Mexican Democracy

[Nemesis]

Can someone please tell me what in the Hell is going on down there? Why did the court weigh in on the election? What was the problem with the election? Who stands for what? Why is there a gathering of angry Mexicans in the capitol city?

[charred_heart]

Can someone please tell me what in the Hell is going on down there? Why did the court weigh in on the election? What was the problem with the election? Who stands for what? Why is there a gathering of angry Mexicans in the capitol city?has something to do with Coca-Cola. Avengarth can explain if she still visits.

[immortalmack]

Can someone please tell me what in the Hell is going on down there? Why did the court weigh in on the election? What was the problem with the election? Who stands for what? Why is there a gathering of angry Mexicans in the capitol city?

I'm stating to get the impression that democracies work better when the losing party agrees he lost. If he doesnt he can retard the state all by himself.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Felipe Calderon is from PAN, Vicente Fox's conservative party. He was the official winner. Leftist candidate Obrador did not accept the result and demanded a recount. Then all hell broke loose. The result was very close, much like the US election of 2000.

[Nemesis]

Felipe Calderon is from PAN, Vicente Fox's conservative party. He was the official winner. Leftist candidate Obrador did not accept the result and demanded a recount. Then all hell broke loose. The result was very close, much like the US election of 2000.
So what's all this I hear about corruption in the voting count then?

[demagogic_schizoid]

So what's all this I hear about corruption in the voting count then?

It's alleged that the votes weren't counted fairly. Like in the case of Gore v Bush.

[Claverhouse]

Why wouldn't there be corruption and vote-rigging ? These things are the very essence of democracy.

Furthermore, even without the faintest impropriety, democratic administrations have to bribe and lie to their electorate to be elected.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Ferrus]

Well much of the Mexican system is corrupted anyway - having heard from those that have been, being stopped by the police and being asked to hand over you money is a frequent problem.

[Claverhouse]

And the British system isn't corrupt ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[demagogic_schizoid]

Like Churchill said - democracy is a terrible system. But it's the best one we've got.

[Claverhouse]

People no doubt said that about whatever form of government they lived under, even in the Stone Age.

And Churchill was a self-seeking vulgarian.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[Nemesis]

Like Churchill said - democracy is a terrible system. But it's the best one we've got.
That's a retarded statement. Any system can work well if it's correctly implemented.

[demagogic_schizoid]

And in the Stone Age they were probably right. Hopefully in the future someone will find something better. But I know I can't think of one and I don't know anyone else who has.

[demagogic_schizoid]

That's a retarded statement. Any system can work well if it's correctly implemented.

No other system is as fair. This doesn't mean democracy is particularly fair. But the fact remains that the societies which have committed the worst crimes and had the worst standard of living have been the undemocratic ones, while the ones with the best record are democratic.

And no just because Hitler was elected doesn't mean that his government was democratic. When a government bans opposition, it ceases to be democratic. Democracy is about more than the popular vote - I'm talking about liberal western democracies, which abide by the rule of law.

[Nemesis]

No other system is as fair.
Fair? Fair?! Have you lost it? Tell the African Americans that democracy is fair. Tell the gays that democracy is fair. Hell, tell any minority that democracy is fair.

This doesn't mean democracy is particularly fair.
Damn right it's not. It's not fair to begin with.

But the fact remains that the societies which have committed the worst crimes and had the worst standard of living have been the undemocratic ones, while the ones with the best record are democratic.
Oh, I know. Japan, Rome, Persia, Egypt, the British Empire, Germany, they were all completely democratic during their times of power.

And no just because Hitler was elected doesn't mean that his government was democratic.
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The people voted for him, the people gave him their power, and right to decide. That's democracy.

When a government bans opposition, it ceases to be democratic. Democracy is about more than the popular vote - I'm talking about liberal western democracies, which abide by the rule of law.
:rofl: Damn right. Look up the statistics of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election, you tool.

[demagogic_schizoid]

you missed the point. western democracies have been much less savage than dictatorships. nothing you said changes that. You are using the logic that because liberal democracies could be better, that they should be rejected altogether. It's ridiculous - just because something might be flawed, doesn't mean you should reject the improvements that have been made on the past.

And I don't think that German between the wars would qualify as a liberal western democracy. Look the term up if you want. It's not the same as absolute democracy, but it's what people mean when they say democracy. So I apologise for not being clearer. My original quote should have been regarding liberal western democracy, not "democracy".

[Nemesis]

you missed the point. western democracies have been much less savage than dictatorships.
Stop making points you can't prove.

nothing you said changes that. You are using the logic that because liberal democracies could be better, that they should be rejected altogether.
You really suck at reading comprehension. I meant that the idea is bad to begin with.

It's ridiculous - just because something might be flawed, doesn't mean you should reject the improvements that have been made on the past.
The same can be said for Anarchy, Theocracy, and everything in between.

And I don't think that German between the wars would qualify as a liberal western democracy.
That government came to power through democracy. I don't know why you can't accept that.

Look the term up if you want. It's not the same as absolute democracy, but it's what people mean when they say democracy. So I apologise for not being clearer. My original quote should have been regarding liberal western democracy, not "democracy".
There's not much of a difference. I forget where Claverhouse posted it, it might have been a PM, if so I appologize, but about how democracy is inherently immoral because it gives the majority the right to set ablaze whatever they want, simply because they are the majority, and he's right with that statement.

I never thought I'd meet an INTP who believed in the inherent correctness of the majority, simply because they were the majority.

[omnirook]

Can someone please tell me what in the Hell is going on down there? Why did the court weigh in on the election? What was the problem with the election? Who stands for what? Why is there a gathering of angry Mexicans in the capitol city?

Mexico is a kleptocracy. Has been for 60 years. The thief that got in in this last election is the more vocally pro-Bush thief - though all of the thieves that have been in since Pancho Villa have licked the US' ass, no matter what they have told the public. What's to know? In a country where there is a tiny, tiny elite who own just about everything and who have no scruples about how they get even more - you wind up w/Mexico - or its richer neighbor to the north. Now Mexico has a president who won't even bother to sugar-coat his thieving: the Mexicans are probably laying a long bet on the outcome of our next presidential election: another Republican who won't even bother to smile sweetly while his masters fuck us in the ass.

[demagogic_schizoid]

well I never said I was an intp for one thing, I don't know my type TBH and I don't really feel that any of them fit me. This isn't to say I don't believe in the Jungian functions - I'm just suspicious of the people who write the descriptions.

Western liberal democracy is about protecting the rights of the minority as much as respecting the rule of the minority. This is the idea of a constitution. A society where this does not happen is not a western liberal democracy. Any politics student knows this - I learnt it when I started sixth form-college at the age of 16.

[Ymir]

That's a retarded statement. Any system can work well if it's correctly implemented.

What systems? And how would they work well? Are you talking about doing communism right? It cannot be done.


Fair? Fair?! Have you lost it? Tell the African Americans that democracy is fair. Tell the gays that democracy is fair. Hell, tell any minority that democracy is fair.
Tell me of any non-democratic countries that treat minorities and gays more fairly than democracies. Let me know if you think african-americans would have been better off in africa.


I never thought I'd meet an INTP who believed in the inherent correctness of the majority, simply because they were the majority.
If you can come up with something better feel free to do so. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system has it flaws, but that does not make them all equally bad.


Damn right. Look up the statistics of the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election, you tool.

The systen was ment to work that way. In my country a red-gree coalition won the election last year, even if they lost the popular vote. Most countries has this minor flaw and we know about it, it is only in the US that people complain about it.

[Nemesis]

Western liberal democracy is about protecting the rights of the minority as much as respecting the rule of the minority.
Show me where this happens without the express consent of those in power and I'll show you a unicorn.

By the way, you've yet (again) to prove your point about how Western liberal democracy is less savage than any other form of government.

[Nemesis]

What systems? And how would they work well? Are you talking about doing communism right? It cannot be done
Prove it.

Tell me of any non-democratic countries that treat minorities and gays more fairly than democracies. Let me know if you think african-americans would have been better off in africa.
Oh yeah, they're so well off here, where most live in the slums of large cities.

PS- Elizabethan England treated minorities much more fairly.

If you can come up with something better feel free to do so. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Every system has it flaws, but that does not make them all equally bad.
So that means I should just shrug at the flaws and not try to fix them? What part of "NF" don't you get?

The systen was ment to work that way. In my country a red-gree coalition won the election last year, even if they lost the popular vote. Most countries has this minor flaw and we know about it, it is only in the US that people complain about it.
Minor? You're telling me that when a system in which the rule of law is supposed to be through popular decision, it's only a minor flaw when the exact opposite happens?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Show me where this happens without the express consent of those in power and I'll show you a unicorn.

By the way, you've yet (again) to prove your point about how Western liberal democracy is less savage than any other form of government.

Why should I teach you basic history? If you want a tutor, ask your parents to hire you one.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Prove it.Oh yeah, they're so well off here, where most live in the slums of large cities.


=))

You call them slums? If you have a roof over your head and food to eat you are not poor. Add to that that poor people in America can afford transport and tv, and they have it better than their ancestors could have dreamed of.

There is no material poverty in the west. Only relative poerty, and the only real pain this causes is envy - which is a character the person suffering from must deal with.

[Nemesis]

Why should I teach you basic history? If you want a tutor, ask your parents to hire you one.
LOL

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/artfuldodger.jpg

[Nemesis]

=))

You call them slums? If you have a roof over your head and food to eat you are not poor. Add to that that poor people in America can afford transport and tv, and they have it better than their ancestors could have dreamed of.

There is no material poverty in the west. Only relative poerty, and the only real pain this causes is envy - which is a character the person suffering from must deal with.
You're a fucking idiot. Walk into one of those slums and your chances of dying go up astronomically. Did you know that one in every 21 African American males will die before the age of 21 at the hands of another African American male? I don't see the point in having the stuff that you cite if you don't have a life. Nice try though.

[demagogic_schizoid]

lol Meaning you cant prove your point? Well at least you admit it.

No, meaning I feel stupid explaining something so obvious.


You're a fucking idiot. Walk into one of those slums and your chances of dying go up astronomically. Did you know that one in every 21 African American males will die before the age of 21 at the hands of another African American male? I don't see the point in having the stuff that you cite if you don't have a life. Nice try though.

There is no need to be abusive. I was talking about material poverty. The word "slum" is simply not applicable to the poor parts of cities in America or anywhere else in the developed world.

[Ymir]

Prove it.
It has been tried, many times, and non of those attempts have worked. Call it empirical evidence.

Oh yeah, they're so well off here, where most live in the slums of large cities.
And how is that worse than africa. Maybe if people stopped blaming others for their problems, and took some responsibilty for their own life, things would improve.

PS- Elizabethan England treated minorities much more fairly.
Are you serious?


So that means I should just shrug at the flaws and not try to fix them?
Fix them how, by getting rid of democracy?


Minor? You're telling me that when a system in which the rule of law is supposed to be through popular decision, it's only a minor flaw when the exact opposite happens?
It is a minor flaw, the system is ment to work that way. It can only happen when you have very close elections. Presidential elections in the US, is based on who wins the electorial college and not purly by popular vote. Part of the reason is that smaller states are given more power than their relative size. Another reason is that a majority in a state, gives you all votes from that state, no matter how large or small that majority was. If the american people decides that this is a bad system, they have a chance to change it.

[Nemesis]

No, meaning I feel stupid explaining something so obvious.
http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/artfuldodger.jpg

There is no need to be abusive. I was talking about material poverty. The word "slum" is simply not applicable to the poor parts of cities in America or anywhere else in the developed world.
Okay. Well I wasn't.

[Nemesis]

It has been tried, many times, and non of those attempts have worked. Call it empirical evidence.
That would be empirical evidence showing that it hasn't worked, not that it cannot possibly ever work.

And how is that worse than africa. Maybe if people stopped blaming others for their problems, and took some responsibilty for their own life, things would improve.
Yes. They should start blaming themselves for the racism they face at the hands of caucasian Americans. Thanks for the daily doseage of bigotry.

Are you serious?
Are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I

Fix them how, by getting rid of democracy?
Did I say that? Why don't you point out where I said that?

It is a minor flaw, the system is ment to work that way.
Yes, I'm sure the founding fathers intended for the man that the majority of people do not want to be president, to be president. Wonderful logic there.

I call that a flaw in the system we live under, when an election works correctly and still manages not to work correctly.

[demagogic_schizoid]

slum
noun [C]
a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city

I don't see how you can refer to "slums" in the way you did without implying material poverty.

[Nemesis]

slum
noun [C]
a very poor and crowded area, especially of a city

I don't see how you can refer to "slums" in the way you did without implying material poverty.
That's because you're unforgiveably myopic.

[demagogic_schizoid]

I call that a flaw in the system we live under, when an election works correctly and still manages not to work correctly.

But the flaw would be that your countries implementation of democracy is not sufficiently democratic. It is not the principles of liberal democracy itself which are flawed in the example you give.

[demagogic_schizoid]

That's because you're unforgiveably myopic.

I gave you the definition. You're the one who posted the word without apparently knowing what it meant - either that or you just feigned ignorance when faced with an argument you could not defeat.

[Nemesis]

But the flaw would be that your countries implementation of democracy is not sufficiently democratic. It is not the principles of liberal democracy itself which are flawed in the example you give.
Okay, see there's this thing, called arguing two different things.

One, I was arguing that liberal democracy in and of itself is inherently flawed.

Two, I was arguing that the implementation of our system of liberal democracy is also flawed.

I know it's hard to believe, but I can argue those two concepts seperately :smooch:

[Nemesis]

I gave you the definition. You're the one who posted the word without apparently knowing what it meant - either that or you just feigned ignorance when faced with an argument you could not defeat.
No, I thought that maybe you'd be able to understand that material wealth is not the only difference between the ghetto and the suburbs. Silly me.

[Ymir]

That would be empirical evidence showing that it hasn't worked, not that it cannot possibly ever work.
Yes, and you think you can do this better? Communism will never work, it will always self-destruct. Feel free to tell me how you would make this work, because I promise you that you can't.


Yes. They should start blaming themselves for the racism they face at the hands of caucasian Americans. Thanks for the daily doseage of bigotry.
Yes blame whitey. Only whitey has the racist gene. Victimhood and ad hominem at the same time, good work.

Did I say that? Why don't you point out where I said that?
What are you saying?


I call that a flaw in the system we live under, when an election works correctly and still manages not to work correctly.
The flaw works both ways. It is a minor problem. Would you have been making the same complaints if Gore was elected, or is it because you have a problem with Bush.

Clinton got elected in 1992 with 43 % of the popular vote. Was that wrong?

[Nemesis]

Yes, and you think you can do this better? Communism will never work, it will always self-destruct. Feel free to tell me how you would make this work, because I promise you that you can't.
I will again ask you to prove what you're saying. It's okay. No one's going to hate you for admitting that you can't.

Yes blame whitey. Only whitey has the racist gene. Victimhood and ad hominem at the same time, good work.
So you're saying black people are no longer discriminated against?

What are you saying?
That our system could be better. That it's flawed. That it needs repair. I don't know why it's so hard for you to infer a general direction of my posts.

The flaw works both ways. It is a minor problem. Would you have been making the same complaints if Gore was elected, or is it because you have a problem with Bush.
Obviously I would have been happier if Gore had won, and wouldn't complain, but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge such a gapingly huge hole in our system.

Clinton got elected in 1992 with 43 % of the popular vote. Was that wrong?
Obviously so.

[demagogic_schizoid]

No, I thought that maybe you'd be able to understand that material wealth is not the only difference between the ghetto and the suburbs. Silly me.

But the point is that what you called a slum is not, in fact, a slum. Or even a ghetto. It's just a comparatively poor part of a rich country which should not be described in the same terms which are reserved for people in developing nations, or the quarters of cities which minorities were placed in by force and kept seperate from those of other races.

Oh and by the way, you might want to read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabethan_erathis)


The Elizabethan era also saw England begin to play a leading role in the slave trade and saw a series of bloody English military campaigns in still Catholic Ireland?notably the Desmond Rebellions and the Nine Years War./QUOTE]

or lthis (http://www.shakespeareinamericancommunities.org/about/e_society.htm)

[QUOTE]Religion in the Elizabethan Age
Religion was central to the society for which Shakespeare wrote. Queen Elizabeth made attendance at Church of England services mandatory, even though many church-goers had to travel long distances. People who did not attend ? for any reason except illness ? were punished with fines. (Shakespeare?s father and sister were reported as absent, though his father?s debts probably were the cause of his inability to attend church.) While it was not a crime to be Catholic in Elizabethan England, there was no legal way for Catholics to practice their faith. It was illegal to hold or to attend a mass. .

or even this (http://www.elizabethan-era.org.uk/elizabethan-england.htm)


Queen Elizabeth I and the Jews
There were a small number Jews in Elizabethan England. Jews had long been restricted to only two occupations - money lending and as peddlars. Elizabethan Jews would have had to outwardly conform to the Christian Protestant religion. Any adherence to the Jewish religion would have been undertaken in utmost secrecy, just as with the Catholics.

Prejudice against Elizabethan Jews
There were few Jews in England. Most Elizabethans would never had even met one Jew. All that was known about Jews and their religion and customs were from vague rumour and reputation mixed with horrifying wives tales about the Jews being responsible for spreading the Bubonic Plague.

How Jews were portrayed in Elizabethan Plays and Literature
Anti-Semitism was rife in Elizabethan England. Theatre audiences expected Jews to be portrayed according to the Jewish stereotype. The dramatists of the Elizabethan era gave their audiences what they expected to see. William Shakespeare wrote The Merchant of Venice in which a Jewish character called Shylock was depicted as the stereotype Jew who was also a money lender. Jews were known to circumcise the men of their race. In the plot Shylock agrees to lend the hero 3,000 ducats, and as forfeit would have to return a pound of flesh if the debt was not repaid. Elizabethan men would have been horrified to see this as a connection to the Jewish ritual of circumcision. Christopher Marlowe wrote the play entitled the Jew of Malta. His Jew is also depicted as a cruel, egotistic, and greedy man.

So in conclusion - minorities had less rights in Elizabethan England than they do in liberal democracies of the 21st century.

[Zephyrus055]

Democracy is the worst government because it collapses in to plutocracy. Happens every time.

[demagogic_schizoid]

How can you ask someone to prove that communism could never work? Nobody can prove that. Just like nobody can prove that Bigfoot doesn't exist. Surely the onus is on the person arguing in favour to state their case, and to explain why communism has failed every time it has been attempted if it is a viable system of government.

[Ymir]

I will again ask you to prove what you're saying. It's okay. No one's going to hate you for admitting that you can't.
I gave you empirical evidence. It is a method most science is based on. I could give give you other reasons, but I have no ambition to educate you. You want absolute proof. There is no such thing, all our knowledge is limited by what we can observe. We make future predictions based on past experience, it is all we can do.

So you're saying black people are no longer discriminated against?
Racism goes both ways, but that is not the reason why many african-americans are poor.

That our system could be better. That it's flawed. That it needs repair. I don't know why it's so hard for you to infer a general direction of my posts.
You didn't think that democracy was any better than other systems.


but that doesn't mean I can't acknowledge such a gapingly huge hole in our system.
I think it is a minor problem. There are bigger problems.

[Nemesis]

How can you ask someone to prove that communism could never work? Nobody can prove that.
Well then maybe, just maybe, people should stop saying it.

[Nemesis]

I gave you empirical evidence. It is a method most science is based on. I could give give you other reasons, but I have no ambition to educate you. You want absolute proof. There is no such thing,
Well then stop making blanket statements.

Racism goes both ways, but that is not the reason why many african-americans are poor.
Who is in control of governmental and corporate America?

You didn't think that democracy was any better than other systems.
Okay? I still don't. That doesn't mean I don't think it could be better.

I think it is a minor problem. There are bigger problems.
Yeah, well, lucky for you, everyone's entitled to their own small-minded opinion in this country.

[Nemesis]

But the point is that what you called a slum is not, in fact, a slum. Or even a ghetto.
There you go again with that dodge-ball game. Tell me how material wealth matters when you're chances of dying before 21 are so high?

So in conclusion - minorities had less rights in Elizabethan England than they do in liberal democracies of the 21st century.
Of course, but how did it compare to countries of it's own century?

[demagogic_schizoid]

Well then maybe, just maybe, people should stop saying it.

You can't prove a negative. You could not prove that I am not the son of God. Does this mean you should just let me get away with claiming to be so?

Also, consider this: when something has been an abject failure every time it's been tried, it's pretty fair to write it off as a mistake and say that it's time to move on. If we don't learn from our past mistakes, then there really is no hope for us.

[demagogic_schizoid]

There you go again with that dodge-ball game. Tell me how material wealth matters when you're chances of dying before 21 are so high?

Life expectancy does not define a slum. Material wealth does. This is according to the Cambridge online dictionary.

Clearly your intention was to equate the poor areas of the USA with shanty towns in developing nations. I'm saying this is a false comparison. I'm not saying poor parts of first world cities are nice places to live. I know full well that they aren't but people who come from real slums in poor countries still flock to these areas, precisely because they are so much better than the place they left behind - and in many cases these people are not even from slums in their own country.



Of course, but how did it compare to countries of it's own century?

You said that Elizabethan England treated minorities much more fairly than the USA does today. Or at least that's how it appeared.

http://www.intpcentral.com/forums/showpost.php?p=421902&postcount=22

[Nemesis]

You can't prove a negative.
...Well then maybe, just maybe, people should stop saying it.

Also, consider this: when something has been an abject failure every time it's been tried, it's pretty fair to write it off as a mistake and say that it's time to move on. If we don't learn from our past mistakes, then there really is no hope for us.
Okay. That's how you see it. The way I see it is that it's failed because of corrupt leadership, not because of how the system in and of itself was designed to work. Not to mention, there are many factors, different populations, cultures, land masses; there are many different things that contribute to failure.

Also, consider this: The abject failure of Russian democracy in the early 20th century. The abject failure of German democracy, which was decided BY DEMOCRACY. The appointing of Ahmadinejad BY DEMOCRACY.

For every failure of communism, you can point out at least 2 of democracy.

[omnirook]

I subscribe to Robert Michael's Iron Law of Oligarchy, which holds that all systems, no matter how devised, no matter how implemented, no matter how carefully monitored, eventually become oligarchic in nature.

It does not matter what one starts with, in the end, one winds up w/an oligarchy.

Oligarchy, like it or not, is - truly - the most human of systems because it is the only type of system that humans wind up with, no matter their intentions.

I do not believe that there was any idyllic period in the past when this was not true, and I do not believe that there will come any utopian period in the future when it will not be not true.

All the rest - the monarchy, the dictatorship, the republic, the democracy - no matter what shape you give it, no matter what you call it - in the end - it becomes an oligarchy of vested interests who will stop at nothing to protect their interests.

That's why I'm tepid at best about government forms - and, at this point, given globalization - even nation states. Everybody's all stirred up about BULLSHIT - and I hope one day to be as detached an observor as was Petronius - at least then I'll be able to laugh about it, instead of cry.

[Nemesis]

Life expectancy does not define a slum. Material wealth does. This is according to the Cambridge online dictionary.

Clearly your intention was to equate the poor areas of the USA with shanty towns in developing nations. I'm saying this is a false comparison. I'm not saying poor parts of first world cities are nice places to live. I know full well that they aren't but people who come from real slums in poor countries still flock to these areas, precisely because they are so much better than the place they left behind - and in many cases these people are not even from slums in their own country.
Okay, point taken. Now illustrate for me how making these countries democratic is just going to completely solve all there ills?

You said that Elizabethan England treated minorities much more fairly than the USA does today. Or at least that's how it appeared.
Yeah, I misworded myself there. I meant in comparison with other countries of the day.

[Ymir]

It does not matter what one starts with, in the end, one winds up w/an oligarchy.
Nothing last forever, not even oligarchy.

[demagogic_schizoid]

Okay, point taken. Now illustrate for me how making these countries democratic is just going to completely solve all there ills?

I never said it would. But I feel that however bad democratically elected governments may be, they are still the ones with least impunity. If they are unable to run their country as their personal property in the same way that Monarchs of the past did, this allows for greater freedom for a merchant class to grow, and fill the void which would have been filled by the all powerful state.monarch/commisar/take your pick. I believe that history has shown that it is through campaigns led by this newly empowered middle class that power is wrested further away from the oligarchy and shared between a larger number of people.

As the country becomes more open and democratic, new ideas can be discussed with greater freedom, education and reason becomes more important than religion and superstition, and as this happens it becomes increasingly hard to discriminate against outsiders or to exclude the poor from the political process. Partly because a large proportion of the middle class will fight for the rights of the poor, as history has shown - nearly any succesful labour movement or welfare reform program you can care to think of could not have achieved what it did without it's educated middle class supporters selling it to the ruling classes and providing an intellectual stimulus for the moevement itself.

Furthermore, as the country progresses technologically, socially and economically, as it undoubtedly will when it's population becomes more educated and free to develop new ideas, the trickle-down effect will make even the poorest sectors of society richer - as well as the more open economy allowing many of them to escape the working class and join the ranks of the noveaux riche.

As the middle class grows and grows, so does the level of the country's internal consumption, and so does the people's ability to hold their government to account. In this new, more enlightened atmosphere, political repression will be much less tolerated, and the ruling classes, seeing that poor people now have the freedom to complain about their lot (as well as vote), and knowing that they cannot crush protests like in the past or keep crime under control like they used to, will inevitably introduce a welfare state, to make sure that no-one goes without the bare neccessities, largely in order to maintain the peace, but also, I believe, because our societies are genuinely civilised enough to demand that everyone shouldat leasthave the basics.

Well I finish the story there because, IMO, that's the level we are at now. I hope the future will be much better, because clearly where we're at isn't that great. But I still feel that while helping our own societies to advance - forcing reluctant governments to change if need be - we should also seek to encourage country's that are still at a more basic level to advance. Because to not do so would be a betrayal of their future generations, and of ours - because I don't believe that a relatively enlgihtened, liberal world can co-exist with a backwards, fundamentalist, superstitious world - especially in an age of globalisation where we are now so close to one another as to make national boundaries almost meaningless, and where weapons are getting more powerful and more widely spread all the time.

[Nemesis]

I never said it would. But I feel that however bad democratically elected governments may be, they are still the ones with least impunity. If they are unable to run their country as their personal property in the same way that Monarchs of the past did, this allows for greater freedom for a merchant class to grow, and fill the void which would have been filled by the all powerful state.monarch/commisar/take your pick. I believe that history has shown that it is through campaigns led by this newly empowered middle class that power is wrested further away from the oligarchy and shared between a larger number of people.

As the country becomes more open and democratic, new ideas can be discussed with greater freedom, education and reason becomes more important than religion and superstition, and as this happens it becomes increasingly hard to discriminate against outsiders or to exclude the poor from the political process. Partly because a large proportion of the middle class will fight for the rights of the poor, as history has shown - nearly any succesful labour movement or welfare reform program you can care to think of could not have achieved what it did without it's educated middle class supporters selling it to the ruling classes and providing an intellectual stimulus for the moevement itself.

Furthermore, as the country progresses technologically, socially and economically, as it undoubtedly will when it's population becomes more educated and free to develop new ideas, the trickle-down effect will make even the poorest sectors of society richer - as well as the more open economy allowing many of them to escape the working class and join the ranks of the noveaux riche.

As the middle class grows and grows, so does the level of the country's internal consumption, and so does the people's ability to hold their government to account. In this new, more enlightened atmosphere, political repression will be much less tolerated, and the ruling classes, seeing that poor people now have the freedom to complain about their lot (as well as vote), and knowing that they cannot crush protests like in the past or keep crime under control like they used to, will inevitably introduce a welfare state, to make sure that no-one goes without the bare neccessities, largely in order to maintain the peace, but also, I believe, because our societies are genuinely civilised enough to demand that everyone shouldat leasthave the basics.
Okay, I understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is that a government does NOT have to be a democratic one for all this to happen.

[aether]

Most of Latin America needs to clean up it's act (corruption, inefficiency, populism, feudalism, etc.) The region is lagging in economic growth, poverty reduction, development to the rest of the world. Even Africa's economy is beginning to growth at unprecedented rates while L.A. still struggles with the usual problems.

[Zephyrus055]

I subscribe to Robert Michael's Iron Law of Oligarchy, which holds that all systems, no matter how devised, no matter how implemented, no matter how carefully monitored, eventually become oligarchic in nature.

It does not matter what one starts with, in the end, one winds up w/an oligarchy.

Oligarchy, like it or not, is - truly - the most human of systems because it is the only type of system that humans wind up with, no matter their intentions.

I do not believe that there was any idyllic period in the past when this was not true, and I do not believe that there will come any utopian period in the future when it will not be not true.

All the rest - the monarchy, the dictatorship, the republic, the democracy - no matter what shape you give it, no matter what you call it - in the end - it becomes an oligarchy of vested interests who will stop at nothing to protect their interests.

That's why I'm tepid at best about government forms - and, at this point, given globalization - even nation states. Everybody's all stirred up about BULLSHIT - and I hope one day to be as detached an observor as was Petronius - at least then I'll be able to laugh about it, instead of cry.
That is a very interesting and useful theory. It compelled me to do some additional research. Thank you for sharing it.

[Ferrus]

And the British system isn't corrupt ?


Claverhouse :ph34r:
It's a matter of degrees, while there is undoubtably corruption, in comparison to many area of the world (including other 1st world countries) it is fairly minor.