Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

I really would like you to explain what the ? you mean... ?

You won't find the word "democracy" anywhere in the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
And immediately after the only mention of the word "democratic society" comes a warning about the misuse of democracy: "rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
I.e - if 51% (or if 99%) of Americans who vote, vote for Bush and a war against Iran, that does not make it right. But under current American ideology about "democracy", it would be right. Under current American ideology about "democracy" Hitler would have been right. And the coming Islamic fundamentalist state of Iraq will be right. As long as 51% of active voters vote for something then that something must be right, according to "democracy". Democracy without an acceptance of unchangeing and absolute individual rights is simply mob-rule without having the problem of getting together a mob.

[karoaper]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

You won't find the word "democracy" anywhere in the UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
And immediately after the only mention of the word "democratic society" comes a warning about the misuse of democracy: "rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations".
I.e - if 51% (or if 99%) of Americans who vote, vote for Bush and a war against Iran, that does not make it right. But under current American ideology about "democracy", it would be right. Under current American ideology about "democracy" Hitler would have been right. And the coming Islamic fundamentalist state of Iraq will be right. As long as 51% of active voters vote for something then that something must be right, according to "democracy". Democracy without an acceptance of unchangeing and absolute individual rights is simply mob-rule without having the problem of getting together a mob.

First of all, the democratic process is a more than just voting. Hitler's Germany was anything but democratic. Fear and political/criminal retribution for differing ideas and control of information do not figure into democracy.

Second of all, there's no one single solution or path to fair and balanced governance. There is moreover no perfect democracy or government in the world today and probably never will. Many things have to take place, including an intelligent/educated/informed populace for governance to be fair and balanced.

Third, the electoral process in US is very wrong and very undemocractic. People didn't vote for the war in Iraq (though I'm not saying they wouldn't if they were asked). They didn't even vote for Bush. But today in US, many utterly undemocratic things are allowed to take place, such as corrupt judiciary, corrupt lobbying. That is not democracy, even in the definition of America's constitution.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

First of all, the democratic process is a more than just voting. Hitler's Germany was anything but democratic. Fear and political/criminal retribution for differing ideas and control of information do not figure into democracy.

First of all, there is no such thing as a society whether the U.S. or Nazi Germany that somehow exercises in classical liberal ideas such as freedom of expression.

Second of all, there's no one single solution or path to fair and balanced governance. There is moreover no perfect democracy or government in the world today and probably never will. Many things have to take place, including an intelligent/educated/informed populace for governance to be fair and balanced.

No one stated anything about fair and balanced governance. Why do people always assume that because some people criticize the immoral nature of democracy (like any ocracy for that matter) that somehow they want the "perfect system". That is a misconception.

Nothing is or ever will fair and balanced (except for Fox News!). You will find that it was precisely this understanding of the framers of the Constitution which is why they abhorred democracy. America never was started nor meant to be a "democracy". It was specifically designed and referred to as a republic, keeping in mind vast differences between republics and democracies. Moreover, it was a republic based on a natural aristocracy in which the leaders recognized that not all the masses can govern since not all the masses can be intelligent, educated and informed, and always and only a select few are able to be that way.

Third, the electoral process in US is very wrong and very undemocractic. People didn't vote for the war in Iraq (though I'm not saying they wouldn't if they were asked). They didn't even vote for Bush. But today in US, many utterly undemocratic things are allowed to take place, such as corrupt judiciary, corrupt lobbying. That is not democracy, even in the definition of America's constitution.

Again, America is not a democracy nor was meant to be. America was designed as a republic. In the Pledge of Allegiance you pledge allegiance to the republic not to a democracy. If you would like, I will gladly go into the details of why the distinction is very significant.

[karoaper]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

First of all, there is no such thing as a society whether the U.S. or Nazi Germany that somehow exercises in classical liberal ideas such as freedom of expression.

Well thanks for teaching me about the absence of absolutes. Of course there's no such thing as absolute freedom of expression, as there is no such thing as abosule democracy. But there is a difference between expression and information dissimination in say Sweden and in Saudi Arabia, a difference anyone should see.

No one stated anything about fair and balanced governance. Why do people always assume that because some people criticize the immoral nature of democracy (like any ocracy for that matter) that somehow they want the "perfect system". That is a misconception.

Nothing is or ever will fair and balanced (except for Fox News!). You will find that it was precisely this understanding of the framers of the Constitution which is why they abhorred democracy. America never was started nor meant to be a "democracy". It was specifically designed and referred to as a republic, keeping in mind vast differences between republics and democracies. Moreover, it was a republic based on a natural aristocracy in which the leaders recognized that not all the masses can govern since not all the masses can be intelligent, educated and informed, and always and only a select few are able to be that way.


Again, America is not a democracy nor was meant to be. America was designed as a republic. In the Pledge of Allegiance you pledge allegiance to the republic not to a democracy. If you would like, I will gladly go into the details of why the distinction is very significant.

There is no need to go into details in this distinction. A republic is a organizational system, while democracy is a state-of-mind. That's it. Comparing them is like comparing apple to oranges. For example, a monarchy can have more vestiges of democracy than say a republic. As such this state-of-mind gives the most hope of a balanced and fair governance. You want the definition of a fair and balanced governance, I'm sure you could ask codename V., he'd tell you. Just because we can never achieve absolute democracy or completely fair and balanced governance, does not mean we should damn the ideal.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Well thanks for teaching me about the absence of absolutes. Of course there's no such thing as absolute freedom of expression, as there is no such thing as abosule democracy. But there is a difference between expression and information dissimination in say Sweden and in Saudi Arabia, a difference anyone should see.

That is only an illusion. In one place you can't criticize Islam, and in another you cannot criticize race or Holocaust. In many countries across Europe 'hate speech' legislation effectively makes criminals of people who express ideas that are contrarian in nature. So, "expression and information dissemination" is a matter of perspectives!

There is no need to go into details in this distinction. A republic is a organizational system, while democracy is a state-of-mind. That's it. Comparing them is like comparing apple to oranges. For example, a monarchy can have more vestiges of democracy than say a republic. As such this state-of-mind gives the most hope of a balanced and fair governance. You want the definition of a fair and balanced governance, I'm sure you could ask codename V., he'd tell you. Just because we can never achieve absolute democracy or completely fair and balanced governance, does not mean we should damn the ideal.

Actually, that is untrue. There are differences between theoretical concepts and applications in the real world but that does not absolve distinctions within real world concepts. To understand the differences between real and invented conceps we employ what Max Weber called "ideal types", namely that, concepts don't exist in the real world in pure form, but are useful to understand the real world. We need concepts otherwise we will find ourselves in nuances. Therefore, trying to make the case that somehow comparing a republic to a democracy is irrevelant, is incorrect.

In the end, it indeed matters when we speak of America as a republic or a democracy. If you doubt this, you should read Madison's views on this in The Federalist Papers. He, along with many of the framers, expressed contempt at the very idea of democracy, or that someday "everyone" can have the ability to vote. That is a marked difference from the chants of how "everyone-is-equal-and-deserves-a-vote-democracy" which is prevalent these days, and which my guess is that most people including yourself advocate.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

[QUOTE=Anonymouse]That is only an illusion. ,......quote]

My, how noble people are to take such a stong position on an issue, that most have not even evaluated, politically and culturally, etc….

Breaking news: Your sibling was actually adopted from "the enemy." NOW?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

My, how noble people are to take such a stong position on an issue, that most have not even evaluated, politically and culturally, etc….

Breaking news: Your sibling was actually adopted from "the enemy." NOW?

Speaking in attempted parables and riddles to convey certitude often conveys the opposite.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

Speaking in attempted parables and riddles to convey certitude often conveys the opposite.

I didn't ever get that blah blah blah to English site from you...

[EDIT]

I will never 'guide' deep sea 'fishing.' See whales? Sure! Kill anyone (anyone=whales, too) , NO.

[karoaper]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

That is only an illusion. In one place you can't criticize Islam, and in another you cannot criticize race or Holocaust. In many countries across Europe 'hate speech' legislation effectively makes criminals of people who express ideas that are contrarian in nature. So, "expression and information dissemination" is a matter of perspectives!



Actually, that is untrue. There are differences between theoretical concepts and applications in the real world but that does not absolve distinctions within real world concepts. To understand the differences between real and invented conceps we employ what Max Weber called "ideal types", namely that, concepts don't exist in the real world in pure form, but are useful to understand the real world. We need concepts otherwise we will find ourselves in nuances. Therefore, trying to make the case that somehow comparing a republic to a democracy is irrevelant, is incorrect.

How do you compare an organizational structure to a concept? One is a strictly defined setup up of the government with all its sectors and one is a concept, a set of specific beliefs prioritizing liberties and personal dignity for all. Any given organizational structure can through a long morphing process or a quick snap utterly giveup these beliefs. Are you saying a republic cannot hold a democracy?

In the end, it indeed matters when we speak of America as a republic or a democracy. If you doubt this, you should read Madison's views on this in The Federalist Papers. He, along with many of the framers, expressed contempt at the very idea of democracy, or that someday "everyone" can have the ability to vote. That is a marked difference from the chants of how "everyone-is-equal-and-deserves-a-vote-democracy" which is prevalent these days, and which my guess is that most people including yourself advocate.

If you're saying that US is the last "democratic" country in the world to be an example of democracy, then you and I are on the same page. Starting with the elitist electoral college, on through the near monarch-like treatment of the presidents, and ending with the tight grip of corporations on the major news outlets, US at least today is a pseudo-democracy. In fact, I doubt a intense money-worshiping capitalist nation can hold a true democracy.

As far as voting goes, yes I believe voting is a given right to any and all? Unfortunately, voting is an example of herding, a type of social network. And herding can improve the quality of decision making or it can xxxx it up. In a state of fear and manipulation of information, the quality of votes will certainly suffer.

[Anahita]

Re: Bush signs bills 'with fingers crossed'

If you're saying that US is the last "democratic" country in the world to be an example of democracy, then you and I are on the same page. Starting with the elitist electoral college, on through the near monarch-like treatment of the presidents, and ending with the tight grip of corporations on the major news outlets, US at least today is a pseudo-democracy. In fact, I doubt a intense money-worshiping capitalist nation can hold a true democracy.

As far as voting goes, yes I believe voting is a given right to any and all? Unfortunately, voting is an example of herding, a type of social network. And herding can improve the quality of decision making or it can xxxx it up. In a state of fear and manipulation of information, the quality of votes will certainly suffer.

Worth re-reading. Thank you.