A Pause

[Ellipsis]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain

That has always one of my favorite qoutes, am not a firm believer in democracy, I see that as was also once said that "the person is smart but people are stupid"
. So I pose a question to all of you INTPs, one which many have also asked yourselves "why do we believe this?" Everyone is in a very democratic mood right now but is this the right choice, when the US election happens will it do any good to put a man with a diffrent party at his back? We must also ask ourselves is it right to slap Bush every chance we get? Would have any one else done something diffrent? The truth as all of you know is that we do not know. But I think we need a moment to puase and reflect.

[helium]

Some of us need to pause a moment and consult a good guide on grammar. Imperfection is one thing, but the OP borders incomprehensible.

"Why do we believe this?"
Believe what, exactly - Democracy? Mark Twain? People? Stupidity?

"[...] put a man with a diffrent [sic] party at his back?"
Put him where and at whose back? What planet are we on?

"[...] is it right to slap Bush every chance we get?"
Oh! That planet. Yes, it's right and correct and even downright patriotic.

"Would have any one else done something diffrent [sic]?"
Yes. Some would have been right in some measure. Few would have been wrong in quite the same measure as Bush. But does it really matter? I tell my daughter that I don't care what Johnny's mom might let Johnny do IF the tables were turned. I concern myself with my child, right here, right now. Bush is here and now. And he's wrong.

[Ellipsis]

Some of us need to pause a moment and consult a good guide on grammar. Imperfection is one thing, but the OP borders incomprehensible.

"Why do we believe this?"
Believe what, exactly - Democracy? Mark Twain? People? Stupidity?

"[...] put a man with a diffrent [sic] party at his back?"
Put him where and at whose back? What planet are we on?

"[...] is it right to slap Bush every chance we get?"
Oh! That planet. Yes, it's right and correct and even downright patriotic.

"Would have any one else done something diffrent [sic]?"
Yes. Some would have been right in some measure. Few would have been wrong in quite the same measure as Bush. But does it really matter? I tell my daughter that I don't care what Johnny's mom might let Johnny do IF the tables were turned. I concern myself with my child, right here, right now. Bush is here and now. And he's wrong.

... if you don't understand it...I don't know what to say...your comments are well founded but somewhat unneeded ...(your use of And at the start of a sentence is quite dreadful but frankly I do not care this is not a professional article and thus I do not treat is as a must edit.)

As for your final comments all I can say is you are right but I thought some of you would see the possiblity that there is no right or in this case wrong and that Bush may have handled the last few years better then others will in thier term. We must ask what will the next guy in power do in the very real probability of similar things happening in the near future.

P.S. Please spare me the pleasure of being corrected again so I can go to bed.

[booyalab]

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority,it's time to pause and reflect" Mark Twain

That has always one of my favorite qoutes, am not a firm believer in democracy, I see that as was also once said that "the person is smart but people are stupid"
. So I pose a question to all of you INTPs, one which many have also asked yourselves "why do we believe this?" Everyone is in a very democratic mood right now but is this the right choice, when the US election happens will it do any good to put a man with a diffrent party at his back? We must also ask ourselves is it right to slap Bush every chance we get? Would have any one else done something diffrent? The truth as all of you know is that we do not know. But I think we need a moment to puase and reflect.

I dont take "the person is smart but people are stupid" from that Mark Twain quote and the meaning also isn't necessarily a critique of democracy. Majority opinion isn't necessarily wrong anymore than it's necessarily right. The important thing is to examine your basis for believing something, regardless of how many people agree with you.

[TheGiftofWork]

Another Good one.

"When people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate each other."
-Eric Hoffer

[Zergling]

In terms of democracy vs. other types of governments:

In order for most democracies to work, they end up with some forms of laws, limits on what governments can do, etc., so that even if someone disagrees with a majority, most of the time they don't get attacked viciously because of it (Sometimes there are things like angry mobs that come together and cause problems, or a government just ignores protections, but these have seemed rarer.)

In other forms of government, the ruler is often not decided on by who is the best at knowing how to run a country, or the person who can learn that stuff quickly. The ruler is often decided on by whoever can manipulate or bully their way to the top, or who has inherited or been picked by a single person to rule. The manipulating, bullying, etc. types may be good at getting power, but the sorts of skills they have are often not good at the long term growth and good running of a country, and these rulers often get power from a small section of the country which may or may not care too much about the rest of it. The inherited or hand picked rulers have problems of their own a lot of times. While democracy also often has people who can manipulate and influence people, they at least have to get the support of most people in the country, which in some amount will ensure that most people will get some sort of good things from them.

I in general agree wit hthe quote "Democracy is the worst form of government around, until you compare it with the others."

[demagogic_schizoid]

GC Age, do you think modern liberal representative democracy is just something that ocurred irrationally, out of nowehere, and that the questions you are posing have never been dealt with or thought about? There's a long history of people fighting for democracy in countries which today are democratic because at the time they saw it as a vital solution to social problems which no longer exist as a result. I guess if you haven't experienced life in a non-democratic society, you will be unlikely to appreciate a democratic society. Your question is pretty hard to answer, because it covers a huge range of issues, and there are countless historical examples and counter-examples. but what is your alternative to democracy? I mean, what is your practical, workable alternative way that our societies should be organised - and why is it superior to how we live here and now? People criticise democracy for being imperfect, but the world is not perfect, humans are not perfect, so why should democracy be perfect? The idea of a "free" society is to limit imperfections in a society, not to provide a utopia. Now you can question whether any democracy today is sufficiently democratic, but arguing for less democracy on the basis that our attempts at democracy do not go far enough is a pretty unsustainable position to take. I suggest you read up on the history of liberal democracy and the philosophy behind it if you really want to critique it.

[demagogic_schizoid]

also, if we think in terms of probability, if everyone has the right to voice an opinion and everyone has one vote, then there is more chance of new ideas and solutions to problems being found. Experts tend to be a self-censoring group, and once a view is "proven", they will stick to it, even if it's wrong, and they will also exclude those who disagree with majority "expert" opinion, including new potential "experts" (and as in a non-democratic society they will be shielded from the effects of bringing in policies which harm the standard of living for their people. they will not be recieving sufficient feedback for their decisions, and will be slower to respond to problems than leaders in a democratic society). So what you have is a non-responsive, aloof group, with a narrow range of opinions within it. I don't see how this leads to good government. In a democratic society, even if people simply tossed a coin or rolled a die to choose which of party to support, you'd probably end up with better government than you would with government by "experts", as the more you restrict government to "experts", the more voices are excluded, the more mistaken ideas are re-inforced, and the less probability there is of succesful choices being made. Bascially what I'm sayiong is that in terms of politics or economics, closed societies don't work. They arise from a fear and mistrust people have of each other, but a society based on fear and mistrust is going nowhere. People build fortresses to protect themselves, but a fortress can just as quickly be turned into a prison. The more people try and control the world and force a good outcome, the less likely they are to end up getting a good outcome. Well that's how I see it anyway. IMO if you just let human beings work things out for themselves int erms of economics and politics, they will come up with something workable.

[dubbeltop]

A Pause

1+1=3

democracy should be about creating value and just that....everything else is a waste of democratic taxpayers money.......

[demagogic_schizoid]

A Pause

1+1=3

democracy should be about creating value and just that....everything else is a waste of democratic taxpayers money.......

what do you mean "creating value"?

[helium]

... if you don't understand it...I don't know what to say...your comments are well founded but somewhat unneeded ... (your use of And at the start of a sentence is quite dreadful but frankly I do not care this is not a professional article and thus I do not treat is as a must edit.)

I only pointed out that your post was unclear, and I provided examples. May I inquire what "well founded but somewhat unneeded" means? What exactly is "dreadful" about the use of a conjunction at the beginning of a sentence? Is such use dreadful because grammar school teachers advise their students, who are still struggling to master skills like proper punctuation and spelling, against its use? (I guarantee a quick search on modern usage will deflate your ideas about proper sentence construction.) Did you comment just to prove that you care so little about the subject?


As for your final comments all I can say is you are right but I thought some of you would see the possiblity that there is no right or in this case wrong and that Bush may have handled the last few years better then others will in thier term. We must ask what will the next guy in power do in the very real probability of similar things happening in the near future.

If Bush is neither right nor wrong, what good comes from hypothetically considering the reactions of the next guy? You're building an argument around an impossible scenario. You want us to wonder what some future president might do under future circumstances, which has no bearing on what Bush has already done under his own circumstances. In your best case scenario, the next guy gets into a mess almost identical to Bush's mess, except the next guy has the privelege of hindsight. It's not a useful comparison.


P.S. Please spare me the pleasure of being corrected again so I can go to bed.

If you can start the conversation, then you can drop it too. I'll tell you what I tell my thirteen-year-old daughter: closing your eyes and ears to a mistake does not make that mistake go away, but it does increase the likelihood that you will repeat such a mistake in the future.

And I have no power here to keep you from going to bed. :banana:

[dubbeltop]

what do you mean "creating value"?

Creating world peace, prosperity for all and individual liberty ...

and stop financing death,war and other form of destruction of individuals and groups....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deliberative_democracy

I like this version of democracy ,because a democracy should teach values instead of imposing them by law and order....

The higher the values a individual can attain the less his freedom is restricted and the more value is created for the individual ....

I like to read books instead of working ,so by reading books i create my value

I like to dance and listen to music so by this i create value

I am truly me therefore I create value

So a democracy shouldn?t in anyway restrict an individual unless the individual has no interest in creating world peace ,prosperity and individual liberty

edit ok this was total BS ,lets just say I tried to answer something I couldn?t care less about and the only value I created was :joft:

I hope that one day a democracy is able to make it possible for me to express myself through art, fun and drinking cheap beer and follow my ideals instead of a pay check and stop forcing me to work as a slave for some economic irrelevant goal.....:highfive:

Thx dubbeltop ;)

[demagogic_schizoid]

I hope that one day a democracy is able to make it possible for me to express myself through art, fun and drinking cheap beer and follow my ideals instead of a pay check and stop forcing me to work as a slave for some economic irrelevant goal.....:highfive:

Thx dubbeltop ;)

what value do you yourself aim to create in return for all this? where are the means for all this going to come from? who's going to provide you with the welath to do all this if you don't earn it via a paycheck?