Kerry???

[jgm1975]

In fact, Aristotle classified political systems based on the amount of people that participate in the decision-making process. For each category, he had the "good" system and the "distortion". It went something like this:

Only one person
good system = Philosopher-King; distortion = Dictatorship

Only a few
good system = Aristocracy (i.e. the "excellent" in power); distortion = Oligarchy (i.e. the rich in power)

Many people
good system = The "Polity" (i.e. a system by which only capable people get the right to vote); distortion = Democracy

The ancient philosopher had seen the problems democracy can give rise to. In his mind, only capable people should have the right to vote, i.e. people who are not weak-minded and susceptible to believe lies and nonsense. You need a license to drive, yet you can vote automatically once you turn 18. But you endanger society more by voting for unworthy leaders, than by driving. The problem is by what standards do we measure who is capable enough to vote? Practicality is an issue here.

[Anonymouse]

In fact, Aristotle classified political systems based on the amount of people that participate in the decision-making process. For each category, he had the "good" system and the "distortion". It went something like this:

Only one person
good system = Philosopher-King; distortion = Dictatorship

Only a few
good system = Aristocracy (i.e. the "excellent" in power); distortion = Oligarchy (i.e. the rich in power)

Many people
good system = The "Polity" (i.e. a system by which only capable people get the right to vote); distortion = Democracy

The ancient philosopher had seen the problems democracy can give rise to. In his mind, only capable people should have the right to vote, i.e. people who are not weak-minded and susceptible to believe lies and nonsense. You need a license to drive, yet you can vote automatically once you turn 18. But you endanger society more by voting for unworthy leaders, than by driving. The problem is by what standards do we measure who is capable enough to vote? Practicality is an issue here.

I like your post, however, I have a few problems. The notion that only the right people should vote I find flawed. Who are the right people to decide who gets to vote or who doesn't? In the end, it becomes no better than democracy. You are right, democracies degenerate over time. America used to be a natural aristocracy in which only the privelaged white males had the vote, but like all things 'democracy' related, or 'social justice' or 'public' related, it diminishes overtime. In fact, I would go on to argue, like Murry Rothbard, that democracy is the worst system put onto man. The truth is, you endanger society by voting simply. You cannot blame the fact that most of the voting masses are stupid and inept, that is a given, since the masses for the most part are always stupid ( as highlighted by Hitler in Mein Kampf), and the base and ignoble always outnumber the virtuous and principled. Democracy only makes it easier for those in power to stay in power, because what better deception than to tell the masses they hold the power, instead of, as in the past, using myths and divinity to proclaim your power.

When you vote, you are throwing your energies and efforts into the system. The ignoble candidate which you vote for thinking he is the 'lesser of the two evils', is still evil, and its far more easier to set aside principle for politics, since the two are contradictions in terms, just so long as you can be a part of that big circus of illusion that you 'participated' in the collective national fetish. Everytime you vote, you are telling someone or something how to live, since as Biafra of the Dead Kennedies said something along the lines of, "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal". No matter who you elect, the government always gets elected. When one votes, one is just as guilty and lacking in principle as the people one votes for. Since the presidents are all liars, and have blood on their lands for games of empire and corruption, by voting for them, one believes one is doing something just, but in reality one is chanting the hymn of "lesser of two evils" and realizing the fact that they are both evil, yet going ahead with the vote anyway, because like the politicians, that person is willing to set aside principle and instead join the masses in reinforcing the inkling illusion that the "people are the government".

This isn't meant to say to note vote. Do as you wish. It is only a personal matter of principle for me. However, I much rather prefer a tyrant for being honest, than those rulers under democracy, for being liars.

[jgm1975]

Who are the right people to decide who gets to vote or who doesn't?

This is one of the reasons why the "Polity", as defined by Aristotle, would be difficult to implement. After the civil war in the US, some Southern states were thinking of having some sort of writing test to see if blacks could have the right to vote. Needless to say, it was designed to keep blacks away from voting. Since not everyone has the same level of education, there could be accusations of discrimination when determining who could vote. Also, who would determine what are the right standards that people abide by before having the right to vote? Conservatives, liberals? So indeed there are implementation problems as you pointed.

