Hes right in a way what the US needs to do is sit down and rewrite the constitution to were it is for the people not for the politicians what we need is a democratic republic to were government has little control right now and the past couple years the government has resembled a oligarchy
@draci345 Well, you're assuming it's the Constitution that's the problem, but how can we know if the politicians haven't been following the Constitution?
Democracy is none of these things. Democracy is mob rule, and often the opposite of what you're saying it is. Democracy is not being able to go your own way. Democracy is being silenced by the crowd. Democracy is your life choices being denied. Democracy is the rationalization of intolerance.
@obtree You may be essentially right, but you obviously don't understand the way a modern parliamentary democracy works, if you truly believe the things you said. The parliament ensures the safeguarding of the wishes of the minority through the opposition parties. Agreed, this may not be the purest form of democracy, but it is what we mean when we talk about democracy nowadays. So yeah, democracy IS all of these things.
@LibertyCentury Yeah. Modern, representative democracy is a bit different than direct democracy. It's even worse. Instead of mob rule, the mob elects a bunch of politicians who vote to control the lives of everybody in society. The electoral process is so crappy at getting bad politicians out of office that they, more often than not, don't even listen to the people that elected them, and instead pander to corporations and special interests.
@obtree I'd rather have representative democracy than direct democracy. Under representative democracy you end up with awful corporatocracy, but under direct democracy you just get people going back to a caveman might means right system.
@DoctorCapitalist Not entirely but direct dimocracy isnt even possible, for there are far far too few who are actually qualified , and smart enough with enough knowledge and experience of the subject at hand to make the right choise, that is the sad reality.
Direct democracy can be achieved only if EVERYONe is made smart, this was what my glorious union was trying to do, but its nearly impossible, if not impossilbe....
@DoctorCapitalist Direct democracy can work quite well in city blocks and especcialy villages, in terms of how to spend pot money put into by everyone and/or how to help community as a whole. On a goverment level however, i think the comment underneath this one was clear enough.
@authorityblues Lol. And I guess you have a Poli Sci degree? Well if you spent your time in university learning shit like this video, then I guess we know what that degree is worth. lmao.
@online27ful religion is not against democracy it is for it god gave us a choice in the beginning to eat from the tree or to not eat drone the tree and we ate from it if it was a republic it would be like god didn't give Adam and eve the choice he would've had an angel make the decision
A democracy is majority rule. Here, if a majority said anything- even if it is to kill someone, take someones house, shop, kids, property, food or water- the demand MUST be meet, even with out cause
In a Republic, justice, freedom, individual, and law rule. So even if the majority wants someone to be killed, the law will stop it.
@CTina94 The problem with a republic is that it's based on minarchy which is kind of self-refuting. An invasive-defender if you will as the state still takes your money from you against your consent to fund it's defence. Why not polycentric law where justice and defence is private and un-monopolized?
Lets say a family move into a house. They build a family run shop. Their prices are decent, though more then a majority of the shoppers want things to be free.
1) In a democracy, the shop must lower their price to Free, because the majority said so.
2) In a republic, the family can chose their prices freely.
If democracy is a idea of a peaceful world in which diplomacy play's a key role and their primal goal are prosperity of their people,as well as world without war.Than why democratic people are the only one to vote for war,why the democracy keep killing people in a name of freedom hmmm.!!!!!
Democracy is 3000 year's old idea it's time to find better one!!!!!!
"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology ...The real danger we face is not from terrorism, but what is being done under the pretext of fighting it." - Michael Parenti
@online27ful The relationship between freedom and democracy is like the relationship between marxist and free market capitalists. They are not even on speaking terms.
As a CEO, I strongly believe Democracy is an overrated & outdated concept in running & organising modern society.
Time & again my innovative ideas for developing my town are prevented by petty council officials, members of an insular political class who know NOTHING about actually getting things done in the real world. One recently had the gall to say I was “infringing human rights” by making employee’s daughters sign a celibacy pledge- but how else are teen pregnancies to be stopped?
switzerland is a democracy and one of the countries with the most satisfied people in the world. now of course you can always point out the flaws of a political system, but that's complete nonsense because there is no perfect system. so the only thing we can do is to try and choose the one that works best.
