Democracy is a failure,problem is the alternatives are worse is there any other options?

a reply to: crazyewok

How about autonomous regions that don't swear fealty to any Government?

The problem with Democracy is when you get as big as the United States you have too many people that want different things. If we broke into smaller regional areas we would all be happier.

a reply to: paraphi

I am glad i live in the UK rather than the USA.

UK politics is much less bat # crazy and we do not have the extremes.

Still we should always be striving to improve.

One thing is the house of lords. It needs reforming somehow, but a voted house of lords would destroy its purpose which is to stop mob rule.
Filling a government position with rich and influential people by default is a bad idea.
At least scrab it a replace it with a house of the same role made up of half judges and half people selected at random.

originally posted by: Junkheap
I also briefly considered a catacrocy, a government run by cats, but quickly dismissed it as being impractical.

I vote for this ^^^^

Cant be any worse than Trump or Hillary

a reply to: crazyewok

Those dopes are going about it all wrong...Churchill and friends that serve(d) the economy not the people.

First design nation states that allow integration, and those that don't. Make the boundaries cater to the ideology within each boundary. If you're an atheist, go live with the nation of atheists. If you're a Jew, go live with the nation of Jews, and so on...

If you want to share with like minded people, there should be a place where you can exist alongside them.

After everyone is happy with living with like minded people, where we go from there?

Don't forget about the cost of living, it's why the Earth rotates, as they using slang proclaim.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: crazyewok

How about autonomous regions that don't swear fealty to any Government?

The problem with Democracy is when you get as big as the United States you have too many people that want different things. If we broke into smaller regional areas we would all be happier.

Looking at how the diffrent regions votes in the USA and how what people want from the government are so drastically diffrent then I tend to agree.

Unfortunately the USA is becoming less and less politically viable.
And the longer it exists in it current state, the more extreme and more stupid the candidates will get....honestly at this point i expect you 2020 elections to be between a rabid dog (GOP) and Hillary clinton with a sex change

a reply to: crazyewok

I could look it up but I might as well ask someone from the UK directly

Do you have something similar to the us Bill of Rights?

It's somewhat my understanding that the US was influenced by British Common law. Which correct me if I am wrong goes back to Manga Carta.

a reply to: SolAquarius

Yes your bill of rights was based off our bill of rights of 1689, even the right to bare arms.

And that was based off the margna Carter.


Unfortunately its been superceded over the centuries by other laws, some conferming those rights and other supercedeing them. Especially since joining thecEU as they had there own bill of rights.

There is talk though of us reintroduceing a bill of rights again, especially after bexit. And support that idea. Because though British government has never been that extreme and pretty mild its just not a high priority at the moment, though it should be.

a reply to: crazyewok

Interesting I will have to read up on that.

I'm trying to learn about the US revolution and the constitution past all the BS I was taught in School.

In addition to learning the orgins of Law and where it traces it's self back too and where it derives it's authority.

Your bill of rights might still be in effect but obscured by statutory laws and acts.

I think the US might be in a similar situation that's why it seems difficult to claim some of the rights for example this one

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

- 4th Amendment

It seems like rights have been obscured by color of law and legalese.

a reply to: SolAquarius

That was in effect why you had your revolution.

Britain was refusing to apply the bill of rights in the colonys and British citizens just didnt have the same rights and representation as Mainland brits did.

Britain was in the wrong. And if we had just given you the same rights and representation we could have avoided the whole stupid war. Instead good people ended up dying on both sides over something that could of been avoided. Hell that was why a lot of British soldiers hated fighting and many British officers resigned as the war was a political blunder on the British part.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah Benjamin Franklin was trying to go down that road.

He wanted British Rights extended to the colonies and still be under the protection of Britain.

He liked compromise and I respect him for that.

But It's argued that his final meeting with Parliament to come to a compromise was such a disaster and that he was humiliated and insulted that this is what drove him to the side of the revolutionaries.

Perhaps in an alternate reality Franklin got His Way.

a reply to: crazyewok

You just have the illusion of democracy.



Personally I would rather call that corpocracy.
Noam Chomsky is an eye-opener on those issues :

The U.S. Behaves Nothing Like a Democracy, But You'll Never Hear About It in Our 'Free Press'

Real democracy is unworkable and unfeasible in any scenario greater than the tiny ancient Greek polities that created it and designed it specifically in that context. Democracy wasn't conceived for societies on a scale any larger than that. And even then, a huge proportion of the population in each Greek city consisted of slaves.

