Politic preference?

[CrimsonMoon]

I'm just curious, since we're all from different countries. It's nice to get to know each other's country. I don't start this topic to criticize other country's politic. Okay, what's the status of politic in your country i.e monarchy or democracy or others? What do you actually prefer and why? Include your country too. Please don't flame and post as the rules state.

[OminousCloud]

Australia is a democracy and I prefer it that way, sure we'll always be voting between some equally crappy candidates, but at least I get to vote for the type of crappy that I want. :)

[CrimsonMoon]

Haha, okay, yeah, I'd prefer like that too. Anyway, I forgot to mention mine. Brunei's system is monarchy. I actually think it's great, no quarrel over who's going to take the throne next. It's peaceful that way. And I don't have any objection to the current ruler.

[International 4-8818]

Well, i am in the us of a and we have a democratic society. I prefer democracy, one people have a say in the society instead of being shunned, we are able to vote for our leaders and not have to follow orders from a leader that was born into power. We have free markets. Freedom of speech and all that good stuff.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

America is a border-line fascist democracy, and I'm not too happy about it. I'm more of a good old-fashioned social democracy kind of dude.

[Eris]

Sweden is a monarchy on paper, a democracy in theory and neither in practice.

[Sagat]

Canada is Federalist. I find it okay however a bit too many Communist elements. We try to make all the blocks fit into neat little pieces far too often.

[MistressPookyChan]

Japan is starting to be a democracy, now that the ruling party is starting to see some competition. It has a parliament style plus a royal family.

[TheAsterisk!]

If ONE MORE PERSON says that the US is a democracy, I'LL EXPLODE!!!!!!!!
The US is set up as a constitutionally limited republic, NOT a democracy. It is a HUGE difference.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

If ONE MORE PERSON says that the US is a democracy, I'LL EXPLODE!!!!!!!!
The US is set up as a constitutionally limited republic, NOT a democracy. It is a HUGE difference.
Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Democracy

[TheAsterisk!]

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Democracy

Whoever wrote that wasn't terribly exacting with their phrasing.
1 - Yes, a republic is a form of indirect democracy, and the majority rules. In a true democracy, though, the plurality rules. You seem handy enough with a dictionary, so you should know what that means.
2 - in a pure democracy, if the plurality (the biggest grouo, doesn't have to be over half, as a majority) decides that the police should be able to shoot anybody whose eyes are too far apart for their tastes, then it is made to be so. In the U.S. we have a little thing called the constitution.
3 - This'll scare a few of you. You (U.S. citizens) have no federal right to elect the president, even if only voting in the popular election. Individual states may have secured such a right, but nothing says that the feds couldn't simply turn away voters. The fourteenth (I think, so don't nitpick) amendment says that states cannot secure the right selectively or for specific populations, but does nat force states to allow you to vote for the U.S. president.
A (constituionally limited) REPUBLIC BEING CALLED A SIMPLE DEMOCRACY IS AKIN TO CALLING A CANOE THE SAME AS A MISSLE FRIGATE. THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION YOU'VE GIVEN IS A SIMPLIFICATION. WHOEVER WROTE THAT ENTRY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE EMBARRASSINGLY IGNORANT MASSES. THIS FOOLISH IDEA IS FAR TOO PREVALENT IN THE U.S. TODAY. DON'T GET SUCKERED INTO IT.

[Manhattan_Project_2000]

Whoever wrote that wasn't terribly exacting with their phrasing.
1 - Yes, a republic is a form of indirect democracy, and the majority rules. In a true democracy, though, the plurality rules. You seem handy enough with a dictionary, so you should know what that means.
2 - in a pure democracy, if the plurality (the biggest grouo, doesn't have to be over half, as a majority) decides that the police should be able to shoot anybody whose eyes are too far apart for their tastes, then it is made to be so. In the U.S. we have a little thing called the constitution.
3 - This'll scare a few of you. You (U.S. citizens) have no federal right to elect the president, even if only voting in the popular election. Individual states may have secured such a right, but nothing says that the feds couldn't simply turn away voters. The fourteenth (I think, so don't nitpick) amendment says that states cannot secure the right selectively or for specific populations, but does nat force states to allow you to vote for the U.S. president.
A (constituionally limited) REPUBLIC BEING CALLED A SIMPLE DEMOCRACY IS AKIN TO CALLING A CANOE THE SAME AS A MISSLE FRIGATE. THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION YOU'VE GIVEN IS A SIMPLIFICATION. WHOEVER WROTE THAT ENTRY PROBABLY DIDN'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE EMBARRASSINGLY IGNORANT MASSES. THIS FOOLISH IDEA IS FAR TOO PREVALENT IN THE U.S. TODAY. DON'T GET SUCKERED INTO IT.

You are going by a very mechanical, technical definition. We are using the common definition. What's important here isn't the definition you are using, but the definition we are using. Moreover, no one used the words "pure democracy" because we know it isn't. Thanks for the non-revelations.

