Pages:
Author

Topic: Economics and democracy. Come exchange on theories and litterature. - page 2. (Read 310 times)

full member
Activity: 952
Merit: 175
@cryptocommies
I believe in true democracy but I don't think it should be done on a large scale.  IT should really be community based and each community should be autonomous.  That solves all of those issues because its easy for jews to leave a community that hates them.  Its not so easy if the whole large country hates them.

This is more like the model they have in Rojava.  I like what they have in Switzerland but would not like Democracy to get bigger than a US State.  A government the size of the US, India, or Brazil is just nuts.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 12
So I've ran into tons of people who talk like they have the moral high ground because they are peaceful citizens valuing the democracy contrary to the violent anarchist I am.

Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.


Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.


I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.

Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?

What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".

"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/

It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.

Am I the only one thinking that way?


In my opinion, human rights should be superior to any form of government. So even if 80% of the population wants to kill the remaining 20% for simply being Jewish, it should not happen due to universal human rights.
legendary
Activity: 2926
Merit: 1386
....
I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.....

Not the best, but possibly the worst. Look at Noam Chomsky's discussions about how to manipulate pure democracies, so that the votes produce the "best decisions" as previously decided by the elite.

As soon as manipulation works, and it does, then "democracy" does not mean "Power to the citizens."
legendary
Activity: 3318
Merit: 2008
First Exclusion Ever
Don't you know all the people who WERE classical democrats are right-wing extremist Nazis now?
full member
Activity: 392
Merit: 115
So I've ran into tons of people who talk like they have the moral high ground because they are peaceful citizens valuing the democracy contrary to the violent anarchist I am.

Fact is that I consider myself an iron solid democrat.


Precision, democrat here in the litteral term of "pro democracy". Nothing to do with the republican/democrat USA system.


I do believe democracy is the best system we can have currently. Democracy means power to the citizens.

Now most people I see who say they value "democracy" also value the arbitrary limits that have been put on most occidental democracy. Is there anyone here who consider those limits shouldn't be there?

What I mean is that a complete democracy is the law of the majority, without any restrictions. Except maybe the notion of "majority" as 51% is often seem as a "soft limit" and we can arguably put it higher at something like 80%. So if 85% of the citizens agree on something, I believe it should be done, no matter what is the "it".

"It" can completely be "leaving the EU".
But "it" can also be kill all the jews.
And "it" can also be kill me :/

It's not what I want but I believe that if 85% of the population claims it, then it should happen.

Am I the only one thinking that way?
Pages:
Jump to: