a country? Have you not noticed, how a SINGLE person always played major role in a given country development? Great kings or emperors or even presidents? A "spearhead" was always present in history. Along with major developments and progress. As when ONE rules, decisions are made fast and efficient. Without all that circus of courting crowds to play make believe game of democracy.
Yet, every time it went to ochlocracy, it ended in chaos and ochlos crying out loud for a tyrant to take over. As inherently, ochlos, or crowd, can only yell about democracy and US ruling but in reality, all it wants is to forgo the burden as soon as adrenaline weathers out and give reigns of power to someone else and go back to "spectacles and food".
"..the worst form of government except for all the other ones that have been tried."
"..a lamb eating dinner with two wolves."
The only problem I have with democracy is when the guy I vote for doesn't win. Then I think it's terrible and people are stupid. When he does win, I think it's great and reflect on peoples wisdom.
It appears they may be a misreading of the question. The topic is not about each individuals definition of democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phetaroi
That quote is from the old Robin Williams flick "Man Of The Year". But it got me thinking -- are we about the clash of ideas? And if so, in today's climate of hot clashes, is that good or bad?
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.
