Which is more important to the US?

[Rogan Josh]

DF: I would be interested in your view of education. Since education is a service, I presume you would agree in a free-market system where one would pay for one's education directly (ie. not through taxes, since in a true laissez-faire society there would be no taxes).

So what happens if you are born into a very poor family who cannot afford (or do not want) to pay for you to go to school? I presume you wouldn't force someone to give up their money to educate their child, because that would be theft - it is their money after all.

So how would you ensure that everyone got a decent eductation? Or is this not important in a laissez-faire society because people would only be trained to do the jobs they were paid to do?

[David Floyd]

So what happens if you are born into a very poor family who cannot afford (or do not want) to pay for you to go to school? I presume you wouldn't force someone to give up their money to educate their child, because that would be theft - it is their money after all.

I think it's reasonable to assume charitable organizations would set up programs to help the most needy, in the absence of government programs. I also see no reason why parent loans for their children's education could not be given by banks.

However, in the US, the vast majority will be able to afford education, simply because the costs of education (I assue we are discussing pre-college) would certainly not be as high as they are today in private and parochial schools.

Remember, also, that home schooling is a very valid method of education (doesn't do much for social skills, of course).

[Wraith]

--"It depends.... IMO, Democracy is more important... but America isn't a Democracy."

And with good reason. You've perhaps seen the quote "Democracy is three wolves and a lamb voting who to have for dinner"?

--"Wraith - you might be interested to know that my Political Philosophy prof this semester was an Objectivist"

Interesting. I remember an Objectivist pol-sci TA, but I sure hope it's not the same one, since he was there ten years ago. I wonder why they're showing up at UT Austin? Anyone at other universities know of any?

--"so that even with many competitors still a monepoly like situation can happen."

The more competitors, the less likely this will be to happen. You also have to take into account newcomers, who at first will probably be at least as concerned with building market share as with pure profits. In an industry with relatively low barriers-to-entry this won't ever be a problem. In others it is still highly unlikely at best. I can't think of a single historical example that did not require actual collusion.

--"I would be interested in your view of education."

You didn't address this to me, but I will answer anyway. Yes, eduction should be totally free-market. There were such things as charity schools before the government took over (note that this was demanded by the principals and teachers, not the parents).

--"So how would you ensure that everyone got a decent eductation?"

You're supposing that our current system does this, and I heartily disagree. Our current system has nothing to do with giving a decent education, but has turned into day-care for families that have to have both parents work to be able to pay taxes.

Wraith
"Governments change...the lies stay the same."
-- James Bond

[David Floyd]

Interesting. I remember an Objectivist pol-sci TA, but I sure hope it's not the same one, since he was there ten years ago. I wonder why they're showing up at UT Austin? Anyone at other universities know of any?

No, this TA is in her early 20s, Allison Weinstein...I don't know of others of the top of my head, but this class was nice because probably 50%+ was spent on Locke, Rand, and Nozick.

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and one more point - if companies will only want to pay people $1, or whatever, why is it that most companies offre above the minimum wage in the US? I got hired in my first job, for example, for 40% above minimum wage, and by the time I left I was making double minimum wage. This was working in a simple retail job that required no education, and I started at 16.

According to you the way capitalism works is by a continue increase in the salaries made by the companies to attract the best qualified employees.
But If the country has an important unemployment rate it can also work this way.
David, imagine that you have a good position in a company and you earn whatever the average middle class salary is in your country.
But the executive of your company watches the inmense queues of unemployed people, and he realizes that there are 100 postulants per every job offered.
He can easily tell you, now you win 1200 dolars per month, from this moment one you will earn 800, and If you dont like, you can renounce because there outside there is a large queue of people who are as qualified as you and are willing to work for half the salary you earn.

This is what happens in Argentina.
This is what happens in countries with no controlled capitalism, and this is what would happen in the US and Europe if it wasnt because of the subsidies.

The logics of capitalism says that For the USA or Europe would be better to buy agricultural goods to Argentina and Brazil or Australia, because we are more competitive, and we do it better and cheaper.In fact agriculture in Europe is quite useless.
But unstead, the EU and the US chooses to put subsidies to the agricultural sector, because in this way a lot of people is employed
in sectors that would would not exist in a pure capitalistic society.
And if that sector does not exists, all that people would go increase the queue of unemployed people.
And maybe what I describes before would happen to you.


The low unemployment rate is sustained artificially with subsidies to non competitive sectors, like agriculture in France and steel production in the USA.

To keep you standard of like this mix between free market and "socialistic" subsidies should be sustained.
What annoys me is when the USA tell us that we should have completely open markets while they use subsidies.

[David Floyd]

He can easily tell you, now you win 1200 dolars per month, from this moment one you will earn 800, and If you dont like, you can renounce because there outside there is a large queue of people who are as qualified as you and are willing to work for half the salary you earn.

Sure, and I can tell him to shove it up his arse, while I go find a job in which the company makes an effort to keep quality people, because obviously the original company his headed down the tubes - it makes no sense to drive off already trained, good employees, as you will just have to hire and train someone new, put up with their initial ****ups, etc. - it's less of a hassle, and probably more profitable, just to stick with me at $1200.

In any case, you assume that a laissez-faire system would have high unemloyment. It would not, because people would know that they won't get an unemployment check, or welfare, without working.

[Wraith]

--"but this class was nice because probably 50%+ was spent on Locke, Rand, and Nozick."

Very nice. Completely surprising these days, but still very nice.

--"But If the country has an important unemployment rate it can also work this way."

You might want to look at the places that have very high unemployment rates a bit more closely. You'll find that they are far more socialist than the US is.

Argentina, btw, is not a good example of unfettered capitalism, because it is anything but. For instance, their currency was pegged to the dollar (rather than set by the market). Cash withdrawls from banks are very limited, anyone trying to take currency out of the country is subject to interdiction. They eventually -- finally -- devalued the peso, but not totally. They froze all bank accounts above about $3,000, for instance.
In any case, Argentina has been having economic problems for decades. They've recieved (and squandered) rather a lot of IMF money. Most of that, of course, ended up as direct government spending on things like higher salaries. This is not at all a free market.

--"This is what happens in countries with no controlled capitalism,"

There has never been a country with a true free market, so you cannot make this statement (unless you mean countries like the Soviet Union, which certainly had no controlled capitalism but did have a black market).
It also does not square with historical examples. The US, before the Great Depression, was far more free market than Europe, and this was not a major problem.

--"But unstead, the EU and the US chooses to put subsidies to the agricultural sector, because in this way a lot of people is employed"

That is not why those sectors are subsidised. They are subsidised because the vast majority of farms are owned by big corporations, and big corporations give big campaign contributions. The farm subsidies also play a role in artificially inflating food prices (which is interesting to note in the face of various other programs meant to help people buy food).

--"in sectors that would would not exist in a pure capitalistic society."

:?: People have to eat. It's not something you can do without. Therefore food will be purchased. Therefore there will be money to be made growing food. Therefore someone will be doing so.
You should also note that the only reason modern high-yeild farming ever would have come about is because of capitalism.

--"steel production in the USA."

Steel production in the US would be competitive... if it was subject to market forces. This industry is one of the many which have been protected heavily by the government for a long long time, and that is exactly why they are uncompetitive.

--"What annoys me is when the USA tell us that we should have completely open markets while they use subsidies."

It annoys me too. However, most of those people are politicians, so hypocrisy is not a big surprise. I say open markets, including no subsidies.

Wraith
"Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them.... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist of providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."
-- (Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy, P. 67)

[Akka]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sure, and I can tell him to shove it up his arse, while I go find a job in which the company makes an effort to keep quality people, because obviously the original company his headed down the tubes - it makes no sense to drive off already trained, good employees, as you will just have to hire and train someone new, put up with their initial ****ups, etc. - it's less of a hassle, and probably more profitable, just to stick with me at $1200.

In any case, you assume that a laissez-faire system would have high unemloyment. It would not, because people would know that they won't get an unemployment check, or welfare, without working.

Bullshit.
Half of the argument about unemployment is that if people want to find a job, they can.
Sometimes there is NO JOB for you, point. It's what's happening in many underdevelopped countries.

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Sure, and I can tell him to shove it up his arse, while I go find a job in which the company makes an effort to keep quality people, because obviously the original company his headed down the tubes - it makes no sense to drive off already trained, good employees, as you will just have to hire and train someone new, put up with their initial ****ups, etc. - it's less of a hassle, and probably more profitable, just to stick with me at $1200.

In any case, you assume that a laissez-faire system would have high unemloyment. It would not, because people would know that they won't get an unemployment check, or welfare, without working.