Why is it right that any group of people should have the power to take away the life and property of peaceful people? People the world over think it's ok to vote away the freedom of others. The crazy thing is they have the nerve to call what their doing freedom. Democracy is never freedom, freedom is never Democracy.
don't speak without knowing what democracy is,democracy is the freedom to be whatever you wan't to be,democracy is the power of the people,people can chose a president.if the president is stupid that means that majority of the people are stupid.and the rest of the people need to be better than majority.and help the stupid people,democracy is the best.a really good video almost make me cry.thank you and sorry for my bad english ,i'm not a stupid american,a beliver in capitalism that kills people.
@blinkgabriel "Even 51 per cent of a nation can establish a totalitarian and dictatorial règime, suppress minorities, and still remain democratic; there is, as we have said, little doubt that the American Congress and the French Chambre have a power over their respective nations which would rouse the envy of a Louis XIV or a George III were they alive today." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
Who gives a fuck if your democratic or republican. If I ever ran for president I wouldn't join a party, like George Washington did. it just gets in the way of running the country
I see the slew of people that think (key word think) they actually know what they're talking about is still circulating here. LMFAO. Carry on simpletons.
@stevnated No, it's not. A representative republic is far superior. That doesn't mean you can't have voting, you can still vote for your representatives.
Sadly, with the abolishment of the United States Senate in 1913 (see the 17th amendment), we have actually been turned into a half-way house to a Democracy.
Unlimited power in the hands of a few (dictator) or in the hands of a majority (Democracy) is always a bad idea.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ~ Benjamin Franklin~
"Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~James Madison~
it is such a good definition of democracy less than one minute =D... and there are 753 dislikes because they are those people who do not like to live DEMOCRACY at all...
@iamfreeize I do agree with you that democracy is a system we can and should improve upon in more ways than one, but doing your duty to what? Being an intolerant bastard? Seriously, not needed.
@VanillaCoke5134 Sorry, just jumping on the anti-semitic band wagon. Can't help myself, where else do you lay the blame on all the world's problems? I think deep down inside, we all blame some unseen person for everything that goes wrong. Saying that Jews control the media, government, and banks is our way of coming to terms with (and localizing) all our problems. It's sad, I know, but it's so much simpler to say that the people responsible for 9/11 also caused the economic recession. :'(
Democracy is when the majority impose their will on the minority through force. This video would be accurate if the word democracy was replaced with "anarchy".
democracy is the majority forcing its will on the minority...get a fuckin clue, fools...."the consent of the governed" does not mean the majority can consent for individuals who dont consent...wash the shit out of your skulls, idiots
Very creative video. There is some, things, that are not true but, using your opinon is all that matters to you. I'm not into goverment and all that complicated stuff that everybody's worried about. Great video though! I still think it's the best animated movie on here!!
@megakireth T_T really?! Try Michelle backman, sara palin, John mcain, George bush, Scott walker. Obama has done nothing but improve this country, sure he can be a little chicken. But atleast he has never gone to jail (George bush) actually plans out his speechs so he doesn't say flat out untrue stuff (palin and backman) an isn't diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (not to mention the chance of heart attack) like John mcain. And trust me, I'm not even getting into how much these peopl
Wtf with the antisemitism? Personally, I really like this video. It's creative and explains democracy in a different light. If you're not for it, don't comment. Szozda was just showing his beliefs, not forcing them upon anyone else. In other words, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Simply give the video a thumbs down. I do appreciate the long, valid political debates against it, but simply saying this is bullshit is both rude and thoughtless.
Democracy is not what America is... We are a democratic REPUBLIC! Hollywood has forgotten that: Democracy, just like socialism, in it's purest form does not work.
The best way to summarize Democracy is as follows:
"The best way to oppress a people is to divide them".
If the US is anything to go by, there's only Left and Right, and those two constantly bicker at each other, without acknowledging the true problem. Should a new side pop up, like center, it will have both Left and Right's attention focused on it, to eradicate truly independent thought. But for now, people are split between Left and Right, and must conform to those two.
Awww shit, now all the communist are raging and goes "why are we not have this amazing type animation 'what is communist...' videos on utube?! We must haz 1!!!"
The very premise of an anarchist "society" impedes on the idea of civil liberties as a whole.... what are you bound to, if everyone can not have a unified voice and branches of representation ? will slavery just be in one place and not the other ? will women not be able to work in certain places and not the other ? Will one place be incest ville ? *womp womp womp*
"moral guidance from the people who practiced it"... oh how the points are missed... Yes white "Americans" (aka the supremacist foreigners) do have a sick heritage, but what are you gonna do ? lol... anarchy is not the answer.
@KlovedFanyism lmfao... that's funny if it's satiric... bullshit if serious... in case you are serious, Janice Dickinson told me, to tell you, to ZIP IT BITCH ZIP IT, you're dead to me! ....lol
@nocturnezero Wouldn't any America hating Muslim take an opportunity to kill U.S citizens. I believe that security checkpoints are important. Just look at 9-11.We allowed them to carry boxcutters and mace
(ect. other toxic chemicals) onto the plane and look what happened. We allowed Muslims that knew how to fly a Boeing 767-222. Al-Qaeda members barely put any planing into these attacks and over 3,000 American citizens lost their lives.
@Coondog3607 This is for two reasons: one, we were founded as a Republic and remain that way, and there's no difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy and a Liberal Democracy and a Representative Democracy, etc. Two, the people who believe representation should be more direct and grassroots don't comprise the Democratic party, they comprise the Green and Socialist parties.
@Coondog3607 Since the foundation of the country, there has been no debate about whether we should be a Democracy or a Republic because they mean the same thing. Democrats and Republicans have historically been divided on a select few issues (today, the issues are social: abortion, gay marriage, and drug use, with a tiny little bit of differentiation on economic issues), but never on whether we should be more or less representative of the people's will.
anarchy = barbaric survival of the fittest (eat or die) ...it takes out bureaucracy, if it is in fact real... anarchy... and says, fend for yourself. With no government standard, being administered, what the f*ck is gonna stop a sociopath from bashing your head and sacking your home at will and unchecked ? lmfao... anarchy is a video game dream.
@quenquen411 Anarchy is a very well-developed historical theory that implies a very vast and well-structured system of organization. Both economically and politically, it advocates for a federated network of unions, collectives, communes, neighborhoods, and other communal structures who make decisions both locally and on a larger scale on democratic principles. If someone bashes in your head, the community would come to your defense and punish or rehabilitate him accordingly.
@quenquen411 The people who have the natural impulse to kill and act on it sacrifice their freedom, so perhaps they should be tried by the affected parties (family) and witnesses and then incarcerated or rehabilitated. Most anarchists, though, believe that many murders and almost all thefts are the result of unequal power relationships, so they should disappear or at least become far less frequent under anarchy, when the natural morality of men will not be poisoned by the state.
@quenquen411 The definitions of direct democracy I've heard are that each person has a say in the decision proportional to the degree in which they would be affected by its outcome, not majority rule.
@asdfqwerty2000 In no democracy are people who have no stake in a decision allowed to make it. That's antithetical to any democratic principle. I shouldn't be allowed to tell you what to wear or what to put at your desk. I should have a say in, for instance, whether you build a landfill in my backyard without my consent.
@1cme1 In direct response to your question, though: rehabilitate them. Current society subjects them to the abhorrent prisons the state builds where criminals foster their methods so when they are on the outside they can be more fruitful in their crimes. Society should be directing its resources to discouraging immoral behavior like murder and destruction and rape, not fostering it.
@nocturnezero good luck doing that when you live in an anarchy with no government structure or order in place. how do you figure you would get all these looters, murderers and rapists into a "rehabilitation center" without capturing them and turning them into a prisoner? anarchy would change nothing, it would simply set humanity back hundreds of years. things became the way they are today through progression.
@1cme1 If the community feels it's a worthy endeavor to dedicate resources to tracking the murderer or rapist, who have sacrificed their freedom by the act of murder and rape, then they'll do so. Of course they'll be a prisoner, but at least they won't be poisoned by the abhorrent conditions of the current government prisons, which are more or less centers for criminals to exchange methods and to learn hatred for society. They'll be rehabilitated rather than punished.
@nocturnezero anarchy isn't a progressive philosophy... it's what the founding father's were avoiding with the Constitution. It's archaic. The prison systems are worse than what ? the angry mobs, that are supposed to be oh so rational when coming for "justice" ? that system sounds so eye for an eye. Murdering and theft isn't as basic as unequal power... when a person has that character, they will rob at the lowest level, and highest level. exploitation is prevalent. Humans are flawed.
@quenquen411 They were technically and actively trying to avoid overreaching state power with the Constitution (which sets up a whole host of limits on the power of the federal government in the Bill of Rights). Of course, by establishing a government they were avoiding anarchy, but it's not like the idea ever came up at the Constitutional Convention. The important problem was monarchy and tyranny, not too little government.
@nocturnezero I don't know what your point is, in reference to the constitution and them not trying to... but you seem a bit mistaken. Have you ever heard of Jeffersonian Democracy ? and the democratic-republican party ? they were anti-federalist (for lack of a better word) ...they were set on limiting the power that the Federal Government should have over the people ! what are you saying here ?
@quenquen411 It's as progressive as libertarianism. Non-progressive philosophies include Conservatism and Capitalism, because they don't advocate radical change in the established structures of society. The prisons are worse than the systems of rehabilitation that an anarchist society may be expected to institute. Don't we already have angry and armed mobs, called police squads, pursuing criminals today?
@nocturnezero capitalism philosophical is to promote economic growth... GROWTH, GROWTH.... things are privately owned and for profit... that's not non-progressive.... conservatism, is obviously a non progressive front... but that is what a partisan government is about.... you have those asses... then you have liberals and moderates... I hate labeling, and am a no nonsense person that hates politics, but meh.
@quenquen411 Economic growth means more production, a higher GDP, but it's not inherently progression. More production has nothing to do with social or moral changes in society, or more equality, or radical change. It just means there's more production. And there's not a system in the world that advocates for LESS production, so you could say all economic systems are progressive, but it wouldn't be true. Production is not progress.
@nocturnezero The point IS and remains.. I don't see what is NON-PROGRESSIVE about a system that PROMOTES the growth of OUR economy. Equality, what is equality ? Moral changes ? what do you propose... radical change ? to what end and by what means ? what are you pushing... and how does your anarchy do anything for the betterment of the INHERENT HUMAN CONDITION ? All systems are flawed... they always have been, but this is the best we've got. Why do you hate that so much ? wtf, You're brainwashed
I think what you really want, is socialism. The "anarchy" you speak of, was a flawed and actively avoided "system" from the start. How does such a myopic nit of factions promote this "RADICAL CHANGE" that you speak of ? I think the biggest proponent of your RADICAL CHANGE, is the fact that we have this Representative Democratic government, that is bound by it's constitution. Allowing for a united voice to speak out on various fronts. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
@quenquen411 Anarchy seeks to do away with the social conditions that we view as breeding most acts of crime. If someone persists in committing one even under the favorable conditions of egalitarianism, the community can incarcerate him, put him to productive work, and seek rehabilitation. Claiming there would be angry mobs is pretending there would be no social structure, when humans are inherently structured and sociable beings who seek order over disorderand organization over chaos.
@nocturnezero you say humans are inherently structured and sociable, but don't think there will be angry mobs ? THERE ARE ANGRY MOBS NOW.... people going unchecked will do what people do... the condition that breeds most acts of crimes, is the HUMAN CONDITION... this has become a philosophical debate, and I in no way share your view. What you've expressed to me, is a direct democracy, with less structure even than that... your theory seems inherently flawed to me.
