Is Democracy A Failed System ?

[gpop]

 

[ElQueso]

I suppose it depends on what associating with someone actually means. If you mean hang out and have professional relationships, then no you do not have to and should not have to associate with any group through force (although professionally the law disagrees in some aspect).

However, isn't forced segregation and seperation the only way to truly solve the issue of someone not wanting to associate with a certain group? I mean, if by association you mean see them on the street, in the same places as you?

My understanding is that you are using "associate" in the truest sense of the word and you should indeed not be forced. That word is also used more loosely as just to be around someone or something, regardless of personal interaction and for me the only solution would either be to segregate oneself, or the whole group. Some kind of social interaction is inevitable surely, so you cannot really avoid the guy in the orange t-shirt, forced or not.

I can avoid the guy in the orange t-shirt to an extent. I certainly don't have to sit down at the same table and eat with him and if he comes into a restaurant where I'm eating and his shirt hurts my eyes, I should be free to leave so I don't have to associate with him. Of course, those few moments we are in the same space I have had an association, but at least I don't have a government employee with a loaded weapon standing behind me forcing me to remain there.

Social association is easy to understand, and indeed easy to avoid if wanted. What I'm really talking about, and have mentioned previously specifically and in my last post sort of peripherally, is political association. That was also what I was thinking Khairy was getting at when he was talking about separation and segregation, though I'm not talking forced, but rather voluntary. The guy in the orange shirt was an example, which I expanded a bit more in the paragraph above in relation to governments.

The Civil War, to me, is one of the biggest examples of forced association that I can think of in US history, as so many were killed to enforce the association that Lincoln, et al, supposed was necessary to continue the "great US experiment". Indeed, it was exactly the opposite in my opinion, i.e. the worst thing that could have been done. Means justifying the end kind of situation.

Can there be any doubt that the South wanted to disassociate from the North? Whatever its reasons. You (in general) may not agree with their reasons, but should such associations really have been forced? Given that many think the South would have given up slavery and indeed couldn't have maintained it economically even if they didn't want to give it up, and indeed there was already talk of allowing that to happen before the war broke out anyway, what right did Lincoln even have to force that association on to others, at the cost of so many lives? Did the nearly 700,000 on both sides that died really buy anything that was worth all of that death? Again, freeing the slaves is a grand ideal, but that wasn't Lincoln's interest, the man admitted it himself. The effects of all that death and the advantage-taking by carpet-baggers from the North afterward and the resentment felt by southerners afterward toeard both Northerners and former slaves is still felt a century and a half later.

In modern times, I wish to disassociate myself from things like Obama's horrendous health care legislation. Only by the fact that I pay for health insurance here can I do so without problems. I have a friend in the States who pays the fine every year because he wants to self-insure. And in fact, he has the money to do it. But the government is forcing him to associate with those the government deems need insurance. He has no choice in the matter. He actually pays less putting his money into a savings account and paying the fine than he would pay for his family of 6 (including himself) when his insurance rates more than doubled as a result of the wonderful healthcare bill that won't resolve anything. And he gets just as good service, and in fact, he has found that many medical services are actually cheaper when he pays in cash outside of the healthcare system in general because they don't have to deal with all the bureaucratic crap that government legislation meant to "fix: things actually causes.

As I mentioned previously - if I don't want to hire a Muslim, for whatever reason, I'm sorry, but I shouldn't have to. If I want to terminate a person because I don't like the way he cuts his hair, I should be able to. If I offend someone because I fart to much in the office and the owner wants to fire me, he should be able to. Those are personal associations that at least the US government actually forces on us, and many times, to the detriment of society, even though the intentions of such laws are ostensibly "good". Affirmative Action is something that I think stinks to high heaven and I've seen it in action and seen the results of it, back in the 90s. I watched a guy take advantage of AA in my department to the point where he basically didn't have to work and could bitch and moan on the phone all day to anyone who would listen while the rest of us had to work.

Governments should not force associations upon its people, but the truth is, governments couldn't survive if they didn't. In my opinion, everyone who goes along with this without protest are sheep who are not realizing they are being lined up to make mutton chops, and those who would push the government to force associations are the wolves who are going to profit.

 

[khairyexpat]

A society with discrimination, segregation and spatial separation is homogeneous and uni-cultural, ... has no conflict !
They exercise their own self-conscious authorities voluntarily.
In the case of the non-orage-t-shirt example, orange t-shirts don`t exist. (They are naturally excluded).

Domination of Democracy by force for the past 70 years brought the whole world to where we are at today.