You can tell him to shove it up his arse, and you can go to increase the number of unemployed people, and you will not get a new job if you are not willing to earn less or work more than the other unemployed people.
And you may need months to get a new job, months were you will have no salary, you will not percive money during that time.
I am sure that if you have a child and a wife you will end up accepting the first job you see just to be able to feed them.

It is not so hard to understand, and there are unemployed worker as well prepared as you.

Argentina must be the capital of the the proffesionals who work as taxi drivers.

Sometimes i believe that people from central countries have a distorted image of capitalism.

What I narrated before, is not a theory, it is what happens here.
This is the way companies behave here, and their behavior could only change with state intervention to prevent their excesses.
But it seems that you despise all forms of state intervention.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"I think that any society is to serve the men that are part of it,"

Society is a fiction. It's just a group of individuals. Society therefore can not take precedence over the individual.
So, in the end what's best for "society" is what's best for every individual.

That's my point. Yours is the opposite : what's best for one individual is best for society.

--"I think I can safely assume that you do not share my beliefs"

Nope, not at all. As soon as you proclaim that the function of some is to provide for others you have entered the realm of slavery, and I will have no part of it.

Different opinions. 'cause for me, it's YOUR opinion that bring slavery.

--"I extend the individual rights to a longer-sighted point that's all."

It sounds much more like you're saying "the ends justify the means". I do not agree that any method that achieves a good end is a good method.

Don't really understand how you could come to this conclusion. In fact, it's exactly the opposite I'm saying. I just do not stop the individual rights half-way (politics). I apply the defence of the rights to ANY threats, not just only political ones.

I also do not believe that you are correct in assuming this will lead to a good end. In both the medium and long runs, we would be much better off with an actual free market economy. Wealth distribution and so on is inherently inefficent (and I do not mean corrupt or wasteful government; this is simply by economic definitions).

What I will never undertstand is how you can accept that politics can be oppressive and not that economics can be too.

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by Wraith
--"but this class was nice because probably 50%+ was spent on Locke, Rand, and Nozick."

Very nice. Completely surprising these days, but still very nice.

--"But If the country has an important unemployment rate it can also work this way."

You might want to look at the places that have very high unemployment rates a bit more closely. You'll find that they are far more socialist than the US is.

Argentina, btw, is not a good example of unfettered capitalism, because it is anything but. For instance, their currency was pegged to the dollar (rather than set by the market). Cash withdrawls from banks are very limited, anyone trying to take currency out of the country is subject to interdiction. They eventually -- finally -- devalued the peso, but not totally. They froze all bank accounts above about $3,000, for instance.
In any case, Argentina has been having economic problems for decades. They've recieved (and squandered) rather a lot of IMF money. Most of that, of course, ended up as direct government spending on things like higher salaries. This is not at all a free market.


You are only right with the currency.
But the rest of all of what you saif were maneuvers taken by the government is this 3 last moths, not what happened always here.
In 1999 Argentina according to the IMF was the model that the nations in development should follow.

--"This is what happens in countries with no controlled capitalism,"

There has never been a country with a true free market, so you cannot make this statement (unless you mean countries like the Soviet Union, which certainly had no controlled capitalism but did have a black market).
It also does not square with historical examples. The US, before the Great Depression, was far more free market than Europe, and this was not a major problem.

--"But unstead, the EU and the US chooses to put subsidies to the agricultural sector, because in this way a lot of people is employed"

That is not why those sectors are subsidised. They are subsidised because the vast majority of farms are owned by big corporations, and big corporations give big campaign contributions. The farm subsidies also play a role in artificially inflating food prices (which is interesting to note in the face of various other programs meant to help people buy food).

--"in sectors that would would not exist in a pure capitalistic society."

:?: People have to eat. It's not something you can do without. Therefore food will be purchased. Therefore there will be money to be made growing food. Therefore someone will be doing so.
You should also note that the only reason modern high-yeild farming ever would have come about is because of capitalism.

They can buy the food in other countries.Anyway, this was directed to europe, not to the USA.

--"steel production in the USA."

Steel production in the US would be competitive... if it was subject to market forces. This industry is one of the many which have been protected heavily by the government for a long long time, and that is exactly why they are uncompetitive.

--"What annoys me is when the USA tell us that we should have completely open markets while they use subsidies."