@quenquen411 Angry mobs exist in certain Middle Eastern countries as we speak, and they are dismantling the structures of the state. Surely you understand that this is the result of state oppression? You think "angry mobs" just spring up out of nothing to oppose nothing?
@nocturnezero you miss the point... we are not oppressed.. definitely not on the standards of people in the middle east... that might I add, are not under our system of government. They don't spring out of nothing to oppose nothing obviously... but you want to take a Representative Democracy bound by it's Constitution... and go to a direct democracy ? that is in fact, mob rule ? it's baffling
@quenquen411 I just don't agree that criminality is a "character trait" rather than a result of unfavorable social conditions and power structures (of course a hungry man will steal to feed himself, the alternative is death, etc). Again, if someone persists in crime, any society would have institutions first to protect the victim (this is true even in animal societies) and then to rehabilitate the criminal.
@1cme1 I 100% agree with you on this. The anarchy in the sense that he or she speaks on is direct democracy... only with more segregation... and the founding father's did NOT, want that at all. It is preposterous.
@quenquen411 Who cares what the Founders thought? They hardly agreed on anything, the development of the United States was just years and years of fighting over what sort of government to have with input from libertarians, authoritarians, democrats, monarchists, theocrats... and even the principles they came upon weren't enlightened, they maintained slavery and did nothing to aid the downtrodden in 18th century society except giving them a small voice in government.
@nocturnezero Poisoned by the state ? the state of what ? the human condition ? every system is ran by man... you want your perfect system you get rid of humanity... all else is nonsense ! now you're talking about the development of the country ? what developing country doesn't have great battles for progression ? out of this you propose anarchy ? that's silly ! that's counter productive... Anarchy aka Direct Democracy, was avoided for A REASON... this system is chill, you are way off base.
@quenquen411 No, the literal state, the government. Men are forced by their governments to fight in wars and kill people in foreign lands, they are hired as police officers and mercenaries to imprison marijuana users who harmed nobody, they are hired as terrorist organizations to go dismantle opposing government. The government is a barrier to morality. Take the US - how can a government that tried to undermine a democratically elected government in Nicaragua be trusted with moral decisions?
@quenquen411 Of course systems are run by men, but governments are not an inherent condition of men. Indian societies required no governance, Israeli Kibbutzim required no governance, native South American societies required no governments - governments were imposed on them, but they did not form from within, and for very good reason:
@nocturnezero If only I was more in dept on the examples you just just... for I am 100% certain, you are being misleading. But you again miss the point... government is not an inherent condition of men... but the human condition is.... mob rule can't work.
@nocturnezero hardly agreed on anything? and had slavery? umm so did every other major country in the world, and the south needed those slaves, or they would risk losing the southern states, most noticeable is Virginia, dude where on earth did you learn your american history? the founders agreed on quite a lot of things. they are most important especially in court settings, where judges are influenced on decisions made about the constitution on their writings. kid.
@nintendude60 slavery isn't to be justified, but as I said, many developing countries went through social depravities... Thomas Jefferson did in fact call out against slavery... calling it a "abominable crime" and "social depravity" ..however, he kept slaves until his death... I can't say I don't understand. He also hooked up with one of his slaves and had children with her.... ....what was I saying again ? lmfao - They did hardly agree on anything... it's called a civil war... yes, proof
@nintendude60 And? Why would you look to an apologist for slavery for your moral decisions? If you've read the Federalist Papers, you'll see there were incredibly polarized debates about everything from the legislature to the powers of the president to slavery to the scope of government to federalism and so on. Saying "the Founding Fathers want this or that" is meaningless. You have to specify which founder you're talking about to have any backing.
@nintendude60 Let's take democracy vs. aristocracy, for instance. Which do you say the Founders want? It doesn't matter, because they didn't agree - James Madison was a very outspoken aristocrat who opposed any democratic action where the people had power. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, remained a proponent of democracy and the rule of the people until his death.
