It's all good
It's all BS
I don't know
There are superior systems than democracy
Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution.
Going a little OT, but samsmart's post triggered this in my mind...
One thing that we do, that I absolutely detest and believe we should abolish, is the ability of non-elected boards and committees to enact rules and laws. Don't get me wrong, I believe we should have boards and committees. I just don't think they should be enacting rules and laws, only suggesting and/or enforcing them. We should opt for either one of the two following...
1) Make said board/committee members subject to election by the general public (in the cases of Congressional committees, they already are),
2) Said boards/committees can only suggest rules and laws, which then much be forwarded to the appropriate popularly elected legislature for approval or disapproval.
Either option would be fine with me. People who make/approve/rescind rules and laws should always be directly answerable to the general public.
Last edited by radcen; 01-31-12 at 05:45 PM.
its all BS...do you ever get what you want, does any gov member ever actually help you? all it is is rich people tending to their needs.
I think representative is better than direct.
The problem with representative is that when/if the people who choose those representatives become complacent/lazy, it tends to allow said representatives to gain too much power
As we see currently (IMO).
I personally think one of the key ways to counter that is a well-educated population.
Which we also are having issues with.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
Direct democracy is not feasible, because most people would be too occupied in other daily affairs to do politics directly. Some countries tend to use direct democracy, because they are small enough to have all the citizens togethered to discussion public affairs.
I think representative democracy would be the mainstream form of democracy, because:1. representatives/MPs/congressmen would be professional enough to deal with legislation etc;
2. the common people would have time to have their own private time, they just elect representatives and watch them.
Some forms of direct democracy could be applied, too, such as referendum. In constitution-making or remarkable social events, referendum could be used. Not so democratic as China is, when the State Council (China's Cabinet) and the National People's Congress (China's top legislature) make regulations and laws, they would put the drafts public waiting for public opinion. This can be considered as a good form of direct democracy. I noticed that in many democratic countries, law drafts are publicized for public opinion.
Democracy is a delicate craft. Bad democracy leads to mob rule or tyranny. Hitler was ELECTED to be the head of Germany. So did Mubarak. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao-style "direct democracy"--the mass overwhelm the local authorities by violence-- resulted to great social disaster in China.
From an authoritative country as I am, I can't agree with you. The authority are so inferior in wisdom. They are sometimes too stupid and selfish to bear!!!
Talking about China's economic achievements, It's just because China used to be too poor....