orlok Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 ....to attempt to become leader of their respective country actually the kind of person one would want to run the country?IMHO anyone who is after that power is utterly unsuited to the role of PM or president etc.And please don't tell me they do it because they want to make a difference.comments please.rgdsOrLoKoff to bed to be ill with icky flu nastieness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HasimirFenring Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 A personally ambitious person is not necessarily a bad leader for a nation. If we are to take the extremely cynical viewpoint, as you are, then you must at least concede that politicians want to be relected. The easiest way to win enough support to do that is (in a democracy) to do some (even if it isn't much) good for your country.Generally, I think Plato would have agreed with you. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."-Winston Churchill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 If we are about Platon, I would turn the problem: why people ABLE to lead the country couldn't be forced to rule it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 sure those kinds of people could rule a country, people who are extremely hungry for power, or to put it nicely are "ambitious". The key is, would they make good and healthy rulers? no, most likely they wouldnt. See the problem with that kind of mindset is it is selfish, and generally can lead to a lack of sensitivity towards the people. That is my opinion though anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Acriku Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 The people who want to run the country mostly do so due to their own agenda that they're pushing. They think it is right, that it will make this country better, and be better for the people. I don't see why they can't be good or healthy rulers. I don't see at all a relationship between the two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dude_Doc Posted October 13, 2004 Share Posted October 13, 2004 It's always hard to know what the people wants, because people are different and have different goals. Some believe that capitalism is good, that it makes people want to work more, that there is a sence of control, some think communism is better because it offers people equal chances and justice. You can't simply force people in believing what's right and what's wrong.Being a politician is hard, but being a dictator is easy. I think most politicians want to be something in between. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMA_1 Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 being a dictator is extremely difficult, and can be done in a right and wrong way. I highly suggest to never think being a dictator as something simple and stupid. It is probably the hardest way to rule since you do not usually have any checks and balances, and because of this you have the responsibility laid completely on you. You do not have usualyl a cabinet that can take part of the blame, or you dont have a congress that can take power away from you, or can overrule you. I think it is closed minded to think that because you are a dictator that it means you have no possibility of being a good leader, or that a dictatorship is always the most evil way to rule. It is ethno-centric, since we live in an age of "democracy", we generally think that the supposed rule of the "people" is the only way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlok Posted October 14, 2004 Author Share Posted October 14, 2004 Ok, from all the other posts it seems that most people do not believe that true democracy can work. As true communism has never been achieved, and a dictatorship is not really the best form of govt.What form of government can work?is it? (as it sounds quite good).....An anarcho-syndicalist commune?.Who take it in turns to act as a executive officer for the week.All the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting, by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, and a two-thirds majority in the case of more major events?let me know your thoughts.LoK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 I think it was in Dune where there was a quote that a person must have power thrust upon them It required constant mental cleansing to face up to the fact of her great powerover the Sisterhood. I did not seek this power. It was thrust upon me. Andshe thought: Power attracts the corruptible. Suspect all who seek it. Sheknew the chances were great that such people were susceptible to corruption oralready lost.From Chapterhouse Dune, may be what I am thinking of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlok Posted October 17, 2004 Author Share Posted October 17, 2004 also i must point out my ideal government was taken directly from the script of Monty Pythons' Holy Grail.but still think its good.suprised no ones noticed.or am I showing my age again?LoK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Ah, drat. I should have spotted that one. I noticied it was a bit odd, but couldn't put my finger on why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted October 17, 2004 Share Posted October 17, 2004 Heinlin Democracy ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Like Henlein? I would call it "healthy fascism" ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlok Posted October 18, 2004 Author Share Posted October 18, 2004 I dont know Heinline's view of democracy.Can anyone explain it, in simple, easy to use terms that come in an aerosol container?Not all of us are super clever :(rgdsLoK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 OkayCitizens and Civilans..He use's it in several books, but i have only read Starship troopers and parts of a cat who walks through walls, both good reads.Democracies became corrupt and bloated with beuracy and corrupt greed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 In what sense, exactly, was Sparta democratic? They officially had kings selected from an aristocracy and a tiny minotity of 'true' Spartans subjugated a massive Helot population.Need I name the sorts of people who were inspired by Sparta? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 Democratic in part"Spartan government was an odd affair, but its overwhelming characteristic was stability . The Spartans, in fact, had the most stable government in the history of ancient Greece (some historians call this stability, "political stagnation"). At the top of government was the monarchy; the monarchy, however, was a dual monarchy. Below the monarchy was a council which was composed of the two kings plus twenty-eight nobles, all of whom were over sixty, that is, retired from the military. The council debated and set legislative and foreign policy, and was the supreme criminal court. Below the council (or above it), was an assembly of all the Spartiate males (a democracy, in other words)some website.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 "Spartiate males"All 600 of them or however many of them there were by the end of the Peloponnesian war. In a country of tens of thousands of Helots - that's democracy? While you've still got a ruling monarchy? Democracy in part, perhaps, but a tiny fraction-part. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 In democracy, everyone considered as human has a citizenship and all citizen rights with it. Heilots shouldn't be counted, as greek spirit didn't thought about them as true humans, if you understand me, they were simply lessers. Like those thin ones in Henlein's Troopers. Citizens had to serve in military, but could at least participate at popular senates, both genders, or one for family, I think. True power was in hands of closed aristocracy: blood played role here, not military skill, they were descendants of the founders. Even fascism as we know it is closer to democracy, as there you could at least join the party ;D But sure, that's why Sparta was so stable and winning one war after another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 So if I officially defined humans as 'believers in God', would that be fair?Or as 'believers in His Holiness George W Bush II': could I then annull any non-bush votes on the grounds that they were made out by non-humans?Slaves were ανθρωποι, humans, just not πολιται, citizens, or ελευθεροι, free men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orlok Posted October 19, 2004 Author Share Posted October 19, 2004 ok,if i can interject here.moving away from the democracy/sparta thing (but feel free to continue the discussion :) )What is the fairest and best form of government (if indeed there can be such a thing)?Has it ever been implemented?Has it worked in real life?Also ta for the heinline Infosorry to interrupt.RgdsLoK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 So if I officially defined humans as 'believers in God', would that be fair?Or as 'believers in His Holiness George W Bush II': could I then annull any non-bush votes on the grounds that they were made out by non-humans?Slaves were ανθρωποι, humans, just not πολιται, citizens, or ελευθεροι, free men.Democracy doesn't have fairness in its definition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exatreide Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Orlok, Henlein democracy...even though it hasn't been practiced...yet ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemafakei Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 In which case, Caid, the democracy of which I speak will always be very different to the democracy in the terms you think of it. Bear this in mind in future debates.Orlok...What is the fairest and best form of government (if indeed there can be such a thing)?In short: A system of potentially total participation whereby individual decisions are made by impartial and informed adjudicators. The selection criteria would have been based on a combination of minimum criteria for government (qualifications in subjects where expertise is required), impartiality (no party has a vesed interest in manipulating the decision one way or the other), and a random element for the rest.This would, by necessity, have to be complemented by an economic overhaul which approportions wages by effort and contribution to society, such that personal financial pressure cannot be put on those making any given decision.Has it ever been implemented?No.The random selective element worked fairly well in Classical Athens, but this is only one element.Has it worked in real life?Well, it's never been tested so no, not yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Well, if you call this politeia a democracy, then I must agree with you, as its perfection ;D Problem is that even in fascism can potentially whole population participate on governing: by entering the party and making a carrier there, as we can say that structure of fascist party is close to a modern mercenary army or ecumenic hierarchy (and I want no comparision, as I myself am a catholic...), all enter the game with same chances. Altough the system is in fact an oligarchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.