do you live in a democratic country?

first of all, you have no idea what ive accomplished in my short 20 years in this twisted planet. second,

this is exactly whats wrong with this generation. i cant, theres no one to lead me. i dont want to be the aquard one.dont you see, the whole point of this credit card-mcdolalds-designer clothes society is that EVERYONE IS THE SAME! they all live in cookiecutter houses, eat processed foods, they want you to be a part of the crowd, a faceless robot. now be a good boy, crud3w4re and go back to your television. its callling....

 

Why? It's the same thing you do.

 

To that one who did post the first thread!

You live in Finland and you say it not democratic... Yes there is always way to a better situation... But Finland is a democratic country if we compare it to a nother country...

 

Compare it to my country.

 

at least our judges arent cutting off hands because you were hungary

 

The simplicity of this thread amuses me.

 

Lack of categories in the poll...

You can't always take the power, and in fact real democratic spirit is not about to take the power, but to share it...

Freedom is expressive, emotional, passionate freedom. Freedom is not based on morals, ethics cathegorial imperatives and such.

We're talking about Hobbes, we're talking about Marx, we're talking about Nietzsche.
Nietzche tells us about the morals & ethics of the human beings made of flesh & bones beyond sacred lies & divine promises, Marx tells us about how we're all shaped by our surroundings - that we're all a product of reality, and Hobbes tells us that we're all afraid - that we're all so fragile that we're ready to lay back and let a king speak for us...

I rather regard Hobbes' thoughts as a warning than a procedure, but that's just my interpretation... His thoughts was amazing...

love and understanding,
-wolf-

 

The simplicity of this reply does as well. You don't seem to have anything to offer other than semi witty one liners, no offense man. You are smart but not so smart that you can get away with only that. Add your views!

 

Fine, if you're throwing down the gauntlet I'll respond.

First of all, "democracy" is a loaded term. The meaning is ambiguous, and definitions will range anywhere from what is essentially mob rule to some ideal vision of perfect representation - the attainment of which is impractical enough to make it impossible.

This makes simple Yes/No answers a waste of breath. What does exist is a sliding scale of democracy, with some countries more democratic than others. What are the characteristics of a government that make it democratic?

1. Rule of law. Including such things as equality under the law.
2. Protection of rights. Specifically minority rights.
3. Equal/fair representation.
4. An open media.
5. Protection of private property.
etc.

While no state has a perfect record in these areas, all of the major developed countries display these traits to such an extent that arguing that they are "undemocratic" is a fairly ludicrous notion.

So my answer to the question "is Canada democratic" is undoubtably. Recent trends that I think are pushing Canada to be "more democratic":
1. Adoption of "Citizen Assemblies" by provincial governments.
2. The parliamentary decision not to extend the anti-terrorism legislation.
3. Provincial referendums on changing the single-member plurality electoral system.
4. The huge majority of constitutional rulings by the SCC.

The most glaringly obvious anti-democratic trend I've seen in Canada is the new way we appoint SCC judges, which I think is going to bite us in the ass in the long run. But that is another issue.

But like I said, this debate is inane. Can most people here explain how Supreme Court judges are appointed? Are they familiar with the landmark cases? Can most people here even name their representive in government?

 

America, no

I try to form my own mental democracy of true freedom in the way it was meant to be, I generally disregard laws and power, but I'm still not free.

 

:agree: second that.

 

I can only name few of my representatives...

A representative democracy is by its own nature a distraction from classical democratic values. If this distraction is necessary or not, is not an issue I wanna discuss right now - maybe in another thread... But it is a distraction, no matter from which angle you observe it, and no matter how much you turn the problem around & upside down.

Our representative democracy / parlamentarism is not an ideal democratic way of organizing the society. Some of you might argue: "yes, but nothing is an ideal, but parlamentarism is closest". But that's not the issue. The issue is that the system pretend that it is an ideal - and that's why the system is lying...

But other ideals are practitized 100% in our society. Milton Friedmanns theory is an ideal that is regarded as reality, and implemented in any detail of our society - even into social relations, and that's when reflecting people react, and say: STOP!

And that's why people get alienated, and that's why people don't feel their voice is heard, and that's why people solve problems out through violence, because they see no other way out.

love and understanding,
-wolf-

 

A system can't pretend to do anything.

 

Uh......define democratic.

If you mean a) A system where every citizen of a nation has the right to voice their opinion on every major issue.

Then no, however, if you mean b) A system where ever so often the nation's people gather together to vote for the best candidate to run the nation out of a select few.

Then yeeeessss.

 

Ofcourse not... Its puppets pretend the system they represent to be an ideal.

That's what I meant. Do you agree now?

 

Using words like "puppet" means that this is a loaded question.

 

Yes, again I must say ofcourse, but I didn't know that I had to deconstruct any meaning into atoms to you.

Instead of sayig "puppets", I should have chosed the words "those who represent"... ok?

 

Regardless, then, the answer is still obviously no.

If representatives were saying the system was ideal, the issue of constitutional/democratic reform would never come up. There would be only one type of democracy. etc. etc.

 

In your argumentation, you're apparently excluding the view that the actions/functions of those representatives are strongly formed by the institutions in which they function.

The bureacracy is a "safe buffer" between the people and its representatives, because this bureacracy ensure a filter which - in any weberian prescription - is hierarchical ordered, no matter how democratic minded your government are.

 

not at all. i live under a puppet regime of a evil counselt of dictators and thieves. i guess i do get the choice to vote for which puppet regime i want to see on TV.