Thread: О тех, кто в России у власти

Originally Posted by Marcus

Везде правит элита, а народом манипулируют.

So, what? It doesn't cancel the fact that the majority controls who gets the executive power and those who want the power compete for it. If the majority makes an uninformed decision, or bad decision, or brain-washed decision it's still a democracy. Democracy does not ensure the best decisions or the worst decisions. The only requirement is that the election results are not falsified to a large extent.

A word about the "people's power". Think about it this way: say you have a monarchy, i.e. the executive and the judicial power belongs to the king. Does that mean it's the king's power? In reality, it's not - the king rules the state as long as he has the support of the elite and he's working hard to secure that support. Whoever can do it the best (among the heirs and the successors), wins the throne. So, to some extent you can say that regardless of the government form, a certain part of the elite would always rule the country. So, does monarchy exist or ever existed?

The power of the government cannot exceed the sum of the power of its parts. Is that "elite power" is good or bad, it's another matter. Some people think that you can't really give the power to the people (=to the crowd) as that would have the most devastating results, so the crowd needs to controlled by those who realize the consequences of the decisions (=the elite). That is because the crowd so far was unable to demonstrate the intelligent behavior. The elite would translate their intelligent behavior into the unintelligent slogans used by the crowd, like: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need".

Originally Posted by Crocodile

So, what? It doesn't cancel the fact that the majority controls who gets the executive power and those who want the power compete for it. If the majority makes an uninformed decision, or bad decision, or brain-washed decision it's still a democracy. Democracy does not ensure the best decisions or the worst decisions. The only requirement is that the election results are not falsified to a large extent.

A word about the "people's power". Think about it this way: say you have a monarchy, i.e. the executive and the judicial power belongs to the king. Does that mean it's the king's power? In reality, it's not - the king rules the state as long as he has the support of the elite and he's working hard to secure that support. Whoever can do it the best (among the heirs and the successors), wins the throne. So, to some extent you can say that regardless of the government form, a certain part of the elite would always rule the country. So, does monarchy exist or ever existed?

The power of the government cannot exceed the sum of the power of its parts. Is that "elite power" is good or bad, it's another matter. Some people think that you can't really give the power to the people (=to the crowd) as that would have the most devastating results, so the crowd needs to controlled by those who realize the consequences of the decisions (=the elite). That is because the crowd so far was unable to demonstrate the intelligent behavior. The elite would translate their intelligent behavior into the unintelligent slogans used by the crowd, like: "From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need".

Croc, that's sophistry and you know it.

Aristocracy (Greek ἀριστοκρατία aristokratía, from ἄριστος aristos "excellent," and κράτος kratos "power"), is a form of government in which the best qualified citizens rule.

Democracy is a form of government in which all citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Ideally, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law.

That 'equal say' part is not working. It never worked, anyway, but some stubborn people still maintain that there is some democratic forms of government.

Those in power are liars and hypocrites. Everyone, in any country. No exeptions. You can't rule people without deceiving them. The so called 'democracy' as we see it now - is the worst form of government ever because the rulers not only abuse their power, they try their best to put an image of 'equal rights, equal possibilities and justice for all' into the heads of their subjects. A bloodiest dictatorship is at least honest in that part.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Croc, that's sophistry and you know it.

Not really. The ancient Greek democracy has very little to do with the today's democracy and you know it.

Originally Posted by Ramil

That 'equal say' part is not working. It never worked, anyway, but some stubborn people still maintain that there is some democratic forms of government.

I think I gave a different definition for the democracy, so you can't really drag me down that way.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Those in power are liars and hypocrites. Everyone, in any country. No exeptions.

That's true.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You can't rule people without deceiving them.

Yes, we can! (TM) There are lots of ways and the first, but not the least, is to make them afraid you'll cause them some physical damage. And you don't have to deceive, but you can take one person off the crowd and beat him to death, then go for the second one and then the crowd becomes afraid and will do whatever you want. No deceptions. The deception (to make the people believe they want the same thing that you want is perhaps the softest way of ruling (and children safe too).

Originally Posted by Ramil

The so called 'democracy' as we see it now - is the worst form of government ever because the rulers not only abuse their power, they try their best to put an image of 'equal rights, equal possibilities and justice for all' into the heads of their subjects. A bloodiest dictatorship is at least honest in that part.

As I mentioned eariler, I respectfully disagree (and I already gave you the reason). Also, there are all kinds of time-proven deceptions that are used by the democracies and the dictatorships alike (e.g. the patriotism when applied to protect the government you might dislike).

Also, speaking of the sophistry... a master who beats his slave to death might be honest in his part - and you can call me a sophist here - but I prefer a picture of a motivational speaker who tries to put a spark in the workers to make them work hard. That's my math.