@nocturnezero The New World, was just that ! the New World... what was agreed upon is that they did not want the New World to look like the Old World... Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights... his work laid the ground work, for what was at that time a social experiment... you grabbing things out of the air is not fair in the least ! Jefferson and Madison were "political" allies ..the Federalist Papers of which many were written by Madison, spoke out against a Direct Democracy and factions
@nintendude60 And every other country didn't have slavery. Portugal, Chile, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, and pretty much all of England had abolished slavery at this point. Though your point that slavery was widespread is still valid, and that does excuse most instances of slavery, but we still shouldn't be taking moral guidance from people who practiced it.
@nocturnezero you suggesting that south america didnt have slaves at this time? haha! no the fore-founders were smart. for how could they create a country and unite a country if they banned slavery? they wouldnt had won the revolutionary war thats for sure. so dont assume they were for slavery, cuz the original constitution banned slavery, but Jefferson had to re-write it. so sorry. they were against slavery, but it was "a neccessary evil"
@nintendude60 the founders were not "against slavery" ..and there was not this greater scheme of things, lmfao... Jefferson was publicly against it... but this country not only supported slavery, but also later made laws that were injurious to the lives of the "former" slaves. The KKK (a big organization).... Jim Crow laws... it's safe to say, this country RESOUNDINGLY supported the oppression of black people, throughout much of it's history... but that's something I'm not about to go into.
@nintendude60 What the... oh, dear, my phrasing was off. I should have said "not every other country had slavery." My bad. The list of the actual countries that had abolished slavery should have tipped you off as to what I meant, but I don't blame you for getting confused.
Speaking on the Founders as a whole is, again, dangerous. Seven Founders didn't hold slaves, and perhaps they are respectable moral guides, but the rest lose all ethical credence for being slaveowners.
@nocturnezero how did they lose credence? for being a slave-owner? wtf? people have owned slaves for thousands and thousands of years before them. respectable honorable men. wtf? the founders are founders of a country, where we had slaves. now we dont. they tried to abolish it, but they had a bigger problem to solve first, their independence. if you want to condemn them, then you sir are just a slave to Royal britian.
@quenquen411 And democracy is a system of decision-making. It does not necessarily imply a state. Israeli Kibbutzim made democratic decisions outside the context of the state, as did the commune of Freetown Christiania before it's destruction by the Danish Police and the anarchist communes in Spanish Catalonia in the 1930s.
@1cme1 Of course things are how they are because of progress. Anarchy is, if nothing else, a progressive philosophy advocating radical change. How can you deny the destruction of the state and the abolition of unjust power relations to be change?
@nocturnezero because after you create your anarchy you'll slowly start rebuilding the things you find out you still need, and what you'll end up with is a world that is the same as the one you destroyed. and honestly, why do you feel anarchy is needed? you have a home, a family, no threat of starvation, no fight for survival, so why do think you need to destroy everything and send yourself into the dark ages?
@1cme1 Rebuilding... what? What do you mean rebuilding? What do you think anarchy is, destruction of all buildings and property? I can't believe I'm explaining this, but anarchy is is the abolition of unjust social relations and the institution of egalitarian and democratic economic conditions. This has nothing to do with blowing up public buildings or killing politicians, and it certainly does not necessitate any "rebuilding." The physical factors of production would obviously be...
@nocturnezero you are in the clouds... egalitarianism is another subjective ideological philosophy... you are so on the same page as Mr. or Ms. Meritocracy. I think when one says REBUILD... they mean the system... not in the literal sense... and "unjust" ... this representative democracy bound by it's constitution, is for the purpose of people having a higher post on deliberating on what is "unjust" ...direct democracy, is not a stable system... it is mob rule.. yes it is.
@quenquen411 I don't know what you mean when you say egalitarianism is subjective, but in any case, the opposition to unjust authority and the belief in the equality of all men are inseparable.
