Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/17/04 12:03 AM, Jlop985 wrote: You give the people far too little credit. Take anybody off the street, and they will have an opinion on almost everything. The people need to be included in any form of government; indeed sovereignty must lie in the people, because that's who the government affects.

Oh sure, they'll have an opinion, but they still don't know what the hell they're talking about. They're opinions have been formed by commercials and paid advertisements, the corporate media, and politicians with an agenda. You hold too much faith in the people.

The real test is asking a person to explain why people of the opposite view hold their opinion. That shows that they are more than a collection of quips and one-liners.

At 2/17/04 01:39 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Oh sure, they'll have an opinion, but they still don't know what the hell they're talking about. They're opinions have been formed by commercials and paid advertisements, the corporate media, and politicians with an agenda. You hold too much faith in the people.

Doesn't matter if they know what they're talking about. it's rule by the people, not educated.

Do you see anything dangerous about the idea of people voting on issues that they don't understand. Maybe all the ballots should be written in obscure languages, it wouldn't effect anything because it would still be the people voting.

It can hardly be called a vote if someone doesn't understand the consequences or the meaning of their vote. It's the same as calling gibberish words. In order for a country to be run by the people, the people must be able to understand, even at the most basic level, two or three of the political stances.

At 2/17/04 05:35 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Do you see anything dangerous about the idea of people voting on issues that they don't understand. Maybe all the ballots should be written in obscure languages, it wouldn't effect anything because it would still be the people voting.

If they dont understand the issue, then they wouldn't vote for it.

It can hardly be called a vote if someone doesn't understand the consequences or the meaning of their vote. It's the same as calling gibberish words. In order for a country to be run by the people, the people must be able to understand, even at the most basic level, two or three of the political stances.

I think that more people than is commonly believed know where they stand politically. The ones that dont know, dont care, and dont vote.

I agree with what meester arbitrary said.

At 2/17/04 05:53 PM, -redskunk- wrote: I agree with what meester arbitrary said.

Here poses an interesting question: Should we alolow people to vote, if they do not understand what they are voting about?

If we do, we run the risk of electing an idiot into power.

If we dont, we have taken our first few steps into becoming a dictatorship.

At 2/17/04 05:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I think that more people than is commonly believed know where they stand politically. The ones that dont know, dont care, and dont vote.

This is the way I see things. Also, if some people do not know about the issues, they must be educated on the issues. It may be too late to instruct adults on the issues, because any form of instruction will be seen as propaganda, but special emphasis in education must be put into teaching the issues.

-redskunk-, I believe in the people because I have heard what they know. Every person my dad has had over for coffee has had some opinion on the matters that were brought up in political conversations. Once, when riding a bus, I heard someone say that college-educated people feel like they are above everybody else. That is very true, and that statement humbled me. A lot of people may not be intelligent, but they certainly are not stupid.

At 2/17/04 06:11 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: Here poses an interesting question: Should we alolow people to vote, if they do not understand what they are voting about?
If we do, we run the risk of electing an idiot into power.

Happens all the time.

If we dont, we have taken our first few steps into becoming a dictatorship.

So melodramatic

Perhaps we could try to educate them / cut the bullshit surrounding issues.

At 2/17/04 10:13 PM, Jlop985 wrote: -redskunk-, I believe in the people because I have heard what they know. Every person my dad has had over for coffee has had some opinion ...A lot of people may not be intelligent, but they certainly are not stupid.

Oh, I'm not saying people are stupid. I'm not saying they're not intelligent. I'm saying the majority ignorant on a lot of issues, and don't care to be informed.

At 2/18/04 12:50 AM, -redskunk- wrote:

At 2/17/04 06:11 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: If we dont, we have taken our first few steps into becoming a dictatorship.

So melodramatic

If we disallow certain people the vote, then we're a dictatorship. They are still part of the people.

Perhaps we could try to educate them / cut the bullshit surrounding issues.

Both these ideas should be in place now.

At 2/18/04 05:50 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: If we disallow certain people the vote, then we're a dictatorship. They are still part of the people.

Democracy is government for and by the people. It could be argued that what many countries have now are not democracies, because the government is not looking at for the people, it is looking out for multinational conglomerations and the super rich. But regardless, if we let only certain people vote, would it still be a democracy? Not in the most strict sense, but if we're talking about a very narrow definition of democracy, than re-adjust some of the countries which you consider democratic.

At 2/18/04 12:16 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Democracy is government for and by the people.

No. Democracy is "Rule by the people"

It could be argued that what many countries have now are not democracies, because the government is not looking at for the people, it is looking out for multinational conglomerations and the super rich.

Nah. That would be America. Every other Government is slightly right. Even the Tories arn't THAT bad. Governments care more about the people in Mainland Europe.

But regardless, if we let only certain people vote, would it still be a democracy?

No. It would be Dictatorship by a group of people who elect their leader.