[TheAsterisk!]

I wouldn't feel obligated to correct you, MP2000, if you'd speak more precisely in your initial comments. AND IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE!

[Baka]

I no longer believe in politics. I quit voting. I don't care who our next president is going to be.

[Chiefslaughter]

I'm an Anarchist, and not the bomb-making highschool dropout punk kind. The serious, philosophical kind. (I'm not sure if I spelled anything in this post right, It's really late here)

-Chief

[KuroTan]

The Philippines is a democratic country. However, since I've spent a good part of my high school years in Brunei, which is a sultanate, I'm leaning towards that. It's probably not gonna work for a lot of countries but it works there.

[TheAsterisk!]

I no longer believe in politics. I quit voting. I don't care who our next president is going to be.
If you truly don't care, then perhaps you'd prefer an old Siberian gulag as home? Indiference in such grand matters is inexcusable and foolish. It also ensures that you can't rant for a substantial amount of time, and that is a great loss.

[TheAsterisk!]

I'm an Anarchist, and not the bomb-making highschool dropout punk kind. The serious, philosophical kind. (I'm not sure if I spelled anything in this post right, It's really late here)

-Chief
If you're such the anarchist, why are you fretting over spelling? Why do you have a legitimate user account?
From the (lack of) depth and consitency in your comments, I'd say your a pretty poor philosopher. Try existentialism; that always gets me in a great mood for the start of my day!

[Eris]

If you're such the anarchist, why are you fretting over spelling? Why do you have a legitimate user account?
From the (lack of) depth and consitency in your comments, I'd say your a pretty poor philosopher. Try existentialism; that always gets me in a great mood for the start of my day!

Though being an anarchist is not the same as doing the geometrically opposed thing as other people for the sake of it, rather that's being a herd minded idiot just like everyone else.

[Wio]

If ONE MORE PERSON says that the US is a democracy, I'LL EXPLODE!!!!!!!!
The US is set up as a constitutionally limited republic, NOT a democracy. It is a HUGE difference.
Could you define the 'democracy' you are refering to and give an example? You must realise that the US, as a federal nation, has a very complex system of power. The three branches are completely different in how one is put into the those positions.

[Hypergraphian]

Well I live in a country that has a rotational Monarchy and a controlled democracy. I don't think the system bothers me but the people currently ruling do. Why a controlled democracy? If you voice your opinions against the current party too strongly, they lock you up. Enough said before I get reported.

[Eris]

Could you define the 'democracy' you are refering to and give an example? You must realise that the US, as a federal nation, has a very complex system of power. The three branches are completely different in how one is put into the those positions.

The US has democratic tendencies, but it's complexity tends to put governing parties at such a distance from the people it's strongly questionable whether it's right to call it a democracy. The EU has similar tendencies, but not as extreme (yet, "Bob" knows we're headed down that road.) The US was more democratic pre-9/11 (even as far as one might discuss calling it a democracy) but post-9/11 legislation has hollowed out many basic rights that are required for a nation to be a true democracy (Habeas corpus to mention one)

[TheAsterisk!]

The US has democratic tendencies, but it's complexity tends to put governing parties at such a distance from the people it's strongly questionable whether it's right to call it a democracy. The EU has similar tendencies, but not as extreme (yet, "Bob" knows we're headed down that road.) The US was more democratic pre-9/11 (even as far as one might discuss calling it a democracy) but post-9/11 legislation has hollowed out many basic rights that are required for a nation to be a true democracy (Habeas corpus to mention one)
Actually, the U.S. is headed back to where it was before the 1950's. Many percieved freedoms and rights were "discovered" within the constitution in the latter half of the 20th century (not debating their legitimacy here, that's for another thread). The direct election of senators also made the U.S. even more democratic. (Senators were originally intended as states' and not peoples' represetnatives, as this was taken care of by the House).
After the events of the 11th of September in 2001, the U.S. became MORE democratic, as the majority pushed through legislation limiting rights and public life, the minorities' rights notwithstanding. The constitutional limitations and indirect representation are what make (or perhaps made) the U.S. government a republic rather than a democracy. DIRECT OR WEAKLY INDRIECT DEMOCRACY IS DANGEROUS TO THE POLITICAL MINORITY.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DO NOT MATTER IN A TRUE DEMOCRACY, AS A PLURALITY MAY OVERTURN THEM AT ANY TIME. THAT IS WHY THE U.S. WAS SET UP AS A REPUBLIC.
The principles that differ a republic and a democracy are minute, but the consequences are enormous. That is why is so vehemently distinguish between the two (and pressure you to do so as well).
...rant #1 all doen now...
RANT #2 WILL NOW BEGIN.
Anarchy means NO RULE (or rules). It is disorder and chaos. I was simply wondering why you would abide by so many societal conventions and expectations if you were an anarchist. It's like people who wear the T-shirts with the anarchy symbol (sort of like a A in a circle) and, when asked, admit to having bought them in a store somewhere. IF ANARCHY MEANS NO RULE(RS), THEN THERE ARE NO RULES TO ABIDE BY, AND ONE MAY DO WHATEVER ONE WHISHES.
I was just wondering about your claim to chaos, that's all.
ranting coplete. thank you.

