LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksWhy not?Originally Posted by Marcus
Why not?
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".
Yes, I think that freedom from corruption is a major factor for building a successful state.
If you can't trust that the state is going to behave according to the law, then there is nothing that you can trust in society.
If people can't trust that they will get good healthcare when they are sick, that their co workers actually have the skills that their degree would indicate.... that state officials will certain tasks within a prescribed period....
In Northern Europe it has not been a major problem for the last 100 years, maybe never, I am not sure. For me, it's almost impossible to imagine a corrupt policeman, judge or university staff member. They can be annoying or unpleasant, but not corrupt.
One thing that Northern Europe (West) has in common is Lutheran/protestant Christianity. Maybe there is something from that religion.
Surely it helps if the police is quite well paid, and there are less social differences between people; i.e. the policemen don't need the bribes and people couidn't afford to pay a lot of bribes anyway.
In Sweden the idea is that we are too good and honest people to be involved with such corruption, that is something that less evolved nations do. People simply wouldn't do it. However with recent immigration, there have been incidents of corruption - always with immigrants.
Singapore was a totally rotten society when it became indpendent. Everyone was corrupt. The leader there hated corruption and put in place really strict punishments for corruption and made it hard to get off clean for those who got caught. The punishments were so strict that people simply did not dare...
Of course, as a dictator , Lee Kuan Yew had the power to implement these changes just on the merit that he thought they were good. In a democracy, too many people would be against.
I think corruption ought to be a top priority to combatin Russia. The state can never be successful as long as it exists.
I just read that Ikea started production in Belarus, for the Russian market. The reason was that they have an extremely strict policy against using bribes, and they found that they couldn't get anything done in Russia without bribes. Logically the production should have been in Russia, it would have made better economic sense. But they simply could not do it, but in Belarus, no bribes were needed (but lots of paperwork and bureacracy, I would guess!)
Croc, that's sophistry and you know it.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".
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.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Not really. The ancient Greek democracy has very little to do with the today's democracy and you know it.
I think I gave a different definition for the democracy, so you can't really drag me down that way.
That's true.
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).
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.
I agree with Ramil, about the hypocrisy of democracy.
Plato the Greek philosopher, writes in one of his main books that a good dictatorship is better than a good democracy because it is more efficient. However, a good dictatorship can very easily turn into a bad dictatorship - and for that reason he supports democracy because at least there you can get rid of the bad leadership (assuming elections work, and public opinion is not manipulated).
In a way it's almost more "honest" with a dictatorship, because then you know where you stand.
However, police and authorities in democracies generally treat the population a bit better, don't they?
If you have a serious issue, you can complain without being worried of harassment.
And don't you think there is some relevance to the fact that countries that have a higher level of (percieved) democracy, tend to have a higher level of material living standards? Or is that a side effect of their general deviousness?
Corruption can exist just as well in democracies though - for example India. According to Indian people that I know, you can't get anything done without a bribe, and the elections are corrupt too, because a lot of votes are bought in the crudest possible way - many of the inhabitants don't really understand how the democracy is supposed to work, and why they should not sell their votes.
No, I don't. Who determins the level of democracy?And don't you think there is some relevance to the fact that countries that have a higher level of (percieved) democracy, tend to have a higher level of material living standards?
An example of something that I think is a sign of democracy:
A political leader does something wrong: He is corrupt and people find out about it, or he is just bad at his job. People get upset, and he is forced to resign. That happens regularly in the UK, for example.
Some examples: Politicians were "fiddling their expenses" in a major way, claiming tens of thousands of pounds in expenses that they were not entitled to. A female labour politician who said she was was a socialist and a supporter of state schools, but sent her own children to private schools. A politician instigated a very bad change to rubbish collection in the city, causing lots of problems for local residents.
They had to go.
UK is not a particularly good example of democracy I think, but people do not tolerate obvious corruption or incompetence.
However everyone here says that in Russia almost every politician is either corrupt, or incompetent or both - and nothing happens.
From this perspective, I think the UK outcome is preferable.
In the UK a lot of "corruption" happens between the government and private business, and it is very hard to prove that it is corruption. A lot of the time, this benefits the economy and even when such scandals are revealed, people don't care enough about it.