At 2/18/04 12:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: No. Democracy is "Rule by the people"

Argh, but an aspect is for the people, but, I won't argue the point. Dictionary.com is against me, and I'm not going to look up political theoris.

Man, did they score when they got that url, eh?

Nah. That would be America. Every other Government is slightly right. Even the Tories arn't THAT bad. Governments care more about the people in Mainland Europe.

And nearly all of the third world industrial nations, too, eh? Everywhere where the government sets up free trade zones, or helps fund a massive factory.

At 2/18/04 12:55 PM, -redskunk- wrote: And nearly all of the third world industrial nations, too, eh? Everywhere where the government sets up free trade zones, or helps fund a massive factory.

I thought you were only talking about countries that declared themselves to be fully democratic. I'd say that out of those countries, all but one of the governments exist to serve the people. Or at least, listen to them now and again.

At 2/18/04 03:13 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: I thought you were only talking about countries that declared themselves to be fully democratic. I'd say that out of those countries, all but one of the governments exist to serve the people. Or at least, listen to them now and again.

But they aren't listening to the people, they're listening to large conglomerations. Look at the free trade zones in Mexico. Mexico gave away the land to large corporations, which then:
a) don't have to pay a minimum wage or any other benefits
b) don't have to follow pollution standards
c) don't have to pay taxes, duties, etc.

I was more talking about first world countries, but I see your point.

At 2/18/04 12:55 PM, -redskunk- wrote: Argh, but an aspect is for the people, but, I won't argue the point. Dictionary.com is against me, and I'm not going to look up political theoris.

Yeah, that happens a lot, they have shitty definitions for most philosophical terms. Their definition for Theism is correct in only the literal translation.

At 2/18/04 09:09 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Yeah, that happens a lot, they have shitty definitions for most philosophical terms. Their definition for Theism is correct in only the literal translation.

Mind you, to define a political theory would take more than a sentance or two, wouldn't it?

I just remember having an argument with someone on a philosophy and my definition didn't match up with dictionary.com, so I was accused of 'making it up on the spot.' Damn I was pissed.

At 2/16/04 02:32 AM, RelentlessDemise wrote: Anarchy: Anarchy is the absence of government. True chaos. No laws, no taxes, no public assistance, no environmental protection. Absolutely no real form of government.

Communism: Communism is a form of government which claims to include all the citizens. "to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities". A utopian dream of everyone working together for the betterment of humankind.

Despotism: A government or political system in which the ruler exercises absolute power.

Monarchy: A king or queen serves as a hereditary figurehead.

The Republic: A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

Democracy: Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

poor poor relentless demise so close yet so so far but ill answer your question based soely on your criteria which just so happens to not be accurate, its more just junk you compiled in your head mixed with random spurts of propoganda, but to be fair its way better than ive seen so ill give ya respect for being a stride in front of average. I'd say your definition of democracy exercised directly would be the closest to what i would assume is the best (eg. fairest towards all man and based on reason not privilage)

at the same time good idea for a thread bring all types of govs into on topic makes it more interesting instead of debating each in their own right

so shit your 2-1 not bad not bad at all.

At 2/20/04 01:06 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I just remember having an argument with someone on a philosophy and my definition didn't match up with dictionary.com, so I was accused of 'making it up on the spot.' Damn I was pissed.

making an argument up on the spot is really a true sign of genious (and about definitions dictionarys arent always right, look up knowledge for a start)

At 2/20/04 01:35 AM, miket311 wrote: (and about definitions dictionarys arent always right, look up knowledge for a start)

Well, they usually are right about simple things. Cat, tin, phone, and runnign would all have fairly good definitions.

But with Philosophy, people haven't even defined half of it, and are often arguing AGAINST the common definition.

We all take a leader test and whoever scores the highest becomes the leader.
Simple.

NAME: George Bush COUNTRY: America
MARK: 7 / 230 GRADE: Retard

Test

1. Would you Invade a Country for no apparent reason?
Yes

How come he got 7 for that?

He made Tony show him his answers.

At 2/21/04 04:08 PM, bumcheekcity wrote: How come he got 7 for that?

he didnt understand what they were asking so he guessed on the last section

I think it might be an exaggeration to say that there was no apparent reason. I can think of all sorts of reasons, on the other hand, most of those reasons also apply to Iran. I think you're just upset that you're not allowed to know the reasons we attacked Iraq.

At 2/21/04 11:08 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: I think it might be an exaggeration to say that there was no apparent reason. I can think of all sorts of reasons, on the other hand, most of those reasons also apply to Iran. I think you're just upset that you're not allowed to know the reasons we attacked Iraq.

Here are some reasons, about why we invaded Iraq.

Where did you get your definition of anarchy?

At 2/16/04 02:32 AM, RelentlessDemise wrote: Anarchy: Anarchy is the absence of government.

Yes.

True chaos.

Absolutely not.

No laws,

Yes.

no taxes,

Yes.

no public assistance,

False.

no environmental protection.

From what?

Absolutely no real form of government.

Indeed