The hypocracy of democracy.

Democracy is often tauted as the ultimate in freedom, can some one explain to me what is free about it?
I dont get a choice to vote for NO government, only which government i want making choices for me, in most cases one is much as bad as the other..
Its one huge dictatorship run by corporations and the priviliged, then they split it up into mini dictatorships called states..
Now i have to have a license to drive a tow truck, but my licence is only good in one state, if i want to work in the state a half an hours drive to the west, i need another licence..
We are all forced to pay tax, forced to work to support the people who have no willpower to work and forced to spend millions on wars with no real benifit to any of us..
And we are considered free?
Its all a massive joke to me.

 

relative to the majority of the rest of the world, yes.

 

The rest of the world are under equally flawed systems.

 

really?

so sharia law isn't more flawed than democracy?

 

Sharia law is what america would have if the bible belt had its way.
The old testament is just as bad as the quran.
I think each system has its own flaws, sharia law is not a form of government by the way.

 

Lebanon also incorporates Sharia law for Muslims in family matters. Some states in northern Nigeria have reintroduced Sharia courts.

Countries using strict forms of Sharia Law include:

Death for Blasphemy:

1. Afghanistan
2. Bahrain
3. Iran
4. Mauritania
5. Oman
6. Pakistan
7. Yemen
8. Saudi Arabia
9. Gaza

Imprisonment for Blasphemy:

1. Algeria
2. Bangladesh
3. Egypt
4. Iraq
5. Kuwait
6. Libya
7. Malaysia
8. Maldives
9. Morocco
10. Somalia
11. Tunisia
12. United Arab Emirates


Nations that include some level of Sharia (leniant sentences for honour killings, ban on new churches, floggings, etc):


1. Indonesia (Flogging, Caning; Sharia applied strictly in Aceh province)
2. Turkey (Restrictions on alcohol)
3. Brunei (Caning)
4. Jordan (2 years or less for honour killings)
5. Eritrea (Girls as young as 8 can be married, spousal rape is not recognized)
6. Syria (1 year or less for honour killings)
7. Djibouti (Sharia law regarding divorce)
8. Chechnya (Modest dress enforced, Alcohol and gambling suppressed by local authorities)
9. Niger (girls can be married off before they reach puberty)
10. Nigeria (Sharia is enforced in the northern states)
11. Kenya (Ad Hoc Sharia enforced in the east near the border with Somalia)
12. Gambia (Sharia courts decide all family matters, including for non-Muslims)
13. Qatar (public consumption is illegal during Ramadan, Alcohol heavily restricted, blood money acceptable punishment for murder, "kafala" law which is also shared by all Gulf states but Bahrain is technically slavery)

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_use_Sharia_Law#ixzz1EYq15jo7

taken from:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_countries_use_Sharia_Law


stay on topic dude. were not talking about how a democracy would be run by bible thumpers, we are talking about the current democracy.

if u want to argue about the bible, go to another thread. this is about forms of government.

 

Governments using sharia law does not make it a form of governence, and you will find that many of those sharia promoting governments were VOTED INTO POWER.
Thanks for trying.
From your link.

Many other Islamic nations that do not apply Sharia (such as Azerbaijan, Albania, Bosnia, Uzbekistan, and Tajikstan) have large portions of their population who do want it applied or who actively seek to abide by it extra-legally.

 

It is stated in the constitution that the people have the right to throw off the government with due cause. So far, the USA is much better off than a lot of 3rd world countries... on top of that, many don't even know how good we've got it, and are happier because of it. Ignorance is bliss. Therefore, I think I can say no one has due cause for doubting the government yet.

For that reason, we are still under the same government, and still content with voting within the parameters of the American Democratic government.

So I say, free or not, the government is still providing a much safer and freer country for us to live in than a majority of the countries out there.

Also, if someone was to complain about paying taxes, I would say "fuck off bro". Try complaining about taxes in China, watch what happens. You're living in a country that's keeping you safe from extreme poverty. Paying taxes is the least you can do for it.

About working for someone else: it's free trade, if you think you've got the stuff to be a big-time company owner, then try it. You'll find some people are cut out to run companies while others are cut out to make companies run. That's just how it is, and again, it's the best you're going to get. Look at India. Their country is a bureaucratic nightmare, and it's near impossible to start up your own business or to make your own money if you're not already born into a privileged family.

I'm not saying USA has the worlds greatest government, or that it's the world's greatest country. I'm aware that it lacks recognition in several areas (such as education). I'm only saying people take what we DO have for granted far too often. That's just my conservative opinion.

 

You are fine with the fact that 5% of the people hold 95% of the wealth?

 

Yup, as long as those 5% know what they're doing, and seeing as we're still here, they obviously do.

 

So you are fat happy sheep making the shepherds rich, you are well fed and well off because its in the best interests of the rich to not have you complaining..
But really you are being used, and things could be a lot better for every one.
Try walk into a ghetto some time, things could be a lot better for those people.
Same for the towns that literally closed down because big industry went overseas.

 

Quit trying to label me bro. Just because I'm comfortable with the fact that some people are better cut out than I myself am to run a fortune 500 company, or to make life or death decisions for the country doesn't mean I will blindly follow anyone with wealth or stature.

I'm one who recognizes it could be a lot worse. I'd rather not make my life more difficult by trying to escape the inevitability that meager and petty rantings like this won't change a government. I'd rather pay my respectable dues to those who know what they're doing, and hope to god that this country remains as privileged as it is today.

Whether it could be better or worse if the American people form a revolution against the present concentration of wealth and power is irrelevant because 1) It won't happen
2) What sort of government can be better than the one we have, as one of the more freer countries in the world?

P.S. my neighborhood-- my entire town-- basically IS a ghetto. Don't think I don't understand the poverty situation that my own country is going through. In fact, I'm currently studying it in college right now.

 

You are not seeing my point, the average wage for the average person is dropping, the average wage of ceos is rising exponentially.
You have banks taking bail out money declaring it as profits and giving ceo's bonuses..
Your minimum wage isnt enough to live on but you have people getting payed 60 million dollars a year to sit in a board room making decisions on whether these poor bastards will have a job or if its more profitable to give thier job to an indian call centre.
And you are happy with this?
This is the best we humans as a society can come up with?
Government sanctioned monopolies and government interference in the free market are ruining the lives of the average joe.

 

The best we have so far. Otherwise someone who has the incentive to present a change would have done so already. Economics is a complicated thing that should not be the driving point behind a reason for revolution at this time. I get your point, middle class is declining and it's the governments fault, but with no middle class, there can be no upper class, so there will always be room for middle classmen in American economics. So we (middle classmen) will never be as bad off as third world country-people are. And I'm fine with that.

We're only experiencing a recession in the present time. It will be a cause for concern if we cannot pull out of the recession, but I'm not yet worried because I can still support myself.

Also, I don't know what you're saying "your minimum wage isn't enough".. my minimum wage job is enough to get me food and rent..

 

You can pay for food and rent on $8 an hour?
How are you going to pull out of recession when you are 14 trillion dollars in debt and china is lowering your trade rating?
Soon its all going to come crashing down on the working class.
There is no incentive to a fair system, because people who have the power to bring about change make more profit in the current system.
A free market would mean you actually have to compete with competitors and have to actually innovate.

 

Yes. I can support myself on 8.77 an hour. A major reason why is because, oddly enough, I'm benefiting off of government programs such as welfare.

The Great Depression was much worse than this recession is. Economics flux sporadically which is why I say, and I say again, you cannot drive a cause for revolution with "times are harder than they use to be." It would sound like a child throwing a tantrum when he only gets a cheeseburger instead of a happy meal.

To deal with the entirety of the last half of your argument the answer is obvious. If you aren't happy with your living standards: innovate for yourself instead of waiting for government to realize it needs to stop investing money in companies that fund that country, and keep middle class happy with products; and to spend more money to make sure you're comfortable.

 

The government takes my money and yours and uses it to prop up failing companys which do not make any products or do anything for the economy except inflation.
I am a home owner and am firmly in the upper middle class, not that it matters but i thought i would add where my position stems from.
As for your welfare, some one else loses out as a result, i would not feel right accepting this.

 

Sure some companies fail who were bailed out by the government, but I don't think that's reason to cut all government funding to every company. Car producers are still putting out useful products. Food chains are still keeping middle class happy.

Onto welfare: Isn't your whole point with this whole "democracy is evil" is that the government concentrates and squanders money? Welfare is working to make it so that lower middle class get a share. You shouldn't let morality bias your opinion on which programs are good or not. First thing you learn in English 101 when writing propositional papers is that an opinion based on entrenched beliefs makes for a argument without foundation.

EDIT: I'm not questioning your own education by quoting from my English 101 class, I'm just providing citation on where I learned to recognize the debate fallacy.

 

I am a free market advocate, in a free market it wouldnt be so hard to get a job and there would not be as much need to take my money and give it to the poor.
Without taxes (or with a 10% flat tax) the economy would boom.
Without corporate welfare banks would have to actually be responsible for thier actions.
The problem with the current system is intellectual property laws stop people from having to innovate and government funded monopolys just soak up the cash then send it to the cayman islands or swiss bank accounts.
I could come up with an idea tommorow and leech off it the rest of my life and never have the have another unique thought, and the company i sell it to can do the same, and the government ensures that no one else can compete with that company.
Thus we get shitty service, higher taxes and the corporation gets richer.
I didnt say democracy is evil.
I stated that calling it freedom is a logical fallacy.
I dont get a choice, there is two parties, much the same as each other, i get to help choose which of them screws me, both of them have vested uinterests that i am not a part of.

 

I only have one problem with democracy.

We are free to pick between ONLY 2 leaders, in which are chosen by 2 leading parties, IN WHICH choose leaders that are willing to stand for the ideals that the party stands for.

Man is usually forced to vote for a leader he may or may not believe should be leader.