Street Fight

[YDtoad]

Anyone see the documentary? If you don't know what it is, go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_Fight_%28film%29

and see the preview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8jtAASYdLw

Much much more relevant than the weak and heavy handed Jesus Camp. In fact, it's one of the best and most compelling documentary films that I have seen.

It got me thinking about Democracy. Democracy gave DC years of Marion Barry, reelected AFTER his cocaine arrest. And it brought Newark over 20 years of Sharpe James, who operated more like a third world dictator than anything else. In previous decades, it brought Southern states openly racist governors, mayors and senators.

Heck, William Jefferson was just reelected in LA, despite the fact that FBI agents found thousands of dollars of dirty money in his fridge!

So, I ask you: Is democracy always good?

Talk about that, or talk about the documentary. Or both.:chug:

[Akira]

Democracy isn't always good because the populace is as a whole too stupid to have the right to vote, but I can't see a better system. Representative democracy at least keeps someone from trying to appoint himself all-powerful - the American people aren't dumb enough to let it happen.

[YDtoad]

Sometimes though that effectively happens--very rarely now, thankfully. But Sharpe James controlled the police and basically strongarmed people into maintaining support of him.

[lunchforthesky]

Representative democracy is only marginaly better than a dictatorship (except we are generally blessed with more benevolent rulers) and provides scarcely more than the illusion of freedom and a democratic society, while it could under the right circumstances be acceptable, in it's current form in the UK & US it is, in my opinion, a facade for the benefit of the wealthy, to allow them to continue to dominate society whilst providing a scrap of equality for the lower classes at the bottom of the social totem pole.

I'll explain more if anyone wants to discuss any of that tommorow.

[PerpetualBurn]

Representative democracy is only marginaly better than a dictatorship

Please tell me you don't mean this.

[Chrizzle fo' Shizzle]

Except there are many cases of poor people rising to power. Hell, our president from 93-01 grew up in poverty

Democracy is the only morally acceptable form of government

[Scuba_Steve]

honestly, I would MUCH rather have a levelheaded, benevolent dictator than some of the democratically elected leaders lately.

[thedeadwalk!]

Much much more relevant than the weak and heavy handed Jesus Camp. In fact, it's one of the best and most compelling d0cumentary films that I have seen.
Why the comparison? I haven't seen either but they don't seem to be along the same lines. And, how can you not be heavy-handed with subject matter in Jesus Camp? From what I've seen the people in it are overzealous in their methods and beliefs. Then again, coming from you, I imagine it's not as heavy-handed as you suggest.

Anyway, Street Fight looks good. I'll have to check it out as well.

[italic zero]

i like ur avatar

[MegaPhony]

If people are stupid enough to vote for a controlling totalitarian, then they deserve to have one as they're mayor.
And if he's good enough at hiding it, more power to him.

[Iskandar]

Democracy is better than any alternatives for a variety of reasons, including:

It reflects the general will of the people more accurately.
It allows change of government.
It's far more stable yet responsible to change.

[ringworm]

wow, I'll have to check this out

but wouldnt anyone see this guy & almost EXPECT corruption?

http://i9.tinypic.com/32zjpn4.jpg

[lunchforthesky]

Please tell me you don't mean this.

In theory yes. Of course most actual dictators are considerably less benelovent than is desirable but in terms of to the extent to which we are masters of our own destiny and are truly free (from the coercian of the state and others), we are little freer in theory in a representative democracy than with a benevolent dictator.

Except there are many cases of poor people rising to power. Hell, our president from 93-01 grew up in poverty

Democracy is the only morally acceptable form of government

There are a lot of different types of democracy, democracy as broad term means nothing and stretches from something like 1900s Britian to an Anarchist Utopia.

[YDtoad]

Why the comparison? I haven't seen either but they don't seem to be along the same lines. And, how can you not be heavy-handed with subject matter in Jesus Camp? From what I've seen the people in it are overzealous in their methods and beliefs. Then again, coming from you, I imagine it's not as heavy-handed as you suggest.

Well, I watched most of Jesus Camp on Youtube and was very disappointed with its presentation (the corny music, pointless intercutting of the air america host, etc.). The comparison comes from the fact that both were nominated for Oscars. Street Fight lost, and Jesus Camp will likely lose. But Street Fight is the best of the 10 nominated documentaries of the last two years.




but wouldnt anyone see this guy & almost EXPECT corruption?

http://i9.tinypic.com/32zjpn4.jpg


:lol: It actually made me think even less of Sharpton. And Jesse Jackson. And McGreevy.

[PerpetualBurn]

In theory yes. Of course most actual dictators are considerably less benelovent than is desirable but in terms of to the extent to which we are masters of our own destiny and are truly free (from the coercian of the state and others), we are little freer in theory in a representative democracy than with a benevolent dictator.

No, that kind of demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of representative democracies.

A more popular government will eventually rise to power. Unlike a democracy where you're stuck with what you've got and nobody can change them.

That's really not the same at all.

[Iskandar]

we are little freer in theory in a representative democracy than with a benevolent dictator.
We're freer because a) we can change our government if we don't like it and b) democracies are usually limited and dictators usually aren't.

[lunchforthesky]

"We" being a we of millions of people so on a personal level i have a very small say.

[Akira]

"We" being a we of millions of people so on a personal level i have a very small say.

Too bad. If you would rather the general will of the people have no effect at all on the government, go find yourself a dictatorship to live in.

[Amit]

man that movie made me angry >:[

[lunchforthesky]

Too bad. If you would rather the general will of the people have no effect at all on the government, go find yourself a dictatorship to live in.

Id rather live in a world free form the tyranny of individuals and of the masses.

[PerpetualBurn]

Way to dodge the point!

A government with checks and balances of power that is responsible to the electorate is in no way comparable to a dictatorship that has no restrictions.

[lunchforthesky]

In practice its quite comparable.

[PerpetualBurn]

No...it's not.

Representative democracies have a completely different method for enforcing policy, so it in no way works the same.

Do you have no idea what you're talking about?

[lunchforthesky]

Asking rhetorical questions in no way improves your argument or achieves any ground in that argument.

Do you know what im talking about?

Representative democracies and Dictatorships both have the common trait of someone other than myself enforcing their prejudices and social morality upon me.

[Akira]

So basically you are an anarchist?

[lunchforthesky]

In a Utopian paradise yes but in practice its not going to happen anytime soon.

[pedro durruti]

Aren't we all that way lunch?

[Akira]

In a Utopian paradise yes but in practice its not going to happen anytime soon.

If anarchism isn't going to happen then stop whining about representative democracy.

[PerpetualBurn]

Asking rhetorical questions in no way improves your argument or achieves any ground in that argument.

Sure it does. It's rhetorical but it is still a fairly explicit statement to demonstrate the stupidity of your argument.

Do you know what im talking about?

I'm not sure, but I'm going to hazard a guess and say you have never done any respectable academic study in the field of politics.

Representative democracies and Dictatorships both have the common trait of someone other than myself enforcing their prejudices and social morality upon me.

Democracies are much better at preventing prejudices and social morality from being inflicted on you than dictatorships.

In fact, you're an idiot, because only a democracy could inflict social views upon you because a dictatorship doesn't reflect the views of society, right? I do love my rhetorical questions.

And if you're suggesting the only form of government is one run by you, then you're really really making a poor point.

[lunchforthesky]

I'm not sure, but I'm going to hazard a guess and say you have never done any respectable academic study in the field of politics.

I have an A Grade Politics A-level and currently do a Politics and History degree at Leeds University. That doesn't make me the most qualified person in the world but it probably surpasses or equals your grounding in the subject.


Democracies are much better at preventing prejudices and social morality from being inflicted on you than dictatorships.

In fact, you're an idiot, because only a democracy could inflict social views upon you because a dictatorship doesn't reflect the views of society, right? I do love my rhetorical questions.

And if you're suggesting the only form of government is one run by you, then you're really really making a poor point.

I dont see why a dictatorship couldnt represent the views of society. A lot of dictatorships are initially popular, eg. Lenin, Hitler, Castro etc.. Democracies are better than dictatorships but direct democracy is better still.

[lunchforthesky]

If anarchism isn't going to happen then stop whining about representative democracy.

Should people of not complained about Feudalism or Slavery because they were unlikely to acheive instant change.

[PerpetualBurn]

I have an A Grade Politics A-level and currently do a Politics and History degree at Leeds University. That doesn't make me the most qualified person in the world but it probably surpasses or equals your grounding in the subject.

Or demonstrates how crap A-levels are. God knows how your tutors haven't ripped you to shreds yet for expressing the views you have I don't know. Leeds is meant to be respectable.

I dont see why a dictatorship couldnt represent the views of society. A lot of dictatorships are initially popular, eg. Lenin, Hitler, Castro etc.. Democracies are better than dictatorships but direct democracy is better still.

Because they don't have any responsibility to an electorate, so they are autocratic. The need for a democracy to act in a way to best suit the people makes it vastly different.

And you just made a pretty crappy list of dictators. You're telling me you want to live under Lenin or Hitler forever rather than stick to free elections? Because there seems to be quite a large difference there.

And direct democracy is a stupid idea in a nation of 60,000,000 people most of whom are far too uneducated to make a proper decision on most policies.

[lunchforthesky]

Or demonstrates how crap A-levels are. God knows how your tutors haven't ripped you to shreds yet for expressing the views you have I don't know. Leeds is meant to be respectable.

Or maybe in their wisdom they see that their own opinion is non necessarily 100% the correct opinion and that a difference is view point does not entail someone being inept.


Because they don't have any responsibility to an electorate, so they are autocratic. The need for a democracy to act in a way to best suit the people makes it vastly different.

I dont understand your point i know its different and they hardly have to act in a way that best suits the people, look at Thatcher.


And you just made a pretty crappy list of dictators. You're telling me you want to live under Lenin or Hitler forever rather than stick to free elections? Because there seems to be quite a large difference there.

