no education => no vote.Originally Posted by OrbitalDawn
no education => no vote.
Former freedom fighter, now hero of the Republic, Sir Juliass Mallama was always telling the public: "I am not a joke, I am a jerk."
What is ANC? Answer
I think people have to understand one thing => smart people are always the minority.
=> on the other hand the stupid people are the majority
=> stupid people will vote (more) stupid people in power (majority)
=> cycle forever.....
the fact is people will only select worse government, not better.
but the design of "democracy" which was supposed to select "better", not "worse."
that is the reason why I said democracy was designed to doom.
(by assumption the majority will choose a better government is FALSE.)
Former freedom fighter, now hero of the Republic, Sir Juliass Mallama was always telling the public: "I am not a joke, I am a jerk."
What is ANC? Answer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TechnocracyTechnocracy!
I don't think they've ever had democracy. They went from being a colony to being an authoritarian dictatorship. The people on the ground had no say in any of it.
Hmm, not really, though. Using jackbooted thugs to force your way into power isn't really legit. Mussolini's coup also ended in him being strung from the rafters.
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove..."
People died for the movement till the very end. It was the traitorous PROXY government setup by the allies that was illegitimate, the people favoured fascism. The "thugs" enjoyed the support of the people, because they were preferable to communism which was making threats at the time.
If any kind of force is not legitimate, then democracy has never been legitimate. It's method of gaining power is generally bloody revolution, just like every other system. There is always blood involved.
Italy and Germany managed to transition out of democracy with little violence.
Ironically, they chose totalitarianism, it was democracy that had to be imposed upon them by the barrels of foreign guns.
Last edited by TheHiveMind; 22-07-2012 at 01:53 AM.
Well they had to choose between domination by communists of domination by fascists. The fascists were at least their own countrymen and offered them a way out. The context of that decision and time period was a lot different. The same happened in Spain. I'm talking about countries that are under no such pressure from outside, where the populace willingly give up their rights and say in how they are governed.
As an aside, though, how long do you think the people of those countries would have wanted to stay under totalitarian rule, if they weren't 'liberated'?
"Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping the lead into the boxing-glove..."
Zimbabwe was never a democracy. For months before the election Mugabe's & Nkono's thugs terrorized the entire country, telling all the people what their village, as a whole, could expect if they voted the wrong way. The election was rigged long before it actually happened because the tribal areas knew from direct experience what the consequences would be.
Mussolini used brute force in his route to power but Hitler had the support of the Vatican in his destruction of democracy.
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
One thing we can pick up from your post. Anti-democracy people are crazy and should be avoided at all costs!
“I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red, violets are blue, finish this poem yourself you dependent parasite".”
Colbert
With spelling and grammar like that you must be part of the "dummer" group who are responsible for this.(a)“democracy” is the system to choice a better government [suppose to be]. (more supporters (party / person) take control of the government)
(b) Smarter people are far more less than dumber people. (it is forever true, don’t ask me why)
How possible I have to allow those stupid people to choose a stupid government for me?????
is it "Democracy" was designed to doom?
Ya. I won't argue with you there although I am not sure about the "crazy" bit.One thing we can pick up from your post. Anti-democracy people are crazy and should be avoided at all costs!
All the anti-democracy people that I have read about - Hitler, Stalin, Pope Pius Xll, Hastings Banda, Idi Amin and Pol Pot were not nice guys.
Last but not least, all the indications are that Jacob Zuma also belongs in that list.
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
... and now we can add some forumites to that list as well
“I believe Ayn Rand's first love poem went: Roses are red, violets are blue, finish this poem yourself you dependent parasite".”
Colbert
Not that being a nice guy is useful in a leader. It isn't.
Last edited by TheHiveMind; 23-07-2012 at 10:03 AM.
Mugabe should have been in the list but I slipped up.
Nice, in the conventional sense, cannot be applied to leaders in parts of the middle east. Africa & Asia where an "Alice in Wonderland" environment exists and the dear leader can simply say, "Off with his head" and that's the end of the matter.
In the older democracies, many leaders are/were 24carat sh-!-ts but the legal system controlled them and staff could work with them.
From all I have read, those who worked with Churchill thought him nice although he was a leader who got things done.
Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.
Democracy degenerates into bureaucratic statism and tyranny.
Democratic rulers, come to power largely on the basis of selling themselves to voters. To be effective at this, a successful politician must be, for the most part, an unscrupulous demagogue. Democratic politicians typically acquire a following for themselves by promising to repress or plunder rival economic or cultural groups for the benefit of their own supporters. Under a democracy, the life, liberty and property of every individual comes up for grabs by everyone at every election. Shifting coalitions of oligopolistic special interests and unconstrained popular majorities form who constantly square off against one another. A situation is created where A and B conspire against C, B and C conspire against A, C and A conspire against B. Democracy becomes merely a substitute for an all-out multiple factioned civil war. The overall moral quality of society degenerates into a war of each against all. Also, the constant plundering and repression of some for the benefit of others decreases the productivity of those being attacked and simultaneously increases the dependency, unproductiveness, infantilization and irresponsibility of those being subsidized with the fruits of the plunder. The general trend in society will be one of decreased productivity and increased crime, recklessness and incivility.http://www.anti-state.com/preston/preston2.htmlDemocracy may indeed be a wonderful way of operating a voluntary organization or community like a labor union, a cooperative, a neighborhood association, a church or a birdwatchers' club. However, to operate the coercive apparatus of the state as a "democracy" is to invite disaster. Democratic statism simply provides a popular majoritarian cover to whatever actions are carried out by interest groups currently in control of the state who wish to repress or plunder their economic, cultural or ideological competitors.
The bolded bits are as close as anything to the current situation we find ourselves in today in S.A.
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
I'm glad you brought him up.
Churchill was an aristocrat. We don't have them anymore, democracy destroyed them.
Last edited by TheHiveMind; 23-07-2012 at 11:54 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks