If a democracy is following the choice of the majority, is the majority's view always the right one? Even if the majority asked crazy things like said "Hey lets not bother helping the poor" etc.
No, the majority just has a louder voice than the minority.
I wouldn't know what you mean with "right". "Right" for whom? Under what perspective?
>>3 is correct; "right" is subjective. Of course, the majority is always right for the members of that majority, but if you're in the minority, then the majority is clearly wrong.
That being said, groups and nations in which the majority make decisions are usually pretty healthy, so long as the opinions of the minority are respected as well.
>>4
A key part of democracy is the protection of the minority from a tyranny of the majority; that's why we have things like the First Amendment in the US.
I wouldn't say that's a part of democracy per se, but it sure is important to a stable one.
Unfortunately, one of the things you learn as you grow older is that the majority of people are dumb
No, that's what you convince yourself as you grow into a teenager who substitutes cynicism for insight.
>>7 Maybe one thing you learn as you grow older is ... Everybody (including you and me) is dumb in any way. And we have to admit that the world is not perfect. We can't have a perfect democracy with unperfect people, uh ? Let's only try to have a better one.
BTW, we could dump any "winner take all" principle ;-) No democratic at all !
I just noticed that my ID in >>7 was incredibly depraved and incestious.
Suprise! It's Mommy!
>>12
Don't you dare drag in rewrite catchphrases in here.
Cue quote about two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.
Another relevant quote:
"When great changes occur in history, when great principles are involved, as a rule the majority are wrong. The minority are right."
-- Eugene V. Debs
He's got a point.
>>7 is both wrong and right: People are not dumb. However, the decisions they take are frequently dumb if only because the subject matter is so complex.
People en masse aren't stupid, per se. They're ignorant and uninformed. This is why education is important. Although that's just the beginning.
Please commence, Herr Engels, your comment is most interesting but you did not conclude your contribution. In the meantime let me consider this question: Given a common western country, would it be reasonable to judge the people en masse to be ignorant and uninformed?
When taking the average of the population, this is most likely true although on an individual level there is ample skill and knowledge, albeit in a particular direction only.
The aggregate population knows plenty, thanks to education which you mentioned. In many western nations the state provided educational level keeps descending. Even so, over the last 40-50 years education has been provided to the masses, causing a shift in the national level of information and information handling.
However, the whole society's capability to make informed decisions does not benefit very much from this shift since information flows very slowly from different sources. This is caused by lack of communication. The insufficient communication again, is caused by indifferent people: If people do not care about their environment, they will not gather information.
Thus education and information intake depends (mostly) on individuals desire to receive education and to collect information. So what does this desire depend on? How could the decision-making capability of the populace be improved?
People are ignorant when they don't know the things you do nor view the world the way you do.
I think the majority of cynical teenagers are dumb, they will believe anything that cool theatre teacher tells them, and anything System of a Down sings.
>>18 people are not confined to just one point of view. That is the sole reason why people are able to understand each other, the underlying principle of empathy.
Ok sorry! it's too phony. Can't express it much different though.
we live in a democracy yet for the most part its a two party system because the majority votes for them that means that i'm realy restricted to point of views when in reality there are many varied point of views. i belive that the goverment we have now is curpt and dosent work at all.
we live in a democracy yet for the most part its a two party system because the majority votes for them that means that i'm realy restricted to point of views when in reality there are many varied point of views. i belive that the goverment we have now is curpt and dosent work at all.
I'm going to assume the 'we' in >>24-25 is America and run with it.
America doesn't have a two party system because the majority vote for them. The two party system is in place because the two parties have done their best to make it really hard for another party to get a candidate elected. There are the obvious things such as the election laws and gerrymandering the district lines to the more subtle ones such as stealing the thunder of any third-party candidate if their issues ever get traction.
If you do not like the current system, you can always look at Italy to see how well they manage to pull off a plethora of parties system.
>>26
Or we could look at parlimetary systems (like the ones the US has been setting up since WWII.)
>>26 I'm not all too familiar with the US political system but from the way I look at it the two party system were supposed to represent the two majority/main (albeit generic) ideologies in the US, it is now somewhat divided into the left and right wing of US politics, although you have to keep in mind that the reason why the US has "adopted" a two party system is because these are the two largest political group in US politics with enough cash to run regularly run campaigns and you're right about these two parties trying to shut down independent/third party groups any way they can.
i have a brilliant idea.
when big elections come up, our ballots have no names of any candidates anywhere on them. instead our voting ballots are turned into questionaires, getting a profile of what each voter wants, and needs from their government. our electoral college (which is defined as a group of people meant to deliberate about voting someone into a particular office ~_~). actually lives up to their definition and votes candidates into office which have the voter's best interests in mind. what do you think? crazyness? or BRILLIANCE!
Social democracy as practiced today is based on systematically stepping on, marginalizing and demonizing select minorities for political and monetary gain. The only reason those people stay in power is because first, they don't dare step in the majorities or the pensioners and second, if you didn't vote for the soc dems then the conservatives or the centre party might win and that would be doubleplus ungood. And besides, they're just junkies/whores/niggers/criminals/nerds/wops/servants/spics/whatever, why should you care unless you're one of them?
So yeah, a political system that isolates the common man from things that rightly concern him is pretty much made of lose and fail, except for the ruling elite. Whether it is representational "vote once in 4 years, and shut the fuck up in between! have you no respect for democracy??!?!?! filthy anarchist." para-democracy, a republic system, feudal rule or dictatorship.
>>1
The swedish voted to give up nuclear energy. Now they are buying it from russians' who make it in their Tshernobyl type reactors. - Indeed, the majority are idiotic for making such policy decisions, and so is the swedish government for letting them. Independent expert boards and open scientific investigations should be used to make important policy decisions that are not fit for every moron to decide. Majority should only be consulted to decide what color is swedish flag to be. Not important issues such as joining the euro, or whether to give up nuclear energy. This is so because stupid results and stupid laws will only have to be ignored, or everyone will end up suffering like the stupid swedes. Lesson of the story: We now hear of problems in russian nuclear reactors. Will the swedish hunger for energy be the cause of next Chernobyl? Why not use solar and wind energy instead, swedes? That is what you wanted, is it not? Maybe because those are just so much bullshit? Now you can't use nuclear energy that would save us from global warming yourself because of the vote, but it is OK for Sweden to secretly buy it from Chernobyl type nuclear reactors next to Finland. MANY THANKS TO SWEDISH IDIOTIC MAJORITY FOR THIS!
>>31
Why is the majority ignorant? Why can't they be educated better? That's the real problem here. And failing that, at least those who vote should know what's going on. What if people were required to attend meetings with local groups of voters to talk about things, and to demonstrate knowledge of current events and important issues? Less people would vote, but those who did vote would know what they were doing, and they wouldn't have just been drawn out by a TV ad.
that's a poll test ~_~ and it's not fair. our educational system is just too fucked up. even i'll admit to not learning an adequite amount about politics until i was well into college. but the government has to answer to the people as a whole, even if it's been abstracted, that's why i like my idea so much.
The narrow meaning of democracy, from the original Greek concept, is the government according to the will of the majority (demos kratia = rule of the majority).
But the modern concept of Democracy is an evolution from the philosophies of the enlightemnet era to the experiences of the 20th century and thus consist of much more than just the rule of the majoirty. In fact in most democracies of the modern concpet, there are many ways to go against the will of the majority.
When I was younger, I had often found that the majority of people are normal and boring. Normal and boring people tend to vote alike on various topics, and normal and boring people are the majority, so therefore the majority is not always the best choice. There were times when it may have been the best, but those choices were the more fun ones like picking whether to go slowly up a winding path on a hill, or to just run up it and exhaust ourselves out (and that was fun). Politics ain't fun, though. Voting ain't choosing whether to walk up a winding "baby" path on a hill or to go up the "extreme" way at a fifty-something degree angle. Voting is more serious, and the majority can be completely terrible, as with >>1 's "let's not help the poor" example.
I think I'd be a better leader than Bush, but almost no one would vote for me for being nuts. That's the stupid majority for you.
Are you talking about Democracy??? Where every citizen of the state has a vote in a council? or are you talking about Representative Democracy were upon each citizen elects a representative to vote on said council?
Ironically a lot of countries have provisions against mob rule why is that?
The romans had a similar system we have nowdays, although they didnt call it democracy, rather Res Publica (the public thing). However they had a very complex system which had a lot of councils and houses to rule, all designed to run a city-state, however as time went by a lot of these became purely ceremonial, and only two houses really remained, the plebian assembly and the Senate. The Senate is where the nobles sat perse, and as time went by the Senate accumulated most of the power. However it was still second fiddle to the real rulers of the city, as it roles was mostly advisory >_>;
The banners they carried had S.P.Q.R. - Senatus Populus Que Romanus (Senate of the People of Rome bad latin translation).
However Westminster (British parlimentary system) is not quite a direct copy of that (its more evolutionary taken many years to form), where as the US is a cross from Westminster and Rome.
Australia's cross from the US and Brittish, why government is formed in the lower house, where as the US its a seperate entity from the houses (perse government of the day)
Western democracy is not democracy except in a very narrow, limited sense. To wit, you get to vote for your favourite asshole from among tens or maybe even hundreds of other assholes, alongside your asshole neighbour who adores NASCAR and thinks that killing them damned niggers is a good policy for improving the employment situation. Then your votes get counted, tabulated and so forth and before the night is over, the set of new assholes in the parliament is known. Repeat once every couple of years for the varied levels of government, local elections, EU reps' elections, etc.
Regardless of whether the end result is exactly the same as before, this is democracy only in the sense of voting for representatives who'll decide things for you, and only in the political system. In the economical side of society you are either employed by Big (or at least bigger than you) Money, and do what you are told or you live on the street or are humiliated routinely on the dole with the idea that perhaps humiliation will make you want to be sat on 40 hours a week. No one is obligated to ask your opinion and much less care about it. Indeed, it's considered bad form to voice your opinion because it's Ordinary and Expected that we follow the Boss, who is Clearly there due to Merit rather than elbow and/or brown tongue skills.
I tried to introduce a meme-phrase for this concept a year or so back, "parademocracy". Not quite as nasty as "quasidemocracy", but contains the nuance that this may look and quack kind of like an obscure breed of dog-duck on a Pacific island might quack like to someone who's never seen one, but it's not really a duck regardless of what it declares itself to be.
So basically, you don't like democracy because a) the people are stupid and b) the people don't get to decide.
So tell us, is your proposed solution for this to give the stupid people more power, or to remove power from the people?
Looking at the two party system it set up that way due to the way the government was set up in the beginning. Ideologies are as numerous as individuals. The two party system exists because of the "winner take all" system we have in the US (as for other countries sorry, I'm not very familiar). Which forces the parties to be moderate.
If we allow say, representatives to exist according to the population where if 6% of the US votes for the Green party the green party gets 6% of the say in policy then the power goes to the minority groups.
An example. If you were one of the big parties and you had 42% of the vote and another big party had 41% of the vote and everything else is broken up into the remaining percents then the large parties are forced to make concessions to the smaller parties in order to effect policy. What if 9% wanted to ban air travel on Sunday and told the party with 42% of the vote, hey, if you don't ban air travel on Sunday we'll give our vote over to your enemies. We then get policies that are only wanted by 9% of the population! That's FAR less democratic then a two party system which forces policy into the moderate zone.
>>38
My proposed solution would be to give the people more power with regard to matters that, you know, matter. Extreme local democracy (via delegation instead of fixed-length term all-or-nothing representation) would be a good start, but that wouldn't help with the economic aspect... so I guess collectivization and formation of spontaneous communes would be my ticket. Too bad that the anarchists don't have a party, eh?
For a nice look in between with regard to limiting the power of the parliament, check out Switzerland. They actually have their people vote on regular, run of the mill legislation, and the people can submit a law proposal if they get like 15000 verified signatures. None of this "well you elected us for the full 4 years, suck it up!" crap. I'm not quite sure but I think there's some mechanism over there that lets the people force a referendum on whether the parliament should be kicked out wholesale, which requires like 50000 signatures to get started.
>>40 California does the same thing. Get enough signatures and ANYTHING can be brought before the ballot. The problem is people are uninformed and yet try and enact legislation. Once again you end up with exactly what people here have been saying all along. You can't give power to the masses because the masses are ignorant and lazy. They get most of their information from talk shows.
We NEED a system where the common man is seperated from actual legislation or we end up with a system like California. Hey, let's pass legislation where you can't build any more power plants in California, then enact legislation that we need to lower power costs! Because we're complete morons we think this'll work! Hurray!
