Have you actually got a rational point to make ?
If so stand up and make it, instead of posting all these silly, mysterious, non points that sound vaguely insinuating.
If you haven’t got the courage to say what you think then what are you doing in GDs in the first place?
Either shit or get off of the pot.
That should be ‘apparent level of democracy’, but otherwise, yes to this.
I have to add that what we in America call ‘democracy’ is very different from how it’s practiced in most other places we consider democratically-ruled, and not in a good way. Most people are going to only think about politics occasionally in their spare time, and not very deeply at that. A political system that doesn’t work well with that, just won’t work well.
Our system of checks and balances, where 41 Senators can tie the hands of the President, the House, and a Senate majority, gives the appearance of responsibility for how things are going to the majority party (when control isn’t divided), but without giving it enough control to really be responsible. There’s a good reason why no other major democracy has gone with a bicameral legislature.
A classic for-instance is the stimulus bill. In a parliamentary democracy, Prime Minister Obama’s staff would have figured out how much stimulus was really needed to get the country back on track, and passed a bill with that much stimulus, rather than rejecting upfront any alternatives that didn’t have a chance of getting 60 votes in the Senate. If it worked to the voters’ satisfaction, then the Dems would have remained in the majority; otherwise, not. I think that asking for a whole lot more than this level of analysis from most voters is a mistake.
If you can’t control your emotions enough to answer a simple question, perhaps you should re-evaluate your own presence here. As it happens, I’m not constrained to follow your directives no matter how bellicose you choose to become.
If you had the honesty to answer the question, I’ll hazard that you would have denied believing anything that you know to be untrue. Therefore, people who disagree with you must be wrong, or at best uninformed, and we are back to only those who agree with you are “qualified” to vote.
Probably according to what you wanted to hear.
Except that 50 million educated households tend to produce more, tend to make better decisions and tend to contribute more than one educated king. The fact is that whether a system “works” has less to do with an all-powerful king and mroe to do with the people who make up that system working in enlightened self-interest.
Well the fundamental problem is how does one define “good government” and who defines it? Democracy is an attempt to align the interests of those who govern with those who are governed by them. The trade-off is that the effectiveness of government by the people is a reflection of those people for good or ill.
A bit simplistic and one-sided.
Again, why do you assume a king will act in the people’s interest instead of their own? Especially when history has demonstrated that they tend not to. At least with democracy, you have a non-violent mechanism for removing a bad king.
Once again you have singulary failed to make a point, any point, so no change there then.
Just as you’re not constrained to follow my directives I myself am not constrained to answer your questions, particulary as you have failed to express your opinion.
But as a reasonable person I will make an exception in this case, though the rule is to attack the persons position not the person themself as you are so obviously attempting to do.
Curiously, attempting this while putting up a pretence that you’re not.
The question in itself is meaningless,"Do I believe in something that I don’t believe in?"to rephrase your words whilst retaining the meaning.
There may be things that I believe in that may well be untrue, though I of course wouldn’t know that until informed otherwise.
There have been things in the past that I thought were the case and I have found out later that I was wrong.
I believe in hard proof, evidence, logic and facts.
If someone, anyone, can inform me using these tools that ANY opinion of mine is wrong, I will not only change my opinion to fit the facts but openly admit that I was wrong.
Only a fool opts to live in a world that suits them as opposed to the real world.
But all too often this is the case where people choose to believe in that which they WISH was true because its fairer then the harsh reality of life.
The "Everyone gets a prize"and the “I’m the best in the world at being me” mindset.
We’re not talking about a hypothetical situation here, this has actually happened to me in the past (though in my defence not very often) and on discovering that I’ve been wrong I have changed my viewpoint and owned up to it publicly.
Lastly if you don’t want a bellicose response to your posts then don’t attack a poster no matter how "subtly"you try to pull it off.
The saying about the pot by the way,I got from a former POTUS(not personally), I think it was L.B.Johnson but I could be wrong.
If you’ve something you’d like to get off your chest, there is always The Pit. I have nothing more to say to you here, nor is there anything you have to say that would interest me. Good day.
Sounds good to me, cheerio.
This is the central fallacy of populism & democracy. Of course democracies don’t unify the governed & the governor; the landscape, the dumb beasts, the human generations yet unborn, even neighboring countries downwind are all affected by our decisions, but without franchise. But populist democracy creates the delusional assumption that it unites the governed & the governor, when this is utterly impossible.
Monarchy avoids that false solution. The sentiments of the present populace are no more correct than the requirements of the future, merely a problem to be overcome.
In a democracy, the populace is the king, that is, that electorate that appoints a government. If the populace is a bad king, how do you remove the populace from power except by abolishing democracy?