I gave you the modern definition of the democracy as it is stated in Wikipedia (not a very reliable source in general, but the definitions are usually up to date).Not really. The ancient Greek democracy has very little to do with the today's democracy and you know it.
You gave a wrong definition.I think I gave a different definition for the democracy, so you can't really drag me down that way.
Agreed, I just didn't mention that. But in modern democracies the threat of physical violence remains the same. It is veiled, obscured by laws and regulations, but it IS present.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.
Any proofs? Say, Saudi Arabia is an absolutist monarchy - i.e. technically - dictatorship. Do you beliefe the police there is more violent than in the USA? I don't think so. All I know that in countries with dictatorships the population is more law abiding (because of that thread, crocodile mentioned).
Aren't you confusing the cause and the consequences? These countries have a higher level of (perceived) democracy because they have a higher level of material living standards, therefore - they can afford that.
I wish I could sell mine to someone. They don't ask me
How can you measure something that doesn't exist anywhere?
Send me a PM if you need me.
I think the Bradley Manning case, and the events in Wisconsin State is a good recent example that democracy and freedom in the USA is totally hyped up.
And they KILL prisoners legally, whereas Russia haven't for a long time.
I wonder what is worse, prison in Russia or prison in the USA? Russia, probably, or what do you think?
Footnote: (If you are really going to commit a crime, do it in Norway. Their prisons are better than the average 2 star hotel.) And for Sweden: When I visited a prison with school, my whole class was shocked to realise that the rooms in the prison were much more comfortable than the rooms in our boarding school.
I don't know about the correlation between living standards and democracy in other countries. But I can tell you that Sweden was POOR when general democracy started. People lived in bad housing and some did not have enough food. It was about 1918 I think. People immediately voted for the social democrats, and they slowly started to redistribute the wealth, gradually making the richer less rich and the poorer better off. They also made sure that everyone got a good education and good healthcare. All this allowed the country to live up to its economic potential and make the best of the "human resources" in the country.
I think that it is important that people have the economic and personal freedom to live up to their full potential, where that is as a labourer or a top scientist.
A country that gives everyone the opportunity to feel safe and live up to their potential will prosper economically, I think.
I am not sure whether talented people in Russia and the USA have the opportunity to live up to their potential at the moment, if they are born into poor conditions.
Sure, so try and ask Wikipedia why is that 'equal say' part is not working.
That's what they call the power, my young padawan learner. Remember, I mentioned the approach is child-safe? What do you do with a child that behaves very bad and does not respond to either of the finely-refined pedagogy? You slap his butt, and when he starts crying you tell him to behave well. If he still goes on, you slap harder. But here's another option: do not bother that pedagogy which veils and obscures the truth - as soon as a child starts behaving bad, slap his butt with all your honesty so he falls down to the floor. (I saw that happening, by the way.) Can you tell some pros and cons in those two approaches? No sophistry, remember?
Have you ever been to the US?
Have you ever been to the US?
There was a big scandal in the UK when an English tourist visiting Washington DC was arrested and kept in prison for several hours, just because he crossed the street when the red man was showing! LOL!!! I agree with the USA on that - he should not have done it, and he should have apologised and paid the fine when asked.
In Belarus it is probably illegal too, and I would not do anything illegal here because there are policemen and other people in military uniforms all over the place...!
For some reason they have been in my block of flats several times and knocked on all the doors in the building. I have no idea what they want and didn't open.
Yesterday I saw them deal with a drunk man. They were actually very polite, even though he was practically half dead from boozing. They tried to wake him up in a nice way and asked him to try to stay awake so they could get him to hospital. I have seen police be A LOT worse than that to drunk people in many other countries.
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.Sure, so try and ask Wikipedia why is that 'equal say' part is not working.
Well, from the humanitarian point of view I would agree, that beating children without explaining a few things before that is bad, but in the long run, I don't think there will be any difference when that child grows up. Yes, those two hypothetical kids would have different characters and will act differently, but the 'beaten one' would probably have better sense. 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.That's what they call the power, my young padawan learner. Remember, I mentioned the approach is child-safe? What do you do with a child that behaves very bad and does not respond to either of the finely-refined pedagogy? You slap his butt, and when he starts crying you tell him to behave well. If he still goes on, you slap harder. But here's another option: do not bother that pedagogy which veils and obscures the truth - as soon as a child starts behaving bad, slap his butt with all your honesty so he falls down to the floor. (I saw that happening, by the way.) Can you tell some pros and cons in those two approaches? No sophistry, remember?