Even so, claiming that anarchy will require the re-introduction of government is absurd. I can't conceive of a state where all men have their needs met and no one man lords over another dreaming of a return to statism.
I really don't care about politics, but I think is nice the message you are sending here with this creativity. Way to go!
Caromedstudent 2 weeks ago
Democracy is hanging an innocent man, so long as the majority wills it.
fr3aky0u 2 months ago
Democracy is tyranny of the majority, it's where the majority or at least, the representatives of the majority tell the minority what to do.
DoctorCapitalist 2 months ago
Democracy sometimes = tyranny when the majority decides to limit people's freedom
ElJefer 3 months ago
Hes right in a way what the US needs to do is sit down and rewrite the constitution to were it is for the people not for the politicians what we need is a democratic republic to were government has little control right now and the past couple years the government has resembled a oligarchy
draci345 3 months ago
@draci345 Well, you're assuming it's the Constitution that's the problem, but how can we know if the politicians haven't been following the Constitution?
ElJefer 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
Benjamin franklin actually said that!!!!!!!!!!!
Emrenhy 3 months ago
Democracy is none of these things. Democracy is mob rule, and often the opposite of what you're saying it is. Democracy is not being able to go your own way. Democracy is being silenced by the crowd. Democracy is your life choices being denied. Democracy is the rationalization of intolerance.
obtree 3 months ago 6
@obtree You may be essentially right, but you obviously don't understand the way a modern parliamentary democracy works, if you truly believe the things you said. The parliament ensures the safeguarding of the wishes of the minority through the opposition parties. Agreed, this may not be the purest form of democracy, but it is what we mean when we talk about democracy nowadays. So yeah, democracy IS all of these things.
LibertyCentury 2 months ago
@LibertyCentury Yeah. Modern, representative democracy is a bit different than direct democracy. It's even worse. Instead of mob rule, the mob elects a bunch of politicians who vote to control the lives of everybody in society. The electoral process is so crappy at getting bad politicians out of office that they, more often than not, don't even listen to the people that elected them, and instead pander to corporations and special interests.
obtree 2 months ago
@obtree I'd rather have representative democracy than direct democracy. Under representative democracy you end up with awful corporatocracy, but under direct democracy you just get people going back to a caveman might means right system.
DoctorCapitalist 1 month ago
@DoctorCapitalist Good point.
obtree 1 month ago
@DoctorCapitalist Not entirely but direct dimocracy isnt even possible, for there are far far too few who are actually qualified , and smart enough with enough knowledge and experience of the subject at hand to make the right choise, that is the sad reality.
Direct democracy can be achieved only if EVERYONe is made smart, this was what my glorious union was trying to do, but its nearly impossible, if not impossilbe....
Good Day Sir
And A Merry Christmas :D
slayer2961 1 month ago
@DoctorCapitalist Direct democracy can work quite well in city blocks and especcialy villages, in terms of how to spend pot money put into by everyone and/or how to help community as a whole. On a goverment level however, i think the comment underneath this one was clear enough.
slayer2961 1 month ago
@obtree You know nothing about political science.
authorityblues 1 week ago
@authorityblues Lol. And I guess you have a Poli Sci degree? Well if you spent your time in university learning shit like this video, then I guess we know what that degree is worth. lmao.
obtree 1 week ago
The social contract between the state and the people has been broken in both the US and the UK - Direct Democracy is the fix!
People's Administration - MAINSTREAM UK party for Direct Democracy via the web and telephone.
selfruleuk 4 months ago
@online27ful religion is not against democracy it is for it god gave us a choice in the beginning to eat from the tree or to not eat drone the tree and we ate from it if it was a republic it would be like god didn't give Adam and eve the choice he would've had an angel make the decision
Tedder50123 5 months ago
/watch?v=AVsjZBy7hww
CTina94 5 months ago
A democracy is majority rule. Here, if a majority said anything- even if it is to kill someone, take someones house, shop, kids, property, food or water- the demand MUST be meet, even with out cause
In a Republic, justice, freedom, individual