It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

what is a true democracy?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 08:07 AM
link   
democracy is a poltical system most the westen world live in today but some people say it isn't a true democracy, why? what is a true democracy and is it possible? Also can a true democracy work without capitalism?




posted on Jan, 22 2005 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Coolbreeze
democracy is a poltical system most the westen world live in today but some people say it isn't a true democracy, why? what is a true democracy and is it possible?


Democracy is not limited to one form, American and British democracy for example is different.
True democracy would be every issue being decided by 100% of the population, this is impractical and not efficient.
The style of democracy has to suit the country and its people, true democracy would take up 99% of everyones time, so nobody uses it.



Also can a true democracy work without capitalism?


Yes, democracy and capitalism seem to exist where the other is, but they could easily exist without each other.



posted on Jan, 23 2005 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a government canexist without capitalism
sadly, a economy cannot exist without capitalism in some form, to me it seems more and more that the only to make money in this world is to exploit the loss of others

actually America is a true Democracy, in Greece and Rome, they would cast stones into a pot, and then count them, that is direct Democracy, America is a indirect Democracy

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 12:46 AM
link   
Democracy: "Of the people, by the people and for the people" says it pretty well. Governmental forms are basicly a concept put into action with a lot a vaigness in it's deffinition. While it's more than likely close to true that maintaining a pure democracy would occupy a larger percentage of everyones time, IMO, I don't think that it would approach 99% our perocupation. We would ALL have to vote regularly on all issues, have the ability to have input on bills and laws and be the ultimate decision. What we (The US) have settled on is a system that stays in flux shifting from left to right which has created a somewhat stable system, but at a termendous cost ecconomicly and constitutionally. Economics seem to swing from supply side where the big corps gobble up other companies and attemp to predict what people want and results in a depressed economy. When it swings back to demand side, consumers demand more, production picks up and corporate swelling is less of an issue, more jobs are available. In the 90's people tend to look at the stock market for indication. While stocks may show a thriving economy, they don't show where the production levels are at higher levers. Today it appears that the economy is thriving, but it really is just existing. The dow is still about 1500 points below what it should be, the NasDaq is down about 4000. It's not well understood why the economy makes these changes, it affects spending habits.

"Opening slugfest dialog here"

What I don't get is a president may or may not have won the erection using the term Democracy when in his mind and his actions he wants a full republic (controlled by the elite).



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlabamaCajun
"Opening slugfest dialog here"

What I don't get is a president may or may not have won the erection using the term Democracy when in his mind and his actions he wants a full republic (controlled by the elite).


Freud was right!

It is almost impossible to have a true Democracy that governs a large amount of people. Small community, yes. State of 1,000,000 people, no. It would be way too massive coordinate. That's why we have Democratic Republic...not a "Constitutional Republic" or any other term that tosses Democratic. We the people elect the leaders. The leaders represent us. And ideally, the leaders would follow our will or do what is right for us.



posted on Feb, 3 2005 @ 10:46 AM
link   
I had an interesting experience with democracy once. Most places I have worked with music had a policy of voting on the radio station. Once, though, I worked at a place where it was decided to take turns. Each got a chance in rotation.

At the normal kind of place, the majority ( or plurality) chose a radio station and that's all that was played, ever.

At the one place, though, we alternated. We got lots of "classic rock," a little country-pop, the occasional BB King tape, and yes, the rap music.

Most of the people griped about the rap. But with the usual fast beat, I noticed production went up. (note: Lynyrd Skynyrd doesn't speed up production at all."

I still can't see, though, if this type of democracy can be replicated faithfully to an actual government, or if we would want to. I do believe we could use more third-party representation.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join