You still didn't explain what to do about your asshole neighbour who adores NASCAR and thinks that killing them damned niggers is a good policy for improving the employment situation.
I'd do two things
1.) Any party can get members on any ballot in the union provided that they can get a presidential candidate on the ballot in all 50 states.
This should open up the field up to other candidates, which does several important things. First, no candidate can expect to get much support without an actual agenda of some sort. No more "Vote for me 'cause my opponent drowns kittens!" ok, so what -- there are 6 more people running for office who don't drown kittens -- why should I pick YOU? Secondly, it should cut down on campaign contributions. Both parties get corprate sponsors, but if the same company wanted to fund all 7-8 candidates, he can't do so at the current rate -- he'd go broke trying to fund 7-8 people for $2 million. So they'll restrict their contributions.
2.) No candidate could run for public office unless they'd worked in a non-government field for at least 5 years. They need real world experience. Without that, they don't understand what it's like for their people.
Your neighbour is still sitting there, adoring NASCAR and thinking that killing them damned niggers is a good policy for improving the employment situations.
>>1
That's an abvious question. The majority is not always right.
But hopefully he's part of the small minority that vote for the "Kill the Niggers and watch Nascar" party -- far far more are going to vote for a more mainstream party -- like the "Free Ice Cream" party, or the "Pave The Earth party" (AKA Republicans). The point being that a nazi-like party supported by a very small portion of the population -- he may be elected dog-catcher, but I doubt he could win statewide office, let alone congress or the presidency. At present even more mainstream parties (Greens and Libertarians) get less than 10%, and very few Libertarians or Greens win even local elections.
What I'm counting on is that the number of rational idiots outnumber the racist idiots.
And a member of a "kill the niggers" party isn't going to be able to do much good as a dog-catcher, or a postal inspector.
No. Thats why it takes more than a majority to amend the constitution.
But how is any of what you say not the case with the current system? Small parties like the KTNAWNP are even more marginalized now, giving them even less power, and your neighbour is voting for the repbublicans or somebody equally harmless.
Because our current system promotes curruption. That's my main concern. Because Dems only have to be "slightly less bad" than Reps, it allows curruption. i.e during watergate, all you'd have to do to win (had WG come out pre-election) is be the candidate or party that doesn't steal secrets. You could still take bribes, provided your opponent does the same. You could still take campaign contributions from shady groups, etc. The only requirement that has to be met before you could get away with said currupt practice is that the other guy started it first.
But by adding parties and candidates, as I said before, you can't distinguish yourself as being merely "the lesser evil". There would be 8-10 others who aren't "the evil one". So you'd have to be the least currupt of all possible candidates. You'd have to have the ideas most like the people voting. No more winning just 'cause you oppose program X, or just because Party B wants to do something evil.
I'm sorry, I haven't been to this board in a long time, that's me at number 39. I only took one class on political science so I'm by far no expert but I find it strange that my comments have been completely ignored. The two party system in the US ensures moderation. Rather then saying "this will work" or "this will fail" why not look at real world examples?
Israel is a government with multiple parties, the power goes to the minority exactly like in my example. In order to ensure that a vote gets a majority people need to make concessions to the small parties to get their vote. Then the "kill all niggers" party suddenly gets to enact change in their favor simply because they have the swinging 5% of the vote and we get laws that only 5% of the people want. That's not democratic.
Say whatever congecture you will about lesser evils or 10 presidential candidates but the sad fact is democracy cannot exist that way and be stable. Just look at other real world governments for examples.
> Just look at other real world governments for examples.
Like all the Scandinavian coalition governments, which are about as stable and well-behaved as they get?
Even if the Kill All Niggers party gets 5% and get in a position where they can swing decisions doesn't mean any party has to go along with what they say. If they do, and their voters disagree, they lose support.
I'm also no expert at politics, but here is how the system works where I live, and I think it works pretty well.
Now that sound awfully complicated, so why do I like this system?
... awfully long post. Bonus points if you manage to figure out where I live from the description.
>Therefore, coalitions, typically with one or more of the smaller parties, become neccesary. So the big party that wonwill get in touch with one of or some of the smaller parties and decide upon a political agenda that both can sort of agree upon.
