Democracies are better

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,936
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
So you're not even arguing with me.

"The UN is not perfect but it's the best we have for now" does not contradict or dispute the statement that the UN is entirely undemocratic.

You are also not disputing that democracies are better than non-democracies.

Thus you probably also won't dispute that democracies should not cede any power or sovereignty to any non-democratic agency.

That leads, logically, to the claim that democracies should not permit the UN or the ICC to have any jurisdiction over their citizens.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
So you're not even arguing with me.

"The UN is not perfect but it's the best we have for now" does not contradict or dispute the statement that the UN is entirely undemocratic.

You are also not disputing that democracies are better than non-democracies.

Thus you probably also won't dispute that democracies should not cede any power or sovereignty to any non-democratic agency.

That leads, logically, to the claim that democracies should not permit the UN or the ICC to have any jurisdiction over their citizens.


I disagree with everything in your post.

Your first statement tries to connect two things that I did not connect at all. They are apples and oranges.

In another post earlier, I said clearly that a benevolent dictatorship was better than democracy, so I do disagree with democracy is better than non democracies.

I also don't support you third statement. You're looking for either/or and I'm not.

Your supposed logical claim is therefore wrong, but we're definitely use to that in this thread by now. I wish you would stop trying to put words in the mouth of others. You're terrible at it.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,936
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Your first statement tries to connect two things that I did not connect at all. They are apples and oranges.
I don't see anywhere in your post anything disputing this statement: "The UN is entirely undemocratic."

As for your notion that dictatorships are better--good luck with that. I am grateful that our soldiers fought two hard wars to make sure that's not how we live here. Given their hard sacrifices, I find it repugnant that you would be willing to throw away the rights they fought and died for.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
I don't see anywhere in your post anything disputing this statement: "The UN is entirely undemocratic."

As for your notion that dictatorships are better--good luck with that. I am grateful that our soldiers fought two hard wars to make sure that's not how we live here. Given their hard sacrifices, I find it repugnant that you would be willing to throw away the rights they fought and died for.
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean much since you've just shown you can't read. I said 'benevolent' dictatorship not just the generic dictatorship. There is a different, FFS!

It's Xmas so i'll help you.

There are basically 8 main types of governments and some of those are divided into numerous smaller subsets;

Monarchy

Monarchy implies rule or the power of government in the hands of an individual who has inherited the role and expects to bequeath it to the descendants. Currently there exist thirty-one monarchs reigning over forty-five extant sovereign monarchies in the world, sixteen of which are Commonwealth Realms that formally recognize Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state and Prince Charles as heir.

Despotism

Despotism is the form of rule wherein a single leader rules the entire population and all his or her subjects are considered to be his or her slaves. The Pharaoh of Egypt is an example of this sort of rule. In case of contemporary contexts, the term implies tyrannical rule.

Dictatorship

Dictatorship implies rule by an individual who has complete power over the country. Although there have been several definitions of dictatorship, broadly all the various types and forms of dictatorship tend to exhibit totalitarian characteristics. When the power of the government does not come from the people, is unlimited and tends to expand their scope of power to control every aspect of people's life, the form can be termed ad dictatorship.

Oligarchy

Oligarchy is the form of government where a small group has the power to govern or rule. Aristotle had coined the term oligarchy as synonym for rule by the rich (which is known as plutocracy), oligarchy now simply refers to rule of the privileged few.

Plutocracy

Plutocracy refers to a form of government, which is run by the rich. A Plutocracy is a form of government, which is controlled by a small group of extremely wealthy individuals. In today’s world many political analysts argue there are still some situations in which private corporations and wealthy individuals have a strong hold over the government, which can be synonymous with plutocracy.

Democracy

Democracy is best described by Abraham Lincoln as a form of government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. It is a form of government, which allows people to choose the representatives amongst themselves who are given the rights to form the government. A democracy usually has a standard Constitution that confers certain rights of freedom and expression (and many other rights) to its citizens and expects certain duties from them and a uniform law to govern the entire nation.

Communist Government

Communist Government is a form of Government in which the state is governed by a one-party system. This form of government works on the lines of Marxism-Leninism. Thus, the state and the communist party claim to act in accordance to the wishes of the working class or the peasantry. Although a communist government claims to implement democratic dictatorship of the proletariat, it tends to incline towards the abolition of the state and implementation of communism.

Theocracy

Theocracy is the form of government, which implies rule by a religious elite.

In addition to this, there are several countries that function on hybrid forms of Government. One contemporary example could be Iran with its combination of democratic and theocratic institutions or even The Netherlands, which combines the elements of monarchy and democracy. These are the different types of government.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/different-types-of-governments.html
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
Name one in recent history.
The haven't been many and none come to mind quickly, but that wasn't the way the question was posed.

Some say Garibaldi, Marcus Aurelius, Tito, Solomon, Kenneth Kuonda, Francisco Franco and one I have some knowledge would be Napoleon in his early years.