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'.
Well, now, that's why I'm against any forms of government.
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.Have you ever been to the US?
Send me a PM if you need me.
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?
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?
You're saying you really want only the red pills?
Свято место пусто не бывает.
I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all.
From the other hand, both forms of management exist and a more authoritatian boss gets better results in 80% of cases (my own observations). Provided he's not an idiot. What concerns the 'exercising of power' I can only add that provided he is not qualified to rule (due to mental instability or worse) any dictator would not abuse his power beyond measure. We're looking at this problem from two different points of views. In your case the means do not justify the ends, but sometimes the ends are more important. I cannot imagine USSR becoming a nuclear power and launching the Sputnik without truly an effective management of L. P. Beria. Taking a bit lower down to your analogy with two kinds of bosses - I am a boss myself, not a very big one, but if I have a dead-end I would demand, I would threaten and I would even play 'an idiot boss' in order to get the job done in time.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?
Yup. Knowing that you're livin in an illusion is unbearable. I might have preferred to be unaware, but once it comes to the choice there would be no choice for me. I will always take the red one.You're saying you really want only the red pills?
As an alternative I see only a direct electronic democracy. No central government (i.e. there are no special people who make decisions, perhaps only some secretaries to do the paperwork). I won't go into details because I haven't really thought it thoroughly yet, but it's an only acceptable choice for me.Свято место пусто не бывает.
Yeah, right, "у вас статистика неправильная".I guess you know that some less democratic countries happen to manage their statistics effectively, that's all.
While the people don't stop committing crimes.
Living conditions in USA's prisons may or may not be better than in some other countries, but does it prove anything in a problem we are discussing? Or, perhaps, the conditions in the American prisons are so nice that people commit crimes for no other reason than to get there. Then, perhaps, they should go to Norway and go to jail there (right, Hanna?)
There are larger countries and they are less democratic. China, for example.
I would not take the American judical system as an example. The fact that it makes people constantly sue each other doesn't prove its effectiveness, quite the opposite, actually. I think than in civil matters (when no crimes are committed), taking your case to the court should be the last resort only. And only in case the law-enforcing institutions failed.
Oh, the corruption is simply formalized, that's all. You don't pay a bribe to the judge, instead you pay your lawyer. If you have money, you hire a good lawyer and your chances of getting out of trouble improve tremendously, even if you've been caught with a knife over a dead body. On the contrary, if you cannot afford a good lawyer (especially in a civil case) your chances of winning are pretty weak. So, what's so different? Only that the lawyers pay taxes? And of course there's a nice thing called 'plea bargain'. The American judical system can be VERY flexible when the situation (or someone powerful's interests) demands.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.
Send me a PM if you need me.
Yes, but look at the big picture. That system would only work if you constantly fire people and hire the new ones. Then the employees would really be afraid to lose their job since they know there's always someone happy to replace them. On the other hand, the most talented professionals tend to prefer a more liberal approach if have an alternative, so they would flee to your competitors. Such tough system can only work effectively for the relatively short period of time. Stalin's system worked as long as he purged the party and the controlling bodies. The KGB have done it elsewhere. Once the process stopped and the nomenclature became a lifelong privilege (with Brezhnev), the whole system became paralyzed by the ineffective management at all levels. In the meantime, while the main objective of the Soviet Regime was incomplete, many of the potent people were purged with no decent replacement. And at the same time the West didn't have that authoritarian system spurred by L.P. Beria but still was a way ahead (except for the weapons, of course).
The authoritarian approach stops being effective once the system becomes very complex. The inventors of the planned economy didn't know that back then. The system should be designed so that it works autonomously in a de-centralized way.
You're tough. I think most people would prefer living in the oblivion (for the most part). And the comfort oblivion is usually preferable to the only-getting-by oblivion.
Right, you need to think it though keeping in mind the flesh-mobbing phenomena. I'm pretty sure the manipulation with the mass consciousness would step to an entire new level of sophistication. But, I find it interesting to discuss that option if you choose to.
I think you're probably the heaviest user (in this forum) of the "lie, big lie, and the statistics". Now, all of a sudden, you're resorting to it?????? I would never have thought...
For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.
