Discussion in 'Random Thoughts' started by odonII, Jun 10, 2013.
Who do you think wants to, and is 'spreading democracy around the world' - and why?
i think oprah is because if she's has something to prove then gale might switch over to the dark side
Something is getting spread around the world... But it ain't democracy.
I don't think anyone wants to spread democracy but I can think of a nation or two that wants to spread imperialism under the guise of spreading democracy.
For true democracy to work, people need easy access to independent, diverse sources of news and information.
nobody, really. occasionally it seems to happen as a by-product of certain other objectives, but it rarely seems the primary goal. democracy tends to be fought for domestically rather than installed by foreign powers, unless it serves their ends. not to be cynical or anything, but that does seem to be the way.
there are, however, international organisations who fight for the elements which are necessary for the maintenance of a representational democracy, such as freedom of press, freedom of speech etc, so i suppose that you could argue that they are spreading democracy. admittedly indirectly, but with a purpose rather than as an afterthought.
There are so-called 'good people' trying to promote democracy and so-called 'bad people' trying to promote democracy. Some call it liberty instead.
Would you like for or would you like democracy to be spread around the world?
in as much as decisions occasionally have to be made which concern large groups of people, a representative system is important.
democracy, as it currently manifests itself at least, is a brave stab at a representative system of governance. It is, however, obviously and gravely flawed, as anyone who voted for the lib dems can attest
it is also entirely unsuited to certain countries and areas, we hold democracy up as the be all and end all of systems of governance, and occasionally can be heard to say "they simply aren't yet ready for democracy" (which tends to mean that we can't be sure they'll vote the way we want) but our own systems are flawed and, while our countries (by which i mean the west) can weather the shortcomings of democracy because our relative prosperity means we can afford to move slowly (almost imperceptibly) in other cultures, democracy is inappropriate, unworkable and occasionally creates extreme volatility. so the idea of our spreading it is certainly problematic.
so no, not really. sort out your own back garden before telling people how to run theirs it think would be the thinking i'd employ.
? You are not going to mention 'neo-liberalism' are you?
Contrary to popular belief and even WikiAnswers, I don't believe there are any Democratic nations in the world today. Maybe some Amazon native tribe somewhere.
There are a lot of Monarchies and Republics, but no Democracies.
For example, the United States and China are Republics and Canada and Sweden are Monarchies.
Sometimes Republics are called Representative Democracies:
So Democracy isn't spreading anywhere.
Here's a list.
Democracy is a joke. It literally translates to "mob rule."
Why, I would say it's ochlocracy, although it isn't always easy to draw the line between them.
People who profit from democracy are more likely the ones who want to spread it.
But I don't care for democracy as long as I have my personal freedom and privacy. Unfortunately only a democratic system (or at least democratic on the surface) can provide some of this freedom.
I don't like to say it was a trick question, but it was. I think. Would you not like to see what you have spread around? Isn't it the case that societies strive for some semblance of democracy? Isn't it the case that out of all the forms of government 'democracy' is what most strive for or crave? There is even a 'democracy quotient' that countries are scored on. Why would you not want democracy? If not, what would you want?
A benevolent dictatorship such as the "Emperor of Emperors Ashoka"
And maybe "The Philosopher"Imperator Pontifex Maximus Marcus Aurelius
...if it could be followed by another.
i think everyone would prefer to be thought of as doing so then repressing it.
i don't believe anyone is "spreading" it. it is more of a natural condition, that technology is giving people tools with which, to join forces in opposing, being robbed of it.
Separate names with a comma.