And our populace is a bad king. It’s not just that the fiscal policies are unsustainable & self-destructive. We are destroying life in the oceans for lack of environmental sustainability law. And most of us don’t even see it, because like you we think that giving the electorate what it wants is enough for law & justice.
As people keep pointing out to you, history has demonstrated repeatedly that the only “requirements of the future” monarchs typically care about are their own. Theoretically some enlightened benevolent tyrant would make the best ruler. But such people rarely, if ever exist.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Sir Winston Churchill
But their perceived self-interests do not run directly counter to sustainable economics. The perceived self-interest of a democratic electorate always will.
Despotism is sometimes good, sometimes bad. Democracy will always eat its own seed corn, and then try to swindle its neighbors to feed itself.
Their self-interests do not run counter to their own economic interests, and that of those they care about (which may be very few people). It often runs counter to the economic interest of the vast majority of the common people. In the middle ages, do you think the aristocracy gave a damn about the economic situation of the peasants?
Some did, in a defective way.
Do you think a modern democracy gives a damn about the economic situation outside its borders?
Because hell yeah it does. A democracy’s trade policy & foreign policy exist to make sure that other countries get screwed over hard. When everyone else is in grinding poverty, then you can tell yourself you’re rich. That’s democracy right there.
There isn’t really a dividing line between democracy/majority rule on one side & ethnocracy/racism/nationalism on the other. They are the same. Athens & Rome were slaver cultures above all else. And I’m supposed to think the Habsburgs were worse? Give me a break.
It was thanks to Democracy that Apartheid in South Africa ended.
I guess the population of South Africa will have to learn that that means that they will have to screw other nations around them hard. 
(it was when apartheid was active that South Africa was screwing with other nations in Africa)
As for the “their perceived self-interests [of despots] do not run directly counter to sustainable economics.” Applied to monarchs, one can not forget that a huge cause of WWI was the imperialistic designs by the rulers of the day to control, exploit or steal more trade routes and colonies. Many then realized that they could not sustain the monarchs.
Later, the despots of the communist world did usually run directly counter to sustainable economics.
It was?
Well, of course there was internal and international pressure, but the fall of the racist government in South Africa came as a result of negotiations with the ANC that culminated in elections in 1994, the first in South Africa with universal suffrage. The white rulers in SA had little choice by then, but the end of the despot rule in SA came at the ballot box.
Are you really trying to tell us that you think a tyrant cares about anything outside his borders?
I supose you are entitled to your opinion, regardless of how ignorant and uninformed it appears to be. But I think if you actually look at history for the past thousand years and compare the economic success of democracies versus non-democracies, you will have your answer.
Then again, maybe you have a different criteria of what “success” is. Maybe in your mind, implementing a particular ideology is more important than individual economic and political freedom. A lot of dictators feel that way. It usually ends up with millions of people dead from war, purges, and starvation caused by their misguided, self-absorbed policies.
You’ve provided not an ounce of evidence supporting the notion that democracy is inferior to other forms of government. Do you, in fact, have any such evidence?
I mean, you’re not exactly coming up with a new idea here. The idea that “We need a strong leader to save the people from themselves” is an old one. It’s the common refrain of fascists and communists.
Regarding China and their budding 21st century Mandarin government…
The Chinese philosopher-king/technocratic leadership ends with CCP elite in Beijing. There is no denying that they are a savvy, enlightened bunch, but they are the embodiment of the ultimate top-heavy policy wonk tank. Drill into provincial and municipal politics your more akin to find something like this.
*
The background is that China instructed local governments to meet emissions reductions of 20 percent by the end of the 11th five-year plan, which corresponds with the close of the 2010 calendar year. As UPI reports, local governments have responded by simply turning off the power. In a series of rolling blackouts, local authorities throughout China have cut off electricity to industries, both profitable and failing.
*
The article notes that most businesses just fired up diesel generators, decreasing diesel supply and increasing price.
It isn’t that far from the backyard smelters of Mao’s time.
What you’re not getting is that “individual economic and political freedom” is itself a particular ideology. And a destructive one. Freedom? Good grief, that’s a whole other thread.
In any case, democracies are about majority rule. Not freedom, not equality, but power. And power corrupts, right? So power to the people means the corruption of the people.
I believe in sustainability. The despot who would throw you in a dungeon for wearing purple when only he can wear purple is not necessarily going to invade another country to feed his nation’s children. Sure, he might, but a democracy sooner or later must. Democracy is oft the bulwark of slavery, racism, & superstition. But mostly it’s the basis of populism: the delusion that the only requirement for a given path to be good is that it be popular. And that ends up with destruction on a total scale. It’s happening now.