 

[Noesdeayer]

gnop: What paddles are they referring to ?
ElQueso and khairyexpat:.
It is abundantly clear to me that neither one of you have ever lived under a Latin American dictatorship and even less have been detained and denied the exercise of democratic rights by them either..Otherwise,I seriously doubt that you would have printed what you did.
On asociation with people you don't like.
In 1968 I was working as JFK airport in passenger agent for Pan American Airways and doing check -ins at the gate of a midnight all tourist class flight to Puerto Rico.A white woman with a strong southern U.S. accent who had just boarded came back out to the gate telling me,"I'm not flying on a plane with all those Mexicans".I told her that they weren't Mexicans but Puerto Ricans and the best advice that I could give her would be to get used to being around them rather quickly because at her destination most peole were exactly like them.She reboarded.
"You've got to be taught to hate and fear.to be afraid of peolple whose skin is a different shade.You have to be carefully taught." Song from South Pacific.

 

[clooz]

Is the Brexit .... yet another startling proof that Democracy is a failed system?

A majority of a population can be duped and manipulated as easily by a political faction in a democracy as in any other kind of state. Manipulating a national population to go change the political map in Europe, has historically been done by starting wars between France, Spain, Holland, Germany and Britain. The Brexit decision, though still a manipulation of a majority by a political interest group for self-interest, comes at much less cost to the majorities AND minorities than WWII or previous wars. From the perspective of cost in human lives to change the map, democracy in Europe since WWII has been an enduring success, for both manipulated and manipulators. Conversely, since WWII, democracy in the US has enabled the two main political parties to instigate and fund wars that have lead to the deaths of well over 20 million civilians outside the US. Another success for democracy, Washington style.

Most professions have a basic code of ethics and conduct to provide fully informed and beneficial choices to all consumers. A fair election clearly depends on this from politicians, yet they have no expectation of being accountable. While it is difficult to see how individuals as politicians can be made more ethical, a political party that supports any politician as a member can be held to account in retrospect. The Brexit vote was evidently influenced by false and malicious claims by leading proponents, so the result could be voided by the election commission. Those politicians who committed fraud could be disqualified for unfaireness, as in a sports contest, and banned from competition for life. The contest can be rerun with new players, until a fair vote is achieved. We do this in sports every day.

 

[khairyexpat]

..

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Is someone currently revolting against the Spanish Crown? Or are you referring to some historical event? Which one?

We revolt and succeded.
However, this administration represents the restauracion movement, also known as the generation of 1938 who wants to go back to monarchy and the society of classes without a king but with a local dictator. Let's see: Prat Gay asked for perdon to Spaniard busisnesman who are in jail in Spain for the same crimes they did here. The President didn't invite any former President for the aniversary of the declaration of independence, instead, he invited the king of Spain. The President wants to build 2 American military bases in Argentina. So, they behave as the french aristocracy: an occupation army.
And the list is long.

 

[khairyexpat]

I still believe that an answer may be found based on the premise of separating and segregating conflicting beliefs/values/morals.
(integrating all 52 states by force ... is one size fits all)
With ZERO background on these issues, please excuse my following layman rudimentary questions:
Instead of saying “Break up America”, ... why not delegate those divisive decisions from the constitution to the states.
The remaining constitution should contain only the core laws that all 52 states agree to.

For example, abortion issue:
Some states voluntarily allow abortion, people can live there happily ever after doing their own thing no questions asked, ... pro life similarly do their own thing. ... No one forces morals on any one else.

Why do we have to have ONE constitution with conflicting issues enforced on all 52 states blindly? Is there a reason?

Democracy in its current form failed to address that we are human with conflicting beliefs/values/morals that are almost cast in stone.
Some one said “it is in our blood”.

 

[steveinbsas]

I still believe that an answer may be found based on the premise of separating and segregating conflicting beliefs/values/morals.
(integrating all 52 states by force ... is one size fits all)

With ZERO background on these issues, please excuse my following layman rudimentary questions:
Instead of saying “Break up America”, ... why not delegate those divisive decisions from the constitution to the states.
The remaining constitution should contain only the core laws that all 52 states agree to.


Why do we have to have ONE constitution with conflicting issues enforced on all 52 states blindly? Is there a reason?

You're joking, aren't you?

If you had been listening to the POTUS when he was running for office you would know that there are 57 states.

https://www.youtube....h?v=EpGH02DtIws

It was apparently a slip of the tongue on the campaign trail, but it is worth noting that there really are 57 states.

They're just not in the USA.

http://www.oic-oci.o...v3/home/?lan=en

 

[khairyexpat]

You're joking, aren't you?

Steve:
Please keep it civil.
Your second time .... UNPLEASANT..
Go look for your AJO somewhere else!