You're describing exactly what's wrong with them. Such a system does not enforce moderation. The winner take all system of the US pushes both extremes to the center. A great example in the election of 1900 (I think, don't quote me on that year) where William Jennings Bryan in the populist party, lost to Theodore Roosevelt. Much of what Bryan campaigned for was later adopted by the Democrats and even though Bryan himself lost 3 presidential campaigns his agendas were moderate enough to work for the democrat party and eventually led to many changes in the early 20th century.
By having a multi party system where every party wins at least some seats in government it doesn't force the parties to the center.
Since I don't have a lot of knowledge on the subject I'll need to bow out of further discussion until I can talk to my roommate later, he's an international relations major and I think he can offer me insights.
Why would you want to force all parties to be the same? That is the heat-death of democracy, where everything is decided by averages.
In a multi-party system, a single party seldom gets a majority. This means they have to cooperate with other parties. This is your "moderation", where opposing ideas can still be presented and debated, but have to be accepted not just by yourself but by others as well.
Yeah, my roommate corrected me. He said what I'm describing is the extremes which rarely happens. He enlightened me that with a multi party parlimentary system there's almost always two parties who when working together can form the majority and as you say, create moderation and keep the extreme parties from enacting bizzare laws. There's actually very little difference when actual policy is created.
Majority Shmority - who cares? People win, lose daily. It's the way of life. If you keep losing stop being a loser, get off your fat ass and do something about it. Stop complaining because no one likes the sound of your voice.
WHILE IT'S TRUE THAT THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM PROTECTS THE MAJORITY, THE MINORITY IS PROTECTED AS WELL -BY THE COURTS.
Yes the deinition of right and wrong is important. What is right and what is wrong. Iraq invasion is justice for some but totally wrong for others
toon tooon poon poon
>>55
That only works for as long as the coalition itself doesn't turn extreme. This can happen if they become strongly polarized against those outside the coalition -- effectively, the coalition itself becomes a party on one extreme of a (potentially new) political axis.
>>62
When the majority of politicans suddenly turn extreme, any system is pretty much hosed.
>>63 true, but I think you could put brakes on the system in enough ways that it would be hard to give the nation only aweful evil choices.
First, The USA Constitution and Bill of Rights, especially the later, put limits on what you can do. You can't ban a political party in the US (legally), in fact there are several flavors of socialist parties and a few communist parties (they have a hard time getting on the ballot). We can't ban them, nor can we start persecuting (legally) an ethnic or religious group (based on the 14th and 1st amendments). Now, if the party can pack the courts and controls both the Congress and the Presidency. I would think that would be hard to do. It's easier in contries without a Bill of Rights and a Constitution that says what the government cannot do.
Other things that can be done would revolve around getting enough different voices in the debates that the voters have a choice between all types of idiologies. Don't like Fascist Republicans or Communist Democrats? Choose Reform Party or Libertarians, or the Green Party. Sooner or later, enough bad congressmen will be voted out so that the colition falls apart and a new more centrist group emerges.
Free Press asking tough questions is also a good idea. If a leader knows that a tough question or two will be asked about his new authoratarian initiave, he may hesitate to do it. If he lies, he knows that he'll be caught, etc.
>Free Press
lol what?
no. usually majority is dump as shit. 4-ch proves it these days.
That's true. Majorities are prone to overruning the minority's rights/wishes. the Nazis did win a legitamate election. I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is important for that reason -- it spells out things that no majority can do, no matter how much it wants to. Or the American Bill of Rights.
Simple Majorities are right on things like taxes and so on.
well majorities r not always right, but they dominate minorities.
First of all i think that the majority is nothing but a number. With that said, the majority plays a very important part in the world. It is how dicisions are made to decide the future of a country, for example,with on regard whether it is the right thing or not.
i
I'd have to say that the majority is right the majority of the time. It's just better publicized when they're wrong.
In the ideal system the majority does what it wants and the minority has its rights preserved. The minority may never get what it really wants, but at least they don't get taken advantage of. The majority occasionally has its goals thwarted, but at least it gets what it wants most of the time.
In our society and pop culture we love the disadvantaged minority (in theory) but hate the legions of "forgotten men" - ie, the guy who gets taxed into oblivion to pay for the poor.
>In our society and pop culture we love the disadvantaged minority (in theory) but hate the legions of "forgotten men" - ie, the guy who gets taxed into oblivion to pay for the poor.