No i was saying that a dictatorship can still represent the views of most people. Labour received something like 39% of the vote last time out and half didnt even vote so only 15% of the populace elected them yet they within reason have the power to act as they please.


And direct democracy is a stupid idea in a nation of 60,000,000 people most of whom are far too uneducated to make a proper decision on most policies.

Thats pretty much what the old nobility used to say before we managed to oust them for a liberal democracy and they were pretty far wrong.

[PerpetualBurn]

Or maybe in their wisdom they see that their own opinion is non necessarily 100% the correct opinion and that a difference is view point does not entail someone being inept.

They should still see that yours is wrong.

I dont understand your point i know its different and they hardly have to act in a way that best suits the people, look at Thatcher.

Think about what you've just said.

Try to think logically.

Slowly.

Now imagine, just for a second, that we couldn't have voted Thatcher out?

That's the difference between a democracy and dictatorship. I'd say it's pretty massive and that what you've just said is self-defeating.

No i was saying that a dictatorship can still represent the views of most people. Labour received something like 39% of the vote last time out and half didnt even vote so only 15% of the populace elected them yet they within reason have the power to act as they please.

Low voting turn-outs tend to signify comfort. The countries with the highest standards of living tend to have lower voting turn-outs.

And then you put "within reason".

And now you should remember that that term doesn't apply to dictatorships.

Massive difference.

Thats pretty much what the old nobility used to say before we managed to oust them for a liberal democracy and they were pretty far wrong.

Yeah...except our electorate chooses people who are smart enough. Direct democracy, apart from being hideously disorganised, would involve every day citizens trying to make decisions about economics. The people that make those kind of decisions have usually spent years in the field, and still make some dodgy choices.

[lunchforthesky]

Low voting turn-outs tend to signify comfort. The countries with the highest standards of living tend to have lower voting turn-outs.

And then you put "within reason".

And now you should remember that that term doesn't apply to dictatorships.

Massive difference.

It does in a sense because theres always the possibility of mass rebellions which most dictatorships fear terribly. The miners etc.. couldn't get rid of Thatcher even though she was imposing on their freedom to strike, earn a wage etc.. and so were at the mercy of the "tyranny of the masses" which is a necessary evil i guess but not one which im overly comfortable with.


Yeah...except our electorate chooses people who are smart enough. Direct democracy, apart from being hideously disorganised, would involve every day citizens trying to make decisions about economics. The people that make those kind of decisions have usually spent years in the field, and still make some dodgy choices.

They could at least choose the broad economic trend which we are to follow and then obviously delegates put it into practice.

[PerpetualBurn]

It does in a sense because theres always the possibility of mass rebellions which most dictatorships fear terribly. The miners etc.. couldn't get rid of Thatcher even though she was imposing on their freedom to strike, earn a wage etc.. and so were at the mercy of the "tyranny of the masses" which is a necessary evil i guess but not one which im overly comfortable with.

Erm...we did get rid of Thatcher.

They could at least choose the broad economic trend which we are to follow and then obviously delegates put it into practice.

That would be a representative democracy with a few unnecessary referendums.

Look at Switzerland and the likes to see how such ridiculous dilution affects voter participation.

[lunchforthesky]

Erm...we did get rid of Thatcher.
Actually her cabinet did.


That would be a representative democracy with a few unnecessary referendums.

No because we would be elected on single issues rather than voting for a party. In would produce a far wider choice and freedom for a government to truly represent voters opinions on every area.

[PerpetualBurn]

Actually her cabinet did.

Which couldn't happen if she'd been a dictatorship...

And that's how we go full circle to you being wrong.

[lunchforthesky]

Not really. In Stalinist Russia the party secretary still relied on the support of the Communist Party to maintain power, even a Dictator needs support from someone.

[PerpetualBurn]

Except Thatcher was removed to maintain party popularity because...


...


...


The party could be removed at election!

[Akira]

Should people of not complained about Feudalism or Slavery because they were unlikely to acheive instant change.

Look, people have tried utopias. They have never worked on a large scale.

The bottom line is representative democracy isn't half as bad as you make it out to be.

[lunchforthesky]

Ive not been making it out to be really bad, its sure better than feudalism but it can be improved.

[PerpetualBurn]

You didn't say it could be improved initially. You said that it wasn't much better than a dictatorship.

Way to backtrack.

[lunchforthesky]

In terms of political freedoms yes, in terms of social freedoms the two are incomparable.

[PerpetualBurn]

So you don't think there's much difference between a dictator that can't be removed by the people and a democracy?

[Smokey D]

In theory yes. Of course most actual dictators are considerably less benelovent than is desirable but in terms of to the extent to which we are masters of our own destiny and are truly free (from the coercian of the state and others), we are little freer in theory in a representative democracy than with a benevolent dictator.



There are a lot of different types of democracy, democracy as broad term means nothing and stretches from something like 1900s Britian to an Anarchist Utopia.

I believe you've misinterpreted the liberal democracies of the west to be some generic representative democratic society with no checks or balances. Our kind of government has strict limits in law that govern its relationship with its citizens.