Originally posted by shell69
The question that anyone with even minimum intelligence cannot help asking is the following: Are countries like France, England, the USA,
Italy, Norway, Denmark, Poland who defend their right to bomb Libya on the strength of their self proclaimed democratic status really democratic? If
yes, are they more democratic than Gaddafi’s Libya? The answer in fact is a resounding NO, for the plain and simple reason that democracy doesn’t
exist. This isn’t a personal opinion, but a quote from someone whose native town Geneva, hosts the bulk of UN institutions. The quote is from Jean
Jacques Rousseau, born in Geneva in 1712 and who writes in chapter four of the third book of the famous ‘Social Contract’ that ‘there never was
a true democracy and there never will be.’
You have to stop here ... you're just confusing things.
First thing you have to ask yourself, is MURDERING someone, something that you can vote on? Is the life of someone, whatever you consider that man,
woman, child or other to be ... something that you can just go to a vote bar and say "He doesn't deserve to live", and if the majority wants him dead
... let's go kill him?
This isn't an issue of democracy ... it's a question of morals. Do you have the right, to force your standards on others? Do you have the right to
The answer is simply NO.
The social contract, you are referring to and are complicating. Is a contract between me and you, and everyone else ... that says, I won't kill you,
eat you, hunt you or steal your goods ... if you respectfully, return the same favour. So, in fact this social contract says I won't kill you, and
you won't kill me ... now if I go ahead and kill you, this social contract is supposedly "void" and war is the result. In the case of the western
world, our social contract IS VOID, a long time ago. WE, the people, are divided into several groups. Groups of those who have, and those who have
not. And those who have not, are being brutally handled by those who have ... having "investigations", having "arrests", having "marks on their
forhead", without work or means of employments. We don't have a social contract ... it's void, but WE are without leaders. And it's the fact that we
have no leaders, that makes us live in a NON DEMOCRACY, because we cannot call out a war, because our contract is voided. We cannot voice greavances
against those who have. This is the factor that is needed for a democracy, because a democracy means that every person has a spokesman and means of
making their voice heard, listened to and acted upon.
A republic on the other, guarantees only the survival of the strongest. The biggest group ... you have only the choice between joining the strong, or
For a brief time in history, the western world was a democracy ... because you had the east and the west. Each side, representing different peoples,
and between them every person as such could voice grievances on the other and call out the war, if needed.
The end of the soviet Union, also marked the end of our western democracy. It was the balance between the two super powers, and the fact that they
opposed each other, that made life in the western world so great.
Are "morals" simply a social contract? perhaps basically, but it isn't all that simple non the less.
The majority is almost ALWAYS wrong. The majority was wrong in voting GWB into office. They were obviously wrong, when they went up and applauded
Ghaddafi, and what makes you think they are right, when they stop applauding him and kill him in a most defial, ugly and dispicable manner,
imaginable? The people that did that, are monsters, literally speaking ... without moral sense, and are closer to being animals than human beings.
You think their thoughts count? NO, they don't. As animals, they act on instinct and needs, not on a logical thought process ...
What concerns democracy, people always confuse democracy with a republic. China is a republic, so was the Soviet Union, and so is the United States
and France. What IS the basic difference between the two?
The difference is simple, the United States as a whole, is a nation of different States. Each state "supposedly" can have a different system, and as
such the US is a collection of "different" states. The European Union is "striving" to become this ... but this is only the surface
, and does
not represent the inner workings of either of these areas.
A DEMOCRACY IS A COLLECTION OF DIFFERENT STATES, PEOPLES THAT BETWEEN THEM HAVE A SOCIAL CONTRACT AND MEANS OF COMMON GOVERNING, WHERE EACH CAN
REPRESENT GREAVANCES ON THE OTHER.
Does a Democracy guaranty peace? HELL NO, quite the opposite. The idea of a Democracy comes from ancient Hellas, where we are constantly trying to
return to. The time where human evolution exploded the most ... for a short time, Europe was equivalent. Where the constant bickering between the
European states, made Europe advance enormously mentally and socially. It grew up, from the previous dark ages, of being collection of Republics,
whith kings and queens.
IT'S THE STRIVING AND CONSTANT COMPETITION BETWEEN PARTIES, THE CONSTANT FIGHTING AND WAR, that make people evolve.
The greeks thought that having one king, was good for business. It resulted in the creation of empires, that resulted in almost two thousand years of
A democracy is where you allow people to have different ideologies, and be different. To have a different form of a government, and a different form
of belief. That you deal with them, whatever you think of their culture, on the basis of the need of communication between you.
The actions being done under NATO and The US of A, are therefore not in the spirit of democracy. They are in the spirit of Rome ... to create an
empire. And will eventually destroy the "advancing" mentality, and bring forth more and more "believers" and "followers" of absolute truths.
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason
edit on 24-10-2011 by bjarneorn because: (no reason given)