It annoys me too. However, most of those people are politicians, so hypocrisy is not a big surprise. I say open markets, including no subsidies.

Wraith
"Electric lighting is no great boon to anyone who has money enough to buy a sufficient number of candles and to pay servants to attend them.... The capitalist achievement does not typically consist of providing more silk stockings for queens but in bringing them within the reach of factory girls in return for steadily decreasing amounts of effort."
-- (Capitalism, Socialism, & Democracy, P. 67)

[Akka]

--"This is what happens in countries with no controlled capitalism,"

There has never been a country with a true free market, so you cannot make this statement (unless you mean countries like the Soviet Union, which certainly had no controlled capitalism but did have a black market).
It also does not square with historical examples. The US, before the Great Depression, was far more free market than Europe, and this was not a major problem.

There has never been a country with a true communism too, so we can consider that communism is good and works well.
Free capitalism is a utopia, that can work well only a perfect world. But well, ANYTHING can work well in a perfect world.
What we can see is that the more capitalist a society is, the more inequality there is. Huge companies, that no one elected, get the power to threat governments, that are supposed to express the will of the people. Hence we have here a fundamental right that has been broken.
And about the US before the Depression : if I'm falling from the top of skyscrapper, 'til I reach the ground I'm perfectly well.

[Wraith]

--"It's what's happening in many underdevelopped countries."

The US is not an undeveloped country. We're rather beyond the pre-Industrial age.

--"What I narrated before, is not a theory, it is what happens here."

And Argentina is anything but a model of capitalism...

--"That's my point. Yours is the opposite : what's best for one individual is best for society."

I really wish we had the same native language, because otherwise this argument is not going anywhere.
Individual rights is what's best for one individual, and by extention, all society.

--"'cause for me, it's YOUR opinion that bring slavery."

How is allowing people to keep the fruits of their own labor slavery? Explain that to me, please.

--"I apply the defence of the rights to ANY threats, not just only political ones."

This is where you are refusing to understand my arguments, and why this is so damn frustrating. SO DO I! My point is that the government can protect our economic rights without interfering in the economy! Their job is law enforcement, not regulation! They protect you from things like fraud and theft, not dictate how many ounces of cabbage you can buy at one time or prop up failing industries.
If you still can not understand this, I will not bother taking this argument further. I do not know how I can say this more clearly.

--"What we can see is that the more capitalist a society is, the more inequality there is."

Yeah, sure. Just like the Politburro lived on the same level as the average schmuck, or your fine European leaders live on the same level as the average citizen.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

--"And about the US before the Depression "

Again, Great Depression, government caused, yadda yadda.

Wraith
"Ministers say that they teach charity. That is natural. They live on hand-outs. All beggars teach that others should give."
-- Robert G. Ingersoll

[Plan Austral]

"Argentina, btw, is not a good example of unfettered capitalism, because it is anything but. For instance, their currency was pegged to the dollar (rather than set by the market). Cash withdrawls from banks are very limited, anyone trying to take currency out of the country is subject to interdiction. They eventually -- finally -- devalued the peso, but not totally. They froze all bank accounts above about $3,000, for instance.
In any case, Argentina has been having economic problems for decades. They've recieved (and squandered) rather a lot of IMF money. Most of that, of course, ended up as direct government spending on things like higher salaries. This is not at all a free market."

You are only right with the currency.
But the rest of all of what you saif were maneuvers taken by the government is this 3 last moths, not what happened always here.
During the nineties the argentinean economy grew 5 % per year, In 1999 Argentina according to the IMF was the model that the nations in development should follow.



"That is not why those sectors are subsidised. They are subsidised because the vast majority of farms are owned by big corporations, and big corporations give big campaign contributions. The farm subsidies also play a role in artificially inflating food prices (which is interesting to note in the face of various other programs meant to help people buy food)."

If I recall correctly the subsidies are not to inflate the prices, but to make them lower.
The farmer agrees in making the prices lower and the state compensates him with the subsidies.
In that way the rest of the countries are displaced of the market because they cant compete with the lower prices.


":?: People have to eat. It's not something you can do without. Therefore food will be purchased. Therefore there will be money to be made growing food. Therefore someone will be doing so.
You should also note that the only reason modern high-yeild farming ever would have come about is because of capitalism."

People have to eat, but they can import the food from other countries who make it cheaper, better and without subsidies.
There is no need to sustain artificially a sector like in France, just because they do not want to be dependant of other countries.

Anyway, this was directed to europe, not to the USA.


"Again, Great Depression, government caused, yadda yadda."

Yes, and according to free market, the way of getting out of that kind of crisis would be to fire people, and to reduce salaries and spendings, to have an equilibrate fiscal situation and to start a virtuous circle in the economy.
Of course that does not works, and only the state intervention of the Keynes welfare system took the US out of their crisis.

[Akka]

--"'cause for me, it's YOUR opinion that bring slavery."

How is allowing people to keep the fruits of their own labor slavery? Explain that to me, please.

When the fruit of their labor grow up enough to allow them to have too much power over others, then they are oppressors and the fruit of their labor become a mean of oppression. I'm fully aware that the border between "becoming oppressive" and "rightly enjoy what you have gained" is very hard to define. Still, there is a line.
After all, Hitler came to power by his own labor. Now, can we accept how he used it ?
You can gain as much power over others in economics than in politics, hence you need regulations to ensure that the ones at the top of economics won't be able to oppress the ones at the bottom.

--"I apply the defence of the rights to ANY threats, not just only political ones."

This is where you are refusing to understand my arguments, and why this is so damn frustrating. SO DO I! My point is that the government can protect our economic rights without interfering in the economy! Their job is law enforcement, not regulation! They protect you from things like fraud and theft, not dictate how many ounces of cabbage you can buy at one time or prop up failing industries.
If you still can not understand this, I will not bother taking this argument further. I do not know how I can say this more clearly.

It's as frustrating for me, and you're refusing my arguments as well.
Government CAN'T protects our rights WITHOUT interfering in the economy. Law enforcement and regulations comes together. You say that your vision allows protection of rights, which I strongly disagree.
There is basic services that HAVE to be made from the government (your charity-based idea of education for poor is just sickening : education is a RIGHT, not something that have to be BOUGHT or something you have to beg others for), and their is a limit to what power a person can have over others.
If someone is more skilled/intelligent/hard to work/anything than someone else, it's right that he can get more. Now, no matter how much more skilled/etc. he is, there is a limit to the power he can gain. Might makes not right (which is probably a point you agree, but I'm arguing that your vision end up in a situation where it makes might right).

--"What we can see is that the more capitalist a society is, the more inequality there is."

Yeah, sure. Just like the Politburro lived on the same level as the average schmuck, or your fine European leaders live on the same level as the average citizen.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

I can safely tell that there is much less inequalities and difference between the richest and the poorest in our European countries than in US. "more" inequality is RELATIVE. Someone as strict about langage as you are can certainly make the difference between "no inequalities" and "less inequalities".

--"And about the US before the Depression "

Again, Great Depression, government caused, yadda yadda.

Again, don't agree, less regulations, yadda yadda.

[Monk]

David, your ideas on laissez-faire capitalism are all fine and noble, but what happens when it's taken to such absolute limits? Aren't you even prepared to compromise with your ideology when it comes to environmental restrictions? I think I asked you this before, but it seems to me if you're a laissez-faire capitalist you oppose any and all gov't interference, which would include the environmental ones. Or for that matter, what about selling nuclear bombs or other heavy weapons to Osama bin Laden? Isn't this completely legal and even moral in your utopia?

[David Floyd]

You can tell him to shove it up his arse, and you can go to increase the number of unemployed people, and you will not get a new job if you are not willing to earn less or work more than the other unemployed people.

That's bullshit. Just because that's how things work in Argentina () doesn't mean that's how things would workin a true free market. I can start my own business, go into farming, etc., assuming for some reason I can't find a job. But I won't haveto find a new job, because if an employer is foolish enough to drive away skilled labor (be it a programmer, construction worker, whatever) then another company is quite likely to hire that skilled labor, while the original company is stuck with the cost of replacing the skilled worker, a pointless and needless exercise.

Monk,

Aren't you even prepared to compromise with your ideology when it comes to environmental restrictions?

If you can prove that a certain type of pollution is coercive in nature and infringes on individual rights, then I'll consider a law to protect individual liberties. Normally, the best solution is self-regulation as a result of consumer pressure.

Or for that matter, what about selling nuclear bombs or other heavy weapons to Osama bin Laden?

If it's your property, the government should not restrict what you do with it, except in the case of using your property ot initiate force against another. Then government has the obligation to protect that person or persons from your coercion.