It is for precisely this reason that we don't actually have democracy. The masses are like children, they require stewards to rule over them like a child needs its parents.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Why do you hate criminals and immigrants?

I can almost predict that response now. So I'll toss it out and let you chew on it.

?
I don’t get the question?

By excluding criminals and immigrants who aren't citizens, you are ignoring hundreds, nay thousands, of potential votes. Some savvy politician will figure that out and make it a voting issue and couch it in terms of how cruel/racist you are to be denying these two critical groups their rights to vote.

Isn't that voter suppression or something?

Boo Trump won, let's look for confirmation bias...oh look over here at what Sir Winston had to say, never mind that Obama removed his bust from a prominent display in the White House.

a reply to: crazyewok

Breaking up the democracy killer of a multinational Corporatocracy that rules over the MSM, the Two Party's, the IC, the government, the central banking, etc is the way to go.

But yesterday you argued with me that they deserve the same equal rights and more as-is (these institutions) as real life human being citizens do.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Boo Trump won, let's look for confirmation bias...oh look over here at what Sir Winston had to say, never mind that Obama removed his bust from a prominent display in the White House.

O look a binary brained response.

Because i am not a die hard Trump cultists that makes me a obama loving democrat supporter?

Guess what your wrong.

There is more to life that two options.

I did not like Trump and I hated hillary.

Yes Trump won. He is the legal president.
That will not change for the next 4 years.


There is no arguing that.

The problem is behind the # system that resulted in a election of Trump verse Hillary......two god awful candidates and how to improve the quality of candidates in the future.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
a reply to: crazyewok

Breaking up the multinational Corporatocracy that rules over the MSM, the Two Party's, the IC, the government, the central banking, etc is the way to go.

But yesterday you argued with me that they deserve the same equal rights and more as-is (these institutions) as real life human being citizens do.

No I argued that the law and the constitution needs to be followed.

Trump can not ban the press or arrest jounlists using the criminal justice as your constitution currently stands.
Sorry but it written down literally in black and white.
And you certainly never want the goverment to go down the route of goverment controlled media.



But that doesnt mean nothing can be done.
Banning financial links between politics and corporations would be a start.
Trump can kick certain jounlists from the white house grounds. Make CNN report outside in the rain
And you can tighten libel and false advertising laws. If the press report PROVEN fake facts take there jounlism credentials away. Allow them to still write and state there rubbish, but just not under the clzim of being "news".

a reply to: crazyewok
The Greeks used to select citizens by lottery who were then forced to act as representatives for a time.
Kind of like how jury service works.



The trouble with that is, the vast majority of people have no say in the actual laws passed on their behalf.


Perhaps, now that everyone has access to the net in modern countries (through phones, pc's etc) we could have the debates between the people on any particular issue, rather like twitter postings and forum rants, then vote on each issue.
We would save all the money we spend on MP's etc. Some of this could pay for the upkeep of the network which deals with government.

Sure, it would be a pain voting on something you might not be interested in, but it would naturally benefit those who have an interest in a particular subject, who would therefore give it more attention and thus, it's likely that all new legislation would be voted on by people with a passion either for or against it.

This would probably give the country a far better level of representation than any other form of government, no one would be excluded, yet by it's nature, those with the greater knowledge would be more a part of such debates.

a reply to: crazyewok

I was very specific about the mutlinational megaconglomerate corporations that run the "Two Party + IC + MSM System", I talked about corporate law (them having all the same rights and MORE under their legal classification as "persons"), and you kept the ball squarely in the court of they're to be protected and anyone against such organizational machinations are something akin to anti-Constitutional tyrants. (paraphrasing)

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: crazyewok

Why do you hate criminals and immigrants?

I can almost predict that response now. So I'll toss it out and let you chew on it.

?
I don’t get the question?

By excluding criminals and immigrants who aren't citizens, you are ignoring hundreds, nay thousands, of potential votes. Some savvy politician will figure that out and make it a voting issue and couch it in terms of how cruel/racist you are to be denying these two critical groups their rights to vote.

Isn't that voter suppression or something?

Ahhh now i get you.

Yes i guess you have a point.

But can a immigrant be trusted to vote in the intrests of there new nation or will there be a high risk, especially if they have duel passports or maybe still holding loyalty with there home country and possibly voting and making policys against the USA intrest?

There are already some who think that already goes on with the US congressmen that hold duel nationalists and strong ties to countrys like israel?