For the other comments about democracy, I still vote, and indeed I sometimes have this "lesser of two evils" mentality. But I really do not enjoy it. I would take a "Philosopher-King", as described by Aristotle, over Democracy any day. In fact, Aristotle had become disillusioned by Athenian democracy, so he went North and trained Alexander the Great so that he may become this "Philosopher-King". You could see Alexander's very un-conventional thinking when he advocated the union of Greeks and Persians as equals within his Empire of universal brotherhood. Since people were not that enlightened his Empire did not survive after his death.

[Anonymouse]

You should read, Democracy: The God That Failed by Hans Herman Hoppe, in which he argues that monarchy, despite all its problems, was better than democracy - which to me is a refreshing and unpopular stance to take.

[gevo]

"Unfit For Command", read that people. And the quotes are real. You cant sit there and tell me that, the veterans that signed that letter are not real, and that it is not their account.. please now, this is from the first person perspective, not hearsay.

[gevo]

Well,if you think about it, in a way democracy seperates a nation. For example, there are two choices for presidency correct, and half of the nation votes for one and the other half for the other.. where does that leave us? That leaves us divided, so right off the bat, the voted leaders start up with great resistance and a bunch of people that hate him or her.. lol. its a little bit hypocritical no?

[jgm1975]

Well,if you think about it, in a way democracy seperates a nation. For example, there are two choices for presidency correct, and half of the nation votes for one and the other half for the other.. where does that leave us? That leaves us divided, so right off the bat, the voted leaders start up with great resistance and a bunch of people that hate him or her.. lol. its a little bit hypocritical no?

Actually half of the electorate does not bother voting at all. So you have 2 types of divisions, between those who are disillusioned with the political process and those who are not, and a division among those who vote.

[jilbagh]

"Unfit For Command", read that people. And the quotes are real. You cant sit there and tell me that, the veterans that signed that letter are not real, and that it is not their account.. please now, this is from the first person perspective, not hearsay.

Again, John O'Niell, Corsine and funded by Bob Perry.

History on John O'Niell...

He was chosen by the Nixon Administration to go out in front of and debate Kerry in 1972 i believe. These accounts are on White House tape with Nixon and his aide saying "this man is a good character to go and destroy this son of a biitch". He was surfaced by the right wing and the Nixon Administration.
He was given the connections by the Nixon administration, along with an organisation that was started and compiled by Nixon Aides (again on white house tape).
Now he works as an attorney, in Houston, Texas, and ironically represents Bob Perry too, which is close with Karl Rove and the radical right wing. And who also funded his book, and his tv ads.
John O'Neill has lied on many accounts, such as his party affilation, his contacts, and his own actions in Vietnam.

Corsine...A anti-catholic bigot who has made many disturbing comments, particulary saying "there will be no more pope after this senile one finally dies"

Now the book...it is hearsay. It is filled with lies, exaggerations by a group of men who have hatred against Kerry and want to see him go down. The book has many contradictions, as do the advertisements they run in conjucntion. The quotes are real, real lies!

Again if you took time to read the links and the many sources I have backed my argument with, and the failure of the truthful and credible sources of these shameful allegations that you are making, once again it will prove that what you have been preached and led on to believe are lies.

And these men that signed "letters" or affidavits also have signed affidavits with the Navy, a US Gov't agency not a lieing snake like Perry and O'Niell, and these affidavits state that they recieved their war medals honorably. Now you're telling me that the same men who recieved medals on the same accounts, are even accusing themselves of the way the got them?

btw...have you read the book of lies "unfit for command"?

maybe you should read "Tour of Duty"...

[jilbagh]

Look Sen. John McCain, one of Bush's own key supporters, said "the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad.'' Because of it's shameful, false and vindictful lies. And yet, Bush and the campaign has still failed to directly condemn these's ads and they evade the opportunity when given. It creates a smoke screen from talking about the real issues. But if they want to compare Sen. Kerry's war record with Pres. Bush's, like Sen. Kerry said "Bring it on!" This is the The same resentful effort that was made by some Republicans with Bush against John McCain four years ago. It's pathetic, its wrong, it's evil, lets get back to the issues of today and the future. But if attacked of his service record, the counter attacks will follow to defend himself, and make truth of the lies being spread.