[kolpo]

I think democracy is WAY more important then capitalism.

Every person is as real as every other person and experience happyness just like every other person, so the happyness of every person is equally important as that of others. We don't know what brings happyness, there is no raison to assume that one person his idea of that is more true then that of another, because of that is the best solution to simply do what the majority thinks. There is no other base to stand on! There is nothing else that isn't disputed by at least some people, there is nothing that can't be really proved so best we have is the idea of the majority.

What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose.

Because there is no universal agreed idea of "right/good/best sollution" so best what we have is what most people think, what the majority thinks.

[David Floyd]

What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose

And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

[kolpo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

Also in that case wouldn't thaht be really enslaving the minority because most likley won't the majority view it that way and because there is not something as a universal agreed truth is best what we have what most people think, so if most people thing that isn't enslaving, isn't that enslaving.

A democracy is like a group of lambs who vote to eat the wolf. No longer doe sthe strong suppress the weak! But teh weak suppress the strong!

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

That is what happened in Nazi germany.
And even though, Hitler was voted twice with absolute majority it was not a democracy becaused it was not guaranteeing the minimal and absolute rights for all the citizens.

If the majority wants that, it is no longer democracy.

What I said is also proves that the majority can commit mistakes.

[Arrian]

A democracy is a like a group of lambs who vote to eat the wolf. No longer doe sthe strong suppress the weak! But teh weak suppress the strong!

And that's not ok. Tyranny of the masses is still tyranny.

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

So if the majority (51%) of a country decide to kill off a minority, that's fine, because it's democratic?? I beg to differ!

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

Also in that case wouldn't thaht be really enslaving the minority because most likley won't the majority view it that way and because there is not something as a universal agreed truth is best what we have what most people think, so if most people thing that isn't enslaving, isn't that enslaving.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow - you seem to be saying that WHATEVER the majority wants is OK, because slavery isn't necessarily wrong. Is that correct?

If the majority wants that, it is no longer democracy.

Nice circular argument. So, then, can the majority pass a law that you must forfeit 99% of your net worth?

What I said is also proves that the majority can commit mistakes.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you're making my individual rights argument.

Obviously democracy is flawed, because the majority cannot be trusted NOT to run roughshod over the minority.

[MrFun]

I am an American, and I vote for democracy over capitalism.

The right for the majority to rule, while the minority groups are protected, is fundamentally important for our country and government, in my opinion.

Just look at the ideals (not necessarily reality) that was set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

[David Floyd]

The right for the majority to rule, while the minority groups are protected, is fundamentally important for our country and government, in my opinion.

That isn't democracy - that's a government that primarily protects individual rights.

[kolpo]

Hitler didn't got more then 50% of the votes so it is undemocratic that he got all the power, that ahs more to do with a bad constitution then the failure of democracy.

If I look around the world and compare the democratic nations with the non democractic ones can I only conclude that democratic nations are in general more tolerant, less racist, less violent then non-democratic ones.

Here become we angry about a simply sex scandal of a president, in despotistic nations can't peopel even become angry about genocide taht's the difference. Democratic nations tolerant because minorities ahve a vote! And all minorities combined can form a majority! Especial in a nation where there are 2 political blocks who get quite equal votes can minorities gain lot's of influence.

Also in msot democracies have people democracicly elected leaders who amde laws to protect minorities, that's also democracy.

[David Floyd]

If I look around the world and compare the democratic nations with the non democractic ones can I only conclude that democratic nations are in general more tolerant, less racist, less violent then non-democratic ones.

Obviously the US, Israel, South Korea, and much of Western Europe aren't democracies then.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That isn't democracy - that's a government that primarily protects individual rights.

Did you reach the bottom of the second large bottle of beer yet, Rebel??


Seriously -- can you have a democracy that does not protect invidividual rights?

[kolpo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Obviously the US, Israel, South Korea, and much of Western Europe aren't democracies then.

Compared to real non-democratic nations like China, North Korea and Iraq are the democratic ones saints.

[kolpo]

Also the ones that form the majority and the minority are different based on whihc political issue it is. People who may think like the majority in social issues can maybe think like the minority in enviromental issues. So In fact belongs quite every person to at least one group of minorities in at least one of there ideas, because everyone is a little bit minority himself will they feel a need to vote for laws to protect the minority against the majority, for that is there most likley a majority!