|
|
#351
10-07-2007, 06:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
Redbean, stick to talking about bonds. Your arguments and reasoning here suck. -(one readers opinion) [/ QUOTE ] In other words, in your opinion...my opinon is 'wrong'. Imagine that, two people see things differently. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] And if your referring to my "analogy" about Hitler and $2000 TV's....check your sarcasm detector. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] 
|
|
#352
10-07-2007, 06:42 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
As for the television example I obviously shoot hitler to save the world, steal the television set utilizing my stategiven monopolizing superpowers and eat the hotdog. Duh. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] HA! You didn't answer the question! The question is: do you kick the PAT or go for two? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] But seriously, I agree...it was puzzling to see the "Hitler was elected" argument against democracy.
|
|
#353
10-07-2007, 06:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
Hehe ty. It is an important piece of history also, that should remind people that modern democracy is far more than allowing people to vote. The checks and balances system is incredibly important to make any society functionable, it is our 'safety switch' against Hitlers so to speak. In AC the checks and balances are (as I understand) largely given by the market, which is a fairly intriguing concept. As for the television example I obviously shoot hitler to save the world, steal the television set utilizing my stategiven monopolizing superpowers and eat the hotdog. Duh. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Don't let me break up the back slapping party going on, but I have a question. If a dictator rises to power in a democracy through purely legal, constitution methods, do you think that country is still democratic? If not (and I'm guessing not), at precisely what point do you think democracy is lost?
|
|
#354
10-07-2007, 07:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Hehe ty. It is an important piece of history also, that should remind people that modern democracy is far more than allowing people to vote. The checks and balances system is incredibly important to make any society functionable, it is our 'safety switch' against Hitlers so to speak. In AC the checks and balances are (as I understand) largely given by the market, which is a fairly intriguing concept. As for the television example I obviously shoot hitler to save the world, steal the television set utilizing my stategiven monopolizing superpowers and eat the hotdog. Duh. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] Don't let me break up the back slapping party going on, but I have a question. If a dictator rises to power in a democracy through purely legal, constitution methods, do you think that country is still democratic? If not (and I'm guessing not), at precisely what point do you think democracy is lost? [/ QUOTE ] when the public loses the ability to elect another leader. Barron
|
|
#355
10-07-2007, 07:07 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
In the UK, where I live, I have no vote for "leader", only a vote for my local MP. The Prime Minister is entirely unelected by the people (see, for example, when John Major was PM for a few years without having ever won a general election). Does this mean the UK is not a democracy?
|
|
#356
10-07-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
In the UK, where I live, I have no vote for "leader", only a vote for my local MP. The Prime Minister is entirely unelected by the people (see, for example, when John Major was PM for a few years without having ever won a general election). Does this mean the UK is not a democracy? [/ QUOTE ] i was being general. in the UK you elect MPs who then choose a PM or however it works. but you can obviously still vote for another party and then whoever has the majority in the house of commons then gets the choice of PM. so yes, UK is a representative democracy. Barron oh, and to be fair....the UK isn't even a democracy. it is a full on republic. you vote for people who vote for your leaders.
|
|
#358
10-07-2007, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
While the point may seem a pedantic one, can whoever was arguing that Nazi Germany (let's say, in particular in July 1932 after Hitler was elected with 37% of the vote) was not democratic, can you spell out the precise ways in which this was not democratic while the UK is?
|
|
#359
10-07-2007, 07:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
If a dictator rises to power in a democracy through purely legal, constitution methods, do you think that country is still democratic? If not (and I'm guessing not), at precisely what point do you think democracy is lost? [/ QUOTE ] The first thing to note is that a modern democracy can't stop a dictator to rise through democratic measures. But he will be have to be have a whole lot more support than in Germany during the Weimar Republic. If a democracy could stop its populace from removing democracy through legal means, it would not be a democracy - which makes perfect sense. You have several things that can go lost and then a society seizes to be a modern democracy: 1. The removal of the judicial branch. (laws/courts) 2. The removal of the legislative branch. (parliament of some form) 3. The removal of the right to vote. If any of those are lost then you are not a modern democracy. Secondly, if either judicial or legislative power is transferred to the executive branch (cabinet etc) then you are no longer a modern democracy. The same obv goes if any of these powers are transferred to the state leader. Also note that many democratic models have more branches than those I have mentioned here. The means of transference are not important either, it doesn't matter if it is legal methods, armed revolution, extortion, corruption or whatnot. Pending on the nation, the loss of the constitution would also mean an effective end to democracy, but there are democratic countries which have no constitution - so it depends abit on the model used. Other than that you have certain base principles that are commonly used to been viewed as a liberal democracy. These principles govern rights and freedoms of the populace, how much the majority's will can rule the minorities (popular to contrary belief this is limited). Most would agree that a liberal democracy has to have the rights of equality, privacy and due process. Freedom of religion, political views, expression and the right to assemble are also important pillars. Most supporters of modern democracy would agree that if any of these are lost, then it is no longer a democracy.
|
|
#360
10-07-2007, 07:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: AC question
[ QUOTE ]
While the point may seem a pedantic one, can whoever was arguing that Nazi Germany (let's say, in particular in July 1932 after Hitler was elected with 37% of the vote) was not democratic, can you spell out the precise ways in which this was not democratic while the UK is? [/ QUOTE ] I wrote a one page long post on this earlier in the thread, and I won't bother to repeat all of it. Germany during the weimar republic (1919-1933) wasn't a democracy, but a presidential republic which at the end did not use democratic process for election of chancellors. It had the goal to democratize germany, but it failed.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