I actually called a friend who knows more than anyone I know about this kind of stuff and actually has a PHd in Poli Sci and his vote went to Mustafa Kamal Ataturk.

With my limited knowledge of him, who was I to argue.
 

Rockslinger

Banned
Apr 24, 2005
32,764
0
0
The American public is very much against Afghanistan, they would vote against it, given the chance.
And Gates says in response:
Explain to me how democracy is representing the will of the people?
The American public is very much against a tax on their income and would vote against it, if given a chance.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,936
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
The fact that you don't see it doesn't mean much since you've just shown you can't read. I said 'benevolent' dictatorship not just the generic dictatorship. There is a different, FFS!
Yet it's still a dictatorship, and so saying that you prefer dictatorship is correct. That you hope to also have a good dictator is a separate question. Everybody who ever supported a dictatorship thought the dictator they supported was pretty good.

There are basically 8 main types of governments and some of those are divided into numerous smaller subsets;
Summarizing your list, there are seven repressive forms of government and then there's democracy.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
Yet it's still a dictatorship, and so saying that you prefer dictatorship is correct. That you hope to also have a good dictator is a separate question. Everybody who ever supported a dictatorship thought the dictator they supported was pretty good.

Summarizing your list, there are seven repressive forms of government and then there's democracy.
Off the meds again are you Fugie? Total hog swallow. I knew you just couldn't resist.
 

fuji

Banned
Jan 31, 2005
79,936
9
0
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
is.gd
Take a civics lesson blackie. In a democratic legislature the members are elected, or at least appointed by somebody who was.

The UN is not a democracy.
 

flubadub

Banned
Aug 18, 2009
2,651
0
0
Take a civics lesson blackie. In a democratic legislature the members are elected, or at least appointed by somebody who was.

The UN is not a democracy.
Your comparison is wrong.
Each gov't in the world = the citizens at the UN

And each citizen is given a vote.
Therefore, democracy.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,881
197
63
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
circle jerk aside, shouldn't this have been a poll?

OTB
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,015
0
0
Your comparison is wrong.
Each gov't in the world = the citizens at the UN

And each citizen is given a vote.
Therefore, democracy.
No, it's not. In the first place the ambassadors at the UN serve at the pleasure of the leaders of their repective countries, and for the most part not by the will of the people in those countries. In the second place the representatives at the UN do not have an equal vote. Perhaps you've heard of the security council. The UN was never intended to run as a democracy, at best it functions as a deliberative body. Gotta side with fugi on this one.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
No, it's not. In the first place the ambassadors at the UN serve at the pleasure of the leaders of their repective countries, and for the most part not by the will of the people in those countries. In the second place the representatives at the UN do not have an equal vote. Perhaps you've heard of the security council. The UN was never intended to run as a democracy, at best it functions as a deliberative body. Gotta side with fugi on this one.
All your points are in large true, but most democracies have exceptions along with checks and balances. Think of those who vote for their representative who then gets elected Speaker of the House in Canada. All of a sudden your rep doesn't have a vote, except in extraordinary situations. The most powerful single American in that government isn't directly voted for by the citizenry and he's given incredible veto powers and such as the result of being voted by a select group of Americans. Joe the plumber didn't have a vote on who was going to be president. Both of those governments are considered democracies.
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
...actually Fuji doesn't get the concept that Democracies have rules for elections. Simply because the UN has vetos doesn't mean it's undemocratic, just that it has rules on how votes. In a similar way, individual US citizens do not vote for POTUS or Vice Potus directly ... each State votes for a slate of electors for a college of voters. Similar the Prime Minister of Canada stands for election generally in a Community that has less voters than the Mayor of Toronto faces in their election.

I think Fuji needs to come up with a new defination for Democracy to justify his posts.


kf1
Somebody gets it.
 

Asterix

Sr. Member
Aug 6, 2002
10,015
0
0
All your points are in large true, but most democracies have exceptions along with checks and balances.
But the United Nations is different from that. In a democracy no one part has complete control over another. In the UN any one of the five permanent members of the SC has the absolute power to veto any "substantive" resolution before it can be adopted. Often times just the threat of a veto can kill a resolution from going forward at all. Where is the check or balance that at all challenges the authority of the Security Council?
 

blackrock13

Banned
Jun 6, 2009
40,049
1
0
But the United Nations is different from that. In a democracy no one part has complete control over another. In the UN any one of the five permanent members of the SC has the absolute power to veto any "substantive" resolution before it can be adopted. Often times just the threat of a veto can kill a resolution from going forward at all. Where is the check or balance that at all challenges the authority of the Security Council?
I agree that there are differences, but there similarities as I listed. I've always looked at the veto powers of 'one' country member to be too easy to use for your own advantage. If it had been a three out of five for veto or something like that it would be less critical. There is room for improvement, but I don't have the answer.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts