Jurassic Park, reality?

[Anathema]

TMA, the Greeks invented the principles of democracy, but the elite citizens didn't grant everybody equal status. How could they, if their culture was based on slavery? The elite would be desposed. What do you suggest anyway? That we let some facist/communist takes over your country and established a dictatorial state? You seriously can't say you don't prefer democracy over that.

Edric, I think I would rather have to run around in the wild being hunted on than spend a lifetime in a small cage to be slaughtered once I'm mature. Plants, if they have feelings, wouldn't mind standing on a field, but animals do not enjoy living their lives in small cages. Holding plants is less inhumane then holding animals.

[Acriku]

Earth you have no basis other than what YOU THINK how you would feel. For all we know animals might not care about anything and just live their life in a cage, because they might not know what it is to be free.

[TMA_1]

Earth... Democracy has never existed. The greek ideas for democracy were never fully carried out. I would rather live in a country ruled by one superpower. A king or emperor. America and other democratic countries purposely set it so that not much in government would happen. This leads to stability. It also leads to absolutes that dont allow for growth IMO. So far we see that the nations that last the longest are controlled by tyrants in the true greek word.

[ordos45]

You don't want to live in a system like Greece's Draconian System. It has a way of turning oppressive really quick, along with the executions for no reason, etc.

[TMA_1]

No no. A general term of hte greek Tyrant. A king of sorts. Or some sort of enlightened monarchy. Also a government is always going to be as bad as it's people are. There were good tyrants during that type of rule.

[Acriku]

Tyrant wasn't a bad thing back then, but when the tyrants starting turning bad, the term changed with it, to what it's known as today.

[Anathema]

Look, if you give a single person full power over an entire nation, then things are bound to go wrong. It has been proven countless of times in history. And how do you know what exactly the ideas of ancient Greece was? Democracy means that the population controlls the country, and basicly that is true in most western countries.

[Edric O]

Are you an advocate of absolutism, TMA? Seeing how all monarchies were defeated by democracies, it is clear that monarchy is a failure.

I agree that there is no absolute democracy in the world right now, and most of them are corrupt. But that is because the people have very little true power. All they can do is vote and change tyrants every few years. All power should go to the people. They should be the ones voting laws and running the country! In the past, this was impossible, because you couldn't get everyone in a single place. They're just too many! But now, communications have greatly improved. If everyone had a computer, they could be linked in a country-wide network that could allow all the people to actively share legislative power! This is how a true democracy could be created.

TMA, I know people are inherently evil. But they can learn to control themselves and not act on that evil! God believes in humanity, why can't you?

Earthnuker, I agree with Acriku on this one. Also, I don't know about you, but I would much rather live in a cage than be constantly on the look-out, running from predators. Being hunted is not a nice feeling. Just play Aliens vs. Predator 2 to see how it feels. :) Besides, you don't know how animals feel anyway!

[Anathema]

That last would be a matter of opinion ;). Yes, we don't know what animals feel (if anything at all) or how they think, so let's close that subject.

Maybe democracy never will work perfect- very probable in fact, as nothing is perfect. people are sometimes powerless and governments maybe corrupt, but it is still better then the alternative. Though we will always be dependant on those who represent their voters, I'd hate to think what would happen if nobody exerted any controll- there would be chaos and anarchy everywhere.

[nemafakei]

Let us consider the phrase "power corrupts". The idea of democracy is that power shared across the entire population will not be sufficient in any individual to corrupt any one. However, modern democracy fails in two ways: firstly, democracies elect representatives who individually hold power that would otherwise be spread across thousands of constituents - possibly sufficient to corrupt. Secondly, there is the problem that politics in a democracy where the people do not use their power or do not use it sensibly turns into a popularity contest, or a choice between larger parties so similar that the public are apathetic about any, and therefore about all politics. We see here the opposite to "power corrupts" - "weakness breeds disinterest" - without the choice of something different, people take what they are given for granted, and begin to ignore it.