[Eris]

Actually, the U.S. is headed back to where it was before the 1950's. Many percieved freedoms and rights were "discovered" within the constitution in the latter half of the 20th century (not debating their legitimacy here, that's for another thread). The direct election of senators also made the U.S. even more democratic. (Senators were originally intended as states' and not peoples' represetnatives, as this was taken care of by the House).

It is not a matter of how many freedoms you have, it is what they are. Any nation that can hold people an arbitrary amount of time for unspecified crimes is by the very definition undemocratic. It can be used (de facto usage is irrelevant) to detain political opposition, ergo: Not democratic.


After the events of the 11th of September in 2001, the U.S. became MORE democratic, as the majority pushed through legislation limiting rights and public life, the minorities' rights notwithstanding. The constitutional limitations and indirect representation are what make (or perhaps made) the U.S. government a republic rather than a democracy. DIRECT OR WEAKLY INDRIECT DEMOCRACY IS DANGEROUS TO THE POLITICAL MINORITY.

The majority did not push any legislation post-9/11. Their representatives did. There is a distinct difference.


CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS DO NOT MATTER IN A TRUE DEMOCRACY, AS A PLURALITY MAY OVERTURN THEM AT ANY TIME. THAT IS WHY THE U.S. WAS SET UP AS A REPUBLIC.

Of course they don't matter in a democracy. What democracy grants freedom from is oppression from a political minority. Consensus rules. This is a good thing, since there will be fewer conflicts of interest between rulers and people. A thing that benefits a majority of people is beneficial to most people, but a thing that benefits a minority people is not necessarily not.



Anarchy means NO RULE (or rules). It is disorder and chaos. I was simply wondering why you would abide by so many societal conventions and expectations if you were an anarchist. It's like people who wear the T-shirts with the anarchy symbol (sort of like a A in a circle) and, when asked, admit to having bought them in a store somewhere. IF ANARCHY MEANS NO RULE(RS), THEN THERE ARE NO RULES TO ABIDE BY, AND ONE MAY DO WHATEVER ONE WHISHES.

You are confusing anarchy (state) with anarchism (ideologies). But I very much agree with you about the conformist anarchists with the (A) T-shirts.

[Sagat]

Heh, not to mention an anarchist state would never last long. In such a vacuum of power, it would only be a matter of time until the strong rose up to suppress the weak and install a dictatorship. Anarchy as a state is nothing more than a phase.

Thought I would just ... throw that in there, cause I find anarchists stupid.

[TheAsterisk!]

Allow me to eleborate to a painful extent, "Eris." In a democracy, there are no rights besides whatever the voters choose on that day. The denial of rights to a minority by any plurality is a trait of direct, unrestricted democracies. The U.S. govertnment, a constitutionally limited republic, cannot (or at least isn't supposed to) curtail indiviual liberties. The fact that we have done so shows that while we are still a republic on paper, we are heading towards a democratic practice; THIS IS NOT GOOD. Democratic does not necessarily mean free, and vice versa.
A state that elects to curtail rights is not free, but is may still be a democracy. Just look at what happened to Germany in the 1930's. Up unitl Hitler rolled through Austria and Poland, everything was done by popular vote. It is impossilbe to see that the nation was not free at the time, regardless of the governmental form.
If there were no constitution and the U.S. were a direct democracy, then, if a plurality desired it to be so, segregation could make a comeback. I don't think this would happen, but the possibility would be there. A republic is a refined form of democracy, so that while direct democracy ensures no oligarchy takes hold, the republican form of government ensures that the rights of minorities are not infringed upon by the often overbearing majority. So far it's worked better than any sizeable direct democracy (such governments are usually limited to city-size).
Consensus does NOT rule in a democracy. Consensus would mean that EVERYONE, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, would need to agree on a single solution to each issue.
I'll give further consideration to the whole anarchist claim.

[Drunk_Squid]

The US is a democratic republic.

From what I read, Denmark is the country with the "most freedom" in the entire world. But the US is still up there. I can't stand smug people who ***** about civil liberties, when in fact these civil liberties are blown way out of proportion. Yes I know about the civil rights movement, ect., but nowadays if someone complains about a "police state" it just gets old, it is way overblown. If you have no reason to be fearful then you shouldn't have anything to worry about in the first place.

Sorry I have more to add.

Yes the poster above me makes some sense out of it (The US). No the US is not a true democracy but it's still really nice, much more freedom than the majority of the world, but I guess you could say the same thing about South America, Europe, and a few areas around Asia, including Japan, but then again there is a high crime rate in South America, no thanks I won't live there.