FUCKING SIGNED!
Democracy is simply following the will of the majority - with no implication on the rightness/wrongness of the decision.
Ironically, America's founding father's curtailed democracy by establishing a bill of rights - guarenteeing certain protections for minorities that cannot easily be removed by a 'tyranny of the majority'.
Right/wrong distinctions are inherently biased by the observer. Case in point: Korematsu v. United States - U.S. detains millions of Japanese American Citizens, and suspending their constitutional rights for national security reasons during WWII. What was more important - Freedom of a few minorities or National Security? Would you feel differently if you were 'detained'?
>>79
Some of our representatives have bizarre definitions of "majority."
"The majority is always the greatest fool." What we call majority consists of one of those opinions that is being followed by everyone, cause its the 'right thing to do'. The generic answer people are being told is right. If people are told what they are supposed to think, unless it goes against their natural principles, then the 'masses' obey. People don't think for themselves anymore, we can conviently sit back and enjoy our lives, without having to worry about mayor decisions. When you die, ask a few iraqi children if the majority in america voted right. People greatly supported the war at first, only now do they see the ruin that was created and now they are against it. Those are the current opinion polls. The majority right? Well let me go further. I mean we all know what the majority of Germany supported back in the day. Was that majority right? Was Hitler right? I certainly don't think so.
>>81
whether or not Hitler was right or wrong and whether or not Germany should have gone to war is, again, based on INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION. if you think that Jews are evil, who knows? maybe your right. i can't prove it, but i can't disprove it either (i personally, am fine with Jews, but whatever.)
truth is, putting the Japanese in concentration camps during WWII could be argued to be unconstitutional. even that is hard to judge objectively. no one can hope to be disconnected enough to judge if it was "right".
so Anon, what makes you think that you have the right to judge the rightness or wrongness of another's actions? last time i checked, Anon isn't omnipotent.
Relativist Bullshit.
Murder of noncombatants is an evil act. Even if there is a real threat, the difference between civilization and barbarism is that civilization recognizes the existance of noncombatants. It allows a human being to define himself by what he believes in, rather than some supposed racial characeristic.
A terrorist sees a Jew or an American, and he needs to know nothing else. To him, you are your race, and it's your race that must die. You could be 4 years old and just moved to America, hell you could agree with everything that the terrorist wants, but you are the wrong race, so you must die.
>>83
A few questions for you: Is a little boy throwing rocks at a tank a noncombatant?
What about a printer peacefully spreading jihadist propaganda?
What about a gang of mujahadeens driving around in the remote Iraqi desert cutting power lines?
What about a bomber who destroys a medical supply warehouse late at night, when no one is there?
The lines are blurry. The definition of "noncombatant" is relativist bullshit just like everything else.
No, because we can still have limits to what constitutes a combatant.
For example, the little boy is a combatant, because he is engaged in direct combative action.
The printer is because he's providing material support (the cost of the paper, ink, and his time) to aid combatants.
The gang is very obviously combatants because they are taking direct action to oppose an occupying power, and in the process harming others. The same with bombers destroying medical clinics and medical supplies -- the goal is to disrupt the country and force the occupying force to leave.
But we can still define who is a combatant. If you engage in direct action against a power you don't like, you are a combatant. It's not a perfect fine line, but it's perfectly reasonable. And it leaves a lot of things out. Being in the streets in a cambat zone does not make you a combatant. Being an Iraqi does not make you a combatant. Printing editorials against the US Army, even in Iraq does not make you a combatant (unless you're advocating Jihad or violence), etc. It has to be either direct action or support of direct action.
This is lightyears away from the Relativists handwank of "How can we say Hitler was wrong" brought by >>82. >>82 would have us believe that we could conceivably define "combatant" as "Living Iraqi", or something similar. No, you can't. Or at least you can't without being a complete monster.
You can't discrad human rights.
>>85
One of the biggest problems with modern military police actions is determining who is a threat and who is simply a neutral bystander. In other words, we don't know who to shoot.
Let's take Iraq for example:
In Iraq, you have "terrorist" guerrillas fighting against the US occupying force. These guerrillas, while incapable of posing any significant military threat to the occupying forces, have a advantage that allows them to carry out a strategic political agenda (i.e. getting the Americans to leave by making the occupation very expensive.) That advantage is that they blend seamlessly into the native population to resupply and escape from US forces. It goes even further - combatants do not stick around to be identified and are indistinguishable form the population (no scarfs wrapped around faces, no uniforms, no formations.) What's worse, they will often attack (non-US, non-military) targets as living bombs, damaging their own infrastructure and noncombatants (which the US is trying to repair and protect.)
When the very people you are protecting are helping your enemies, what do you do? If you can give me a better solution than "Get the f'ck out with your tail between your legs." then you will have solved the little problem with "noncombatants."
>>85
What I was alluding to in my original post is that
1) the German people =/ Nazis and they still supported them.
2) Germany had its own reasons for doing what they did (please note how they were screwed over by the allies following WWI.)
3) if Germany had won WWII we would all be thinking very differently about this. If Hitler was der feuhrer we would simply not know about the concentration camps. Instead we simply don't mention what the Allies did (see firebombing of Japan.)
4) WWII is still too close to home for the world to really talk about. Give it a few more decades when all the vets are dead. Then we'll talk.
The majority may not always be right, but what other system would you have us use?
I'd still choose democracy. I'm not saying that democracy is always wrong, just that you can't keep a democracy wrong when the elitest superstructure (Those at the top of the political food chain, not DQNers) decide that they get to play fast and loose with reality and morals.
That's just reality. Genocide, use of WMDs, arbitrary arrests without trials, torture, and other such things are wrong. Just because you can come up with a rationalization for doing those things does not make them OK. The reason is that there will always be a justification -- there is always some enemy around, whether forgein or a political group (remember our millitias?), and therefore it's a blank check.
Criminals are the same way. They blend in with their neighbors. They don't wear colored "I'm a criminal" jerseys, they don't wear masks when they aren't commiting a crime. They go after civillian targets -- they rob 7-11, not the police station. Etc. That doesn't mean you get to raid every house in the area and shoot anyone who resists having his door kicked in.
I'll defer to the generals on how to identify them, however it is necessary to identify them, because every time we kill a civillian, at least a few of his family or friends swear revenge on us. Having a cart blanche to kill anyone that looks at you funny isn't going to convince the average Iraqi to choose our side. And we need the average Iraqi with us to win.
>>88
i'd choose democracy as well - it has it's problems but it's the best system i've heard of (that actually works.) it has it's problems, but from what i've seen these are fixed over time, one way or another. it just cheese's me off a bit when people complain about things they don't understand and then blame the faceless majority.
i guess the big difference between terrorist guerrillas and criminals is that criminals don't have an agenda (except for organized crime i suppose.) this makes them less of a problem because they only attack targets of opportunity rather than randomly blowing crap up.
Japanese violent "minority" circle
http://hrdpocu.blog.shinobi.jp/
one of the principles of governmance in my country is "to do what is right then what is popuplar"
When the entire world minus one person has the same oppinion they have as little the right to force their oppinion on that one person as he has on forcing his oppinion on them.
(Now and then one just has to use nice one-liners.)
>>52
Sounds a bit like France, but I didn't read everything, just quickly glanced.
>>1
Just a simple sociologic fact: people on average tend to be less an less intelligent, open-minded, etc, as they gather up (usually starting from more than three person). This gives "somebody else's problem" mentalities, mob mentalities, etc.
So I guess, "the majority" as a whole can't be always right, no. Hence why most of our modern Western societies fail (in my opinion, stagnating and maintaining a precary equilibrium is NOT success for a society). We need more "distributed computing". To make an analogy, we need some kind of Peer-to-peer network, and not client/server architecture.
I have some ideas on how to make this work, but they need more maturing. Then I'll write a book.
If everyone has the same opportunity, the wiser people must be going to succeed than the more foolish ones.
Therefore democracy will be inevitably supplanted by bureaucracy at once.
But I still prefer democracy to autocracy.
I choose Republic. Republics are supposed to protect the rights of the minority electorate from the injustices of the majority. Right now, the Democrats are doing everything in their power to fuck over the people in Arizona to prevent them from deporting illegal aliens. But when Bush II was in office, he turned the country into a jail and called anyone who disagreed with him a traitor and unamerican.
Fuck these people. I still wonder if it is even safe to be registered to vote anymore. One day, the majority party will jail those who voted against them. It is only a matter of time.