Not really. That's why I think it was useless to resort to the crime statistics. You gave your interpretation, I gave mine. That doesn't prove anything in either case.
There are countries with no prisons at all and they are neither democratic nor communistic. I just offered another interpretation to the crime statistics you mentioned. I'm pretty sure if we collectively think hard enough we can also find some relationships of that statistics with the Antarctic penguins behavior.
No it doesn't, but it makes people be constantly conscious of the possible consequences of their actions. That significantly adds up to the overall law-abiding mindset.
Sure. Build your case with several strong precedents and you win. In the US, if a police officer haven't responded to your call, you should immediately sue the police and demand some xyz compensation. Then settle for the 20% of the xyz they offer to avoid more legal expenses from their end. Once that happens 100 times and the police keeps paying, they would need to justify their budget for the next year: why their legal costs are higher than those of the other departments? That's how it starts to roll out higher and higher to the government. Once the Head of the Police position becomes vacant, all the candidates would promise their higher executive bosses to reduce the legal costs. And subsequently they would make the local police officers respond to the calls. So, when that process is exercised by most of the citizens under various circumstances with the different combinations, the government officials feel the pressure to do their job in a way that the citizens would not be able to find substantial cases to sue them. That more or less is their mindset.
Exactly. That's why I mentioned the corruption is not visible to the middle class and the lower class.
Professionals don't need to be reminded of their work duties. That's what makes them professionals. And I don't need to constantly fire people in order to get obedience, I only need to cut their salary this month a little bit and they usually get the picture immediately.
The so called 'liberal approach' began.
Look at the modern world trans-national corporations. They usually have effective management (and rather authoritarian ones) and they are vertically integrated - in other word - centralized.
If you remember, that character in Matrix who asked to plug him back put a condition - to forget everything. If that option is unavailable what's the point to be plugged back knowing that everything around you is not real.You're tough. I think most people would prefer living in the oblivion (for the most part). And the comfort oblivion is usually preferable to the only-getting-by oblivion.
I think that flesh-mobbing will self-regulate. After all, people would have to live with their own decisions. Besides, I don't think you can organise a flesh mob large enough to get majority of votes.Right, you need to think it though keeping in mind the flesh-mobbing phenomena. I'm pretty sure the manipulation with the mass consciousness would step to an entire new level of sophistication. But, I find it interesting to discuss that option if you choose to.
Technically, yes, since you can't break a law that doesn't exist.For sure people would stop committing crimes when there's anarchy.Besides, the physical threat would remain.
Right up to the point when the judical system turns into an absurdity.
Yeah, in Utopia, probably. Such a system produces sh.tloads of bureaucrats who ultimately stop the self-regulatory mechanism which looks so good on paper. Moreover, bureaucrats generate corruption which adds to the chaos even more. Democratic society as USA sees it is the same non-working utopia as communism is. Perhaps it takes probably more time for some people to realize it.
Send me a PM if you need me.
For once, I feel tempted to agree with a lot of what Crocodile is saying. But as usual Ramil is making some spot-on and challenging observations.
I particularly agree with the point about paying the lawyer in the US.. Remember the OJ Simpson case?. It seems that unless you were filmed on Live TV committing the crime, you can get off, if you can pay for a good enough lawyer.
It's a very cool observation to say that this is the same as legalised corruption, because it's certainly the same cause and effect: Pay money --> get acquitted.
And on the US vs USSR comparison - Croc, how to you explain the successes of the USSR in space, science, sports and a few other things? I mean, sure, the material standard of a 1960s worker in the USA was probably better in most cases, than in the USSR, but the difference was not THAT huge, and the USSR did really well in some areas. In some aspects, the USSR worker might have had an equally good or better setup. What is your explanation for that?
The way I see it - the USSR became more specialized in some areas and it came at the expense of losing focus on the others. The Soviet Union sent the Sputnik first, but failed to provide the overall living conditions comparable to the West. By the 80s, the USSR had the best weaponry and an excellent sports team, but purchased wheat from Canada. For centuries Russian Empire was a major exporter of food, but by the most developed stage of the Developed Socialism, the state ended up exchanging their natural resources for food. The way I see it - the living conditions of the population weren't a priority for the party and the government, but the sports was as the sports provided the bright outlook and hence the political benefits.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
Reply With Quote