Thread: О тех, кто в России у власти

Originally Posted by Ramil

We're dealing with two different definitions here. You advocate your own one while I'm pointing out that this is not the kind of definition 'democtatic leaders' use. You can explain all kind of contraversities with clever words and smart definitions, but again - your explanation does not fit the idea of democracy the most of people have in their heads.

But, you said it yourself, the democracy according to the definition of the Wikipedia and the 'democratic leaders' does not exist. So, why are we spending time discussing something that doesn't exist and not something that actually exists?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Having said so, I must admit that this is a pure speculation and if we assume that in this example by saying 'parent' we mean 'government' and by 'child' we mean 'the subjects' then the allusion is wrong. A parent gives life to its offspring and he provides for his offspring therefore he can be at least partially justified while in the government/subjects pair the situaion is the opposite. It's the subjects who feed their government and it's the subjects who 'gave birth' to the government.

I fail to see how that would make any difference in our discussion. In either case, we're down to the situation of exercising the power. It's either veiled or unveiled and I think it's pretty obvious that the veiled power is much more humane and, therefore, preferable. I can give you another analogy: there are (among the others) two types of management: the first is - do your work or I'll fire you right away and you'll be on the street, and the second is - let's work as a team to reach our common success (blah-blah-blah). Which one you'd choose if you're an employee?

Originally Posted by Ramil

So, if we have a dictator who ascended the power by violence and mistreats his population will be overthrown sooner or later and there will be a new system of state power, but in a 'democratic country' it doesn't matter who currently the president is because the system won't change. A new president will continue to maintain the current system and lie on TV about 'equal rights and possibilities'.

You're saying you really want only the red pills?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Well, now, that's why I'm against any forms of government.

Свято место пусто не бывает.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I have. Twice, but I'm not in a position to judge basing on my own experience. Simply because of I had not witnessed any committed crimes this doesn't mean that the Americans are all that law-abiding. If that were so, US wouldn't have had the largest prison population in the world and a crime statistics worse than it is in some less democratic countries.

I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all. The largest prison population actually shows that: (1) the law is enforced rather strictly, (2) the living condition in those prisons are a way better than in some less democratic countries, and (3) the US is a large country. Also, what I was talking about is that the judicial system in the US happens to encourage people to constantly sue each other for just about anything and it causes the Americans to become very law-abiding very quickly. Also, the corruption of the judicial system is not visible for the middle class and the lower class Americans, so it's not like they can buy their way out. On the sharp contrast with the judicial system of the less democratic countries.