Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Where do things like monarchy or oligarchy or autocracy or plutocracy or gerontocracy (my mobThough Winston “the British bulldog” Churchill was tough as steel,a noble and brave leader,and a historical legendary figure,the worst form of government is actually Marxism/communism
The second quote you post from Churchhill seems a false one, at least according to this:‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
Winston S Churchill, 11 November 1947
I've been thinking about this for quite some time (probably a lot more since the Brexit vote). There must surely be a way to improve the way we decide the major decisions that are needed to be made. Surely it's impossible to argue that what we have now is actually the best we can expect. As Winston also said:
'The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter'.
Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.
It would be nice to definitely attribute it to him, but even if he never said it, I would still have posted it and attributed it to 'anon'. It was included to suggest that the problem with a democracy is the need for educated and responsible voters.The second quote you post from Churchhill seems a false one, at least according to this:
Red Herrings: Famous Quotes Churchill Never Said
History Detectives A Concise List of Attributed Churchill Quotes which Winston Never Uttered Finest Hour 141, Winter 2008-09 Page 30 By Michael Richards The Oxford English Dictionary defined “red herring” […]winstonchurchill.org
It says:
“The best argument against Democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
No attribution. Though he sometimes despaired of democracy’s slowness to act for its preservation, Churchill had a more positive attitude towards the average voter.
Searching around online, I find no source by anyone for this quote, apparently confirming the above. I suppose it's possible he said it somewhere, but without evidence I would be inclined to consider it a false quote.
I suspect the big mistake was putting the question out for a public vote in the first place.I completely agree. But looking at the other side of that coin, does it mean that it's acceptable for a government (or whoever is in charge - even our good friend the 'benevolent dictator') to take actions that they actually know will lead to a public good but which goes against the will of the people?
It was a close call that the UK government actually did that with Brexit. They didn't have to listen to the people because the vote wasn't binding. And they could have reasonably said 'Look, this situation is a lot more complex than has been explained to you and you have made the wrong choice. So we're going to ignore what you said because, to put it bluntly, we know better than you do'.
In this case, with hindsight, that would have been the better course to take.
Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?I don't mean to restrict the discussion in any way but broadly speaking, yes. Either the population has some influence about public affairs or it doesn't.
The English King, Charles I, wanted to be an autocrat and was beheaded on that principle by those who would establish Parliament as sovereign.
Hehheh... I saw what you did there.
How has Australia managed to avoid the worst effects of "Rupert", and the US and Britain hasn't?
Too right. The government at the time was playing politics with the future of the country.I suspect the big mistake was putting the question out for a public vote in the first place.
OB
Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?
If you object to totalitarianism, the problem you face with your own support of democracy is that it has compelled more people Into doing things and participating in the system than many kings have before it.
Are you in principle for absolute freedom or are there things we shouldn't expect to be free from?
The most difficult form of freedom to obtain is freedom from "self".
That is why we must leave our personal Egypt and captivity every day.
Easier said than done. But is true freedom.
"The smaller you make yourself, the easier to escape your cell,
yeast makes a little dough into a big loaf of hot air,
It's the gameplay that imprisons us all."
From the wisdom of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
I thought this result, close as it was, was a perfect example of the weakness of the referendum in general. Brexit was complex, too complex for a simple once and for all vote. People voted on the issue with a host of conflicting opinions, many for reasons unconnected with EU membership.True democracy would be a simple vote on a matter, the majority holding sway. An example of that would be Brexit (although the vote wasn't legally binding, it was accepted as the will of the people by the government).
That was an incredibly complex decision to make with countless implications that the average person in the street could not have been expected to fully comprehend. A great example, in my opinion, where democracy was quite possibly the worst means of determining an action.
The answer is obvious. One has a choice. Compulsion is the antithesis of democracy. In Australia (and New Zealand?) voters are required to attend the poll, but not to participate. In the UK voters need not attend. Thjere is no compulsion in any democratic country I can think of democacy.Does one have a choice within a democracy to seperate oneself from the political? Or is one compelled to participate politically within the system?
No compulsion of anyone in any democratic society? Are you serious?The answer is obvious. One has a choice. Compulsion is the antithesis of democracy. In Australia (and New Zealand?) voters are required to attend the poll, but not to participate. In the UK voters need not attend. Thjere is no compulsion in any democratic country I can think of democacy.
I really don't know what you are driving at.
Perhaps you could elucidate.
You are the one who said there are only 2 choices. Totalitarianism or democracy. Do you believe the latter compels people or not?How is this relevant here?
The compulsion being discussed is the compulsion to vote. It's a given that the elected government does compel their citizens in many ways. There aren't many governments that suggest that you don't drive at 120kph in a school zone.Do you believe democratic countries don't compel their citizens?
Uh, no. Compulsion is compulsion, period. My point is that there is no such thing as a state offers absolute freedom and to say there is either only totalitarianism or democracy is on the face of it absurd. Democratic states can be just as totalitarian as any dictatorship. They aren't special.The compulsion being discussed is the compulsion to vote. It's a given that the elected government does compel their citizens in many ways. There aren't many governments that suggest that you don't drive at 120kph in a school zone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?