|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 2:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Is this really a serious discussion of democracy or just a way to vent some frustrated anger at conspiracy theorists? The idea of dissallowing anyone a vote based on the fact that you don't like what they think, or that you think they're not intelligent enough to vote is kinda against the fundamental principle of democracy it's self. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What don't I like about democracy? Well, it served me well in sixth grade when I was voted both "Best Artist" and "Best Athlete" by my peers...But since then I haven't won much anything so it sucks...
Anyway, let's analyze the word democracy: The main root word is "demon" and the other part is a mis-spelling of "crazy" (which is also stupid)... Why should we let stupid, crazy demons decide anything? (And whose brilliant idea was it to let women vote when they outnumber - and suspiciously outlive - men?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Plato's ideal form of gov't is the way to go. Alas, it is a pipe dream and impossible to implement. 'Tis a shame. |
Really? Is it? I would really die of joy if we could discuss this as mature adults in pursuit of the truth, so I wanna egg you on...
...Plato's Republic is irrelevant today... |
How is it irrelevant today? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In my last year of high school, high school went from 3 years to 4, so we had an influx of grade 9s. For presidential elections, we had two major runners. A cool american football playing guy or a druggie. The druggie would make cool signs all dealing with drugs and sexual inuendos (though were taken down pretty soon after, but the damage was done). Guess who won?. Guess why? Grade 12 and 11s voted for cool guy, grade 10 and 9's voted for druggie. Everyone had one vote. Druggie won by just a llittle bit.
He was the worst president ever (even he even showed up for being president, which happened about 10% of the time).
I think democracy is the best thing we have now. I still can't wait for whatever we come up with later that is hopefully better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Democracy doesn't work because:
A. People aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
B. The smart people never agree with each other.
Voltaire's enlightened ruler would be the best for getting things done. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bignate
Joined: 30 Apr 2003
Location: Hell's Ditch
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What I hate most about democracy is that popular, all of a sudden becomes "right" or "best" ... just because a party has the most support (ie money) it automatically becomes right, or most vote worthy....and because of rhetoric and superfluous language, people automatically assume that there is a right or wrong answer - they don't question everything. Once a party, or parties get and maintain a reputation, that is all that it takes for the majority of people to assume, or believe that that or those parties are the best, without really thinking about what could be outside the context of what is being force fed to them......
It is sad, but democracy has become the most popular representation, rather than the most fair or just.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
Democracy doesn't work because:
A. People aren't smart enough to make decisions for themselves.
B. The smart people never agree with each other.
Voltaire's enlightened ruler would be the best for getting things done. |
Rediculous. Who decides who this ruler will be? How do we know he's enlightened? What is enlightened? Enlightened according to whom?
People not smart enough? How arrogant and presumtuous. People know what issues affect them most. Minorities sure seem to know that they are better represented by liberal governments. Business people know that they get better conditions for making money with conservative governments.
Democracy protects us from special interests, partisan rulings, and extremism. My problem with how it functions today in the states is that there is too much money involved. It's not really a meritocracy, as you need so much money to run. Also, I don't like the way campaigns are run. The tv ads smearing the other party are appallingly misleading and false. There should be a rule, absolutely no mentioning the other party in your ads, only mention your own policies. And there should be a set number of ads, and a budget for them, so having more money doesn't give you an advantage. Democracy is the best solution, but it could be tweaked a lot better. It is theorectically about government by the people, and should function to let the "best ideas" to the surface, not the "richest people". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
Rediculous. Who decides who this ruler will be? How do we know he's enlightened? What is enlightened? Enlightened according to whom?
People not smart enough? How arrogant and presumtuous. People know what issues affect them most. Minorities sure seem to know that they are better represented by liberal governments. Business people know that they get better conditions for making money with conservative governments.
Democracy protects us from special interests, partisan rulings, and extremism. My problem with how it functions today in the states is that there is too much money involved. It's not really a meritocracy, as you need so much money to run. Also, I don't like the way campaigns are run. The tv ads smearing the other party are appallingly misleading and false. There should be a rule, absolutely no mentioning the other party in your ads, only mention your own policies. And there should be a set number of ads, and a budget for them, so having more money doesn't give you an advantage. Democracy is the best solution, but it could be tweaked a lot better. It is theorectically about government by the people, and should function to let the "best ideas" to the surface, not the "richest people". |
I didn't say that it would be easy to get an enlightened ruler, I just said that it would be best.
People knowing what affects them the most and having the ability to see past that is the problem. In a true democracy people would vote against everything that affects their pocketbooks. Infastructure in rural areas would dissappear because the majority of people wouldn't see the benefits. The media would have even more power than it does now because people are really just a bunch of lemmings.
Democracy does not protect us from special interests, partisan rulings, and extremism.
And your last point is the dumbest. Among any group of people the 'best' ideas are not always or even often the ones to surface -- psychology has shown that time and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
And your last point is the dumbest. Among any group of people the 'best' ideas are not always or even often the ones to surface -- psychology has shown that time and again. |
However with one person at the helm who doesnt have to answer to anyone we have a very limited pool of ideas. Sure he gets to consult with experts, but in the end it's one person making up his mind. Everyone has a bias, and that is what democracy is good for, evening out the bias by forcing politicians to get consensus before things go ahead. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| However with one person at the helm who doesnt have to answer to anyone we have a very limited pool of ideas. Sure he gets to consult with experts, but in the end it's one person making up his mind. Everyone has a bias, and that is what democracy is good for, evening out the bias by forcing politicians to get consensus before things go ahead. |
Except that it doesn't work that way. Some years back in university we looked at a situation in the states where a necessary tax was being voted on by some group of senators or congressmen or whatever. The people who were pretty well assured of reelection voted for the tax and those who were not so sure of reelection voted against the tax.
It comes down to this. Ross Perot would have been the best choice for the American economy. Ralph Nader would have been best for the American consumer. An enlightened ruler is enlighted by definition so all bases would be covered. That's not to say that I think an enlightened ruler would be easy to find, I just think that if all things worked as they were meant to it would be the best choice. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
| People not smart enough? How arrogant and presumtuous. People know what issues affect them most. Minorities sure seem to know that they are better represented by liberal governments. Business people know that they get better conditions for making money with conservative governments. |
People largely only know what their told. They get their information from network or cable news or print news. And as more than one thread on here has discussed, news agencies are highly suspect. They are either pushing one agenda or the other and can rarely be trusted to be objective or honest. Like the other guy said, people are lemmings. "People" rarely know what they want. And even those that do are apt to change their mind as the situation changes.
And as for a conservative government helping business, i.e. the Republicans, and the liberal government helping the common man, i.e. the Democrats, that no longer applies. Thirty or fourty years ago, there were perhaps true differences between the parties, but anymore the only way to tell them apart is their stance on abortion. Democrats are just as business friendly as the Republicans and neither party really cares about the average blue-collar family trying to make ends meet. Both parties are corrupt at the core.
Original or honest people can't make it in anymore. If you want to get to that level of goverment it's pretty much a given that you're dirty. It's the way the system is designed. If you want to get on a major party ticket, you've got to toe that party line to get their money. You've got to agree to certian special interests to get their money. You could stick to your moral high-ground, but then you'd quickly be replaced by a person who was more morally...flexible and he/she would get the money needed to get the ad time and print space. As stated before, peole only know what they're told. They will now here all about the other candidate, but because you couldn't get the money to buy the time and the space, you're voice is not heard.
For that very reason democracy in the U.S. is diseased. At it's very center it is a thing of evil because it's sold to the highest bidder. How many average folk do you know who could shell enough money at the government to fight the corporate and special interests?
Raise your hand if you think I'm a pessimist. 
-S- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
igotthisguitar
Joined: 08 Apr 2003
Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 12:22 am Post subject: Re: What do you dislike about democracy the most? |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| The first ones to be booted from the registered voter list should be conspiracy theorists. |
IS that right eh? Hmmmmm ... sounds like a conspiracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
the problems with democracy are thus:
1) It is wide open to abuse by those who don't follow the guiding beliefs behind it. ie...it welcomes in and allows people to thrive in it, who's ultimate objective is to destroy it.
2) It gives decision making power to the majority when sometimes it is a tiny minority of people with inside info, that know best what decision to take in certain circumstances. Example: put to the vote "Should we bulldoze our rainforests to get quick profit and employment?" The majority would vote yes. A minority of scientists who know the bigger picture would vote no.
3)It allows rampant materialism- and for those few who accumulate fortunes, they get to waste millions on a useless wardrobe while millions starve the world over.
The money it generates is largely wasted on selfish things.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 17, 2005 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| Satori wrote: |
| People not smart enough? How arrogant and presumtuous. People know what issues affect them most. Minorities sure seem to know that they are better represented by liberal governments. Business people know that they get better conditions for making money with conservative governments. |
People largely only know what their told. They get their information from network or cable news or print news. And as more than one thread on here has discussed, news agencies are highly suspect. They are either pushing one agenda or the other and can rarely be trusted to be objective or honest. Like the other guy said, people are lemmings. "People" rarely know what they want. And even those that do are apt to change their mind as the situation changes.
And as for a conservative government helping business, i.e. the Republicans, and the liberal government helping the common man, i.e. the Democrats, that no longer applies. Thirty or fourty years ago, there were perhaps true differences between the parties, but anymore the only way to tell them apart is their stance on abortion. Democrats are just as business friendly as the Republicans and neither party really cares about the average blue-collar family trying to make ends meet. Both parties are corrupt at the core.
Original or honest people can't make it in anymore. If you want to get to that level of goverment it's pretty much a given that you're dirty. It's the way the system is designed. If you want to get on a major party ticket, you've got to toe that party line to get their money. You've got to agree to certian special interests to get their money. You could stick to your moral high-ground, but then you'd quickly be replaced by a person who was more morally...flexible and he/she would get the money needed to get the ad time and print space. As stated before, peole only know what they're told. They will now here all about the other candidate, but because you couldn't get the money to buy the time and the space, you're voice is not heard.
For that very reason democracy in the U.S. is diseased. At it's very center it is a thing of evil because it's sold to the highest bidder. How many average folk do you know who could shell enough money at the government to fight the corporate and special interests?
Raise your hand if you think I'm a pessimist.
-S- |
Well now I actually agree with your analysis of things, but I still think democracy is better than communism, socialism, fascim, dictatorship, or an enlightened leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