"still better then the alternative"

This indicates you have considered all possible alternatives.

Once the landsraad take over, this will all be irrelevant.

[Anathema]

Democracy where everybody is involved in making decisions would be too chaotic, and what's more, most people lack the knowledge and judgement to make political decisions. And the disintrest in politics has always existed- if you give everybody the right to vote for any decision, a lot of people still won't turn up because they think that their vote won't make any difference.

Nema, what you say makes sense, but can you think of any good alternative to democracy?

[Edric O]

If the electronic voting system is well-organized, this kind of democracy where everyone votes on political decisions can work. And if the people get a good political education, they will know how to make good decisions.

I can think of a very good alternative: a dictatorship when a fair and incorruptible dictator. But no human can be that. So the dictator would have to be something else... AI, anyone? But AI's can malfuction. So we have to keep looking...

[TMA_1]

lol... AI is so far from becoming Intelligent. Humans cant handle democracy in large groups. If everybody had their own choice, we would get nowhere. Thats why we are a republic. Where we tell representitives what we want. They decide what to do what the people say based on if they are good ideas or not. It whittles down the people in power. Enables the government to run somewhat smoothly. Look at it this way. A machine with less parts is less likely to malfunction. The more parts you add, the more complex. This is why democracy cant work, and why republics barely work at all.

[Edric O]

Give me a country and I'll prove you wrong. ;)

I'm sure I could make a true democracy work, but it would take some 2 generations.

And I have the added bonus of being incorruptible. Why? Because I don't want anything that can be bought. I'm perfectly happy with my current lifestyle. Of course, nothing is certain, and I don't know how I would react to absolute power... that's why I would put several safety checks in place to make sure I don't give in to corruption.

[Acriku]

Corruption is unavoidable and unforeseeable. Everyone succumbs to the inner reality within all of us. You are no exception, you are but an example. :)

[Edric O]

True, that's very likely.

[TMA_1]

Exactly Acriku. Edric... your a smart guy and I see what you are getting at. I just think democracy works. Idealism never wins in the end. The world is filth because man is evil. That includes me. everybody in this world. Only by christ is it saved in my opinion.

[Edric O]

You forget who actually "wins" in the end, TMA...

"All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing". TMA, you advocate doing nothing, thus letting evil triumph without a fight.

[Anathema]

I hate to use terms such as "evil" or "good". Man is selfish, usually cares more about himself then others- but that's not evil, that's natural instinct.

Idealism never wins in the end.

Then how about WWF, amnesty international and Unicef? Those were founded because of idealistic reasons, and they did accomplish a lot- not as much as you could wish for, but still. Idealists are people who see that something is wrong, but instead of others, actually do something about it and do not give up because they believe in what they are doing.

[Edric O]

Blurring the line between good and evil is very dangerous, Earthnuker. Other than that, I agree with you.

[Anathema]

Then how would you define evil? Sure, you could call dictators like Stalin evil, but I prefer to call them psychotic rather then evil.

[Edric O]

IMO, evil is what goes against the will of God. You can safely say that slaughtering millions does go against the will of God.

[Acriku]

In a way the Taliban were idealists, atleast from your definition Nuker. They saw something wrong with the US, they do something about and never did stop because they believed in what they did. You see, my point is that it can go either way, but it's what humanity does with it as an individual that makes it good or evil. We are the H bonds and OH bonds of Neutral Water.

[Timenn]

Ok, but you can say that there are 'good' and 'bad' idealists. It's there idealism subject what decides if they are 'good' or 'bad'

[nemafakei]

I do have an alternative - consiliary rule - I'm finalising it at the moment.

"evil is what goes against the will of God"

But who defines the will of God? That in itself is not sufficient to define evil.

"I just think democracy works"

Bush.

Just wait. Democracy as we know it will almost certainly fall, fade or turn sour.