The U.S. Goverment

[MagicManICT]

another bad thing about the U.S government you just reminded me of.

the war on terrorism...THE U.S INVENTED TERRORISM..Hiroshima anyone

Hardly. The principle has been around for millennia. Read your history books a bit better. Hell, just read the Bible. (I'm thinking of the books of Joshua and 1st and 2nd Samuel if I recall right.) Jehovah ordered the Israelites to slaughter their enemies to a man, including their livestock and children.

What I am suggesting is that democracy virtually ensures that nothing and no one but bad and dangerous men will ever reach the government top.

Agreed. A system where the first person to touch a large, flaming animal skull is the ruler would work much better.

At least that process doesn't explicitly select and promote those most ruthless at playing the politics of party and power.

I'm not going to disagree with your first statement at all. I believe that power corrupts and power attracts others wanting said power. No matter what system in place, anyone having power over anyone else will create a system of corruption. So how does the last part differ in any way from a democracy?

In a democracy of any sort, be it a true democracy (which could never succeed for many reasons in anything larger than a small community) or some for of republic where the representatives of the people are elected officials, the people have a choice of who to put up there. Sometimes it's not much of a choice as the requirements are that the person usually already have some amount of money and power (and thus corrupted). In the second system (one person struggles to the top to gain power), the populace just has to deal with the "might makes right" problems that has gone on for millenia. What's to prevent the person that gets to the top from cheating his way up there? And once there, how is he removed?

I think all this comes down to some personal philosophies on life. Do we support and nurture one another? Do we try to compete to be the top dog? Should we just leave each other alone to live their own lives out? There are many more questions to be asked. How each of us answers dictates in many ways how we want to interact with others and the needs for some sort of governing body.

In a "perfect" society, we could probably get by without any government whatsoever. We just wouldn't need because we'd cooperate when we needed to and let each of us live our own lives as we saw fit otherwise. However, this is far from a perfect society. We have to have someone to intervene in our problems when we can't resolve them ourselves. Until someone actually proposes a better system than democracy, I'll continue to believe in what we have wrought.

I think this discussion is a perfect reason why I play H&H (and other political-centric games such as EVE). It shows that we, as people, will organize ourselves in various ways to try and protect self interests. I think it's been proven that in a closed system, for a certain sized population, something resembling a totalitarian regime is most successful. However, how do you apply this to tens of millions of people with diverse wants and interests? It becomes difficult at best, and near impossible in the most normal of circumstances.

As a note, I'm not happy with the current American government. It has fallen to only giving lip service to "separation of church and state" as well as fallen to greed and corruption. I do believe that we have fallen away from some of the thoughts and philosophies of the founding fathers, but not in the way many of the Tea Party would like the country to think. (As a note, I'm a registered LIbertarian, but usually vote Democrat because I can't stand the thought of elected officials gaining office by thumping their Bible. The Teabaggers can suck my left nut.)

[pyrale]

Just sayin'.

I think we're discussing in vain : You refuse to see what's obvious, and when we give you clear examples, you make up bent explanations to fix your model. Your position is purely ideological, sometimes based on mythic tales.

So a monarch/dictator/despot is less responsible for his deeds than a democracy ? If there's religion involved, a monarch is not responsible from whatever happens in his country ? How can you say that monarchies do not have a natural tendancy to do bad ? The fact is, a despotic ruler has no obligation towards his people, despite what you claim. The example of african countries after their independance are a good example of it : Some were handled correctly, some had terrible problems.

I am also baffled by your constant criticism about the power of democratic governments. European monarchies (and I'm particularly thinking about France and England) were particularly bureaucratic, raised huge taxes, didn't fight corruption and provided few services to their populations. You find the same characteristics in communist countries, especially Russia and now China. But yeah, those problems are still completely linked to democracy and you shall blame it for that. Don't get stopped by every single example of how a country fails if there's no government.

by the way, the US weren't a major diplomatic actor at the times of the second reich, and they were nowhere near leading any coalition at the time of the third reich. Wilson got re-elected in 1916 having "I didn't get in that war"-like sloggan, and the US only entered WW2 in 1941 after pearl harbor, their help before that being limited to lend-lease program.
Their hegemon only really started after WW2, with the implications of yalta and Marshall plan.

[Potjeh]

If you like monarchies so much, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia?

[Tonkyhonk]

arent many european countries regarded as monarchies?
well, constitutional monarch, so pretty democratic, but still.


democracy = government by the majority, election means it actually ignores minority by the system. the government does not necessarily ignore the minorities, but it can when necessary. so when the government decides to ignore the minority's wish, it still remains "peaceful" because bloodshed revolutions can only be carried out by a large group of people or some kind of very strong armed forces which is often considered as terrorism. or maybe a strong back up from many other countries...surely easy to get?

still democracy looks fair compared to other options available. it is very odd.

...hmmm where did i get lost?
*sips another glass of beer*

Mongolia is a very interesting country for their government history, by the way.
needless to talk about its ancient empire led by khans, but its long history of russian socialism as a "republic", and their current path to american democracy after Perestroika(перестройка).

[Potjeh]

I wouldn't call UK or Sweden monarchies, they just keep the royalty because they're decent tourist attractions.

[pyrale]

arent many european countries regarded as monarchies?
well, constitutional monarch, so pretty democratic, but still

They're only here because tabloids need material.

democracy = government by the majority, election means it actually ignores minority by the system.

That's an interesting point. Actually, I think that how political minorities are taken care of is very hard to balance. If you give too much disruptive powers to minorities (proportional legislative elections, large ability for the parliament to block the government), it becomes hard to form coalitions to actually rule a country. But on the other hand, if your executive is too strong, it tends to simply ignore half of the population, which can be very harmful to this country's social climate and political health.

[jorb]

If you like monarchies so much, why don't you move to Saudi Arabia?

Herp? Derp.

I don't pick country based on whatever ideology their leaders profess to. I was born to this country. I have my roots here, and that matters more to me than anything else. I do not believe that that excludes me from being allowed to have an opinion. I would remain in this country come hell or high winds, because there is no other.

It does not strike you as odd that all the Western democracies are racking up enormous budget deficits, printing pretend money and taxing their populations on historically unprecedented scales, and yet still cannot afford to pay for the grand project of the brave new world that is the welfare state? This, in your opinion, is not strange and does not need to be explained? There is no connection between levels of taxation and levels of personal freedom? The state does not expand at the expense of civil society? It is not our childrens' futures that we are now consuming? No one has to pay for all of this? We can always eat the rich?

Enjoy your free lunches while they last.

[Potjeh]

The sky has been falling since we invented the word for it, and it still hasn't fallen. Yes, most modern countries live on loans, but so do most successful companies. Lending and investing now tends to generate more profit than saving up and investing later.

As for your patriotism, I bet you'd play a different tune if you were born in my country. Roof over head and bread on the table is more important to every sane person than abstract things like national pride.

[pyrale]

As usual, more and more ideology, no examples.

Do you have any example of countries doing as good as north european democracies without strong control over their economy ?
Do you have any example of countries not charging taxes and doing well (and before you give examples, without oil ) ?

Talking about welfare state, what's the price of school in sweden ? Are you left dying outside when you're sick ? Do you have to pave your roads yourself ? Are the public transports poorly maintained and overpriced ?
...
Yeah right. You get nothing for your tax money, mister self-made man.


Also I'd be curious to know how paying taxes prevents you from using your fundamental rights, your freedom of speech or practicing any hobby that is not detrimental to others. The civil society has never been as powerful as during democracy (who said : "lobbies" ?) and personal rights alike (habeas corpus, human rights and the softening of censorship were not given by hings but taken by people).

[jorb]

The sky has been falling since we invented the word for it, and it still hasn't fallen. Yes, most modern countries live on loans, but so do most successful companies. Lending and investing now tends to generate more profit than saving up and investing later.

We're pouring the money into a big black hole though. It's not being invested in anything.

As for your patriotism, I bet you'd play a different tune if you were born in my country. Roof over head and bread on the table is more important to every sane person than abstract things like national pride.

I am speaking of much simpler things. My family. People who speak my language. The point being that I do not want to move to Saudi Arabia, and that that has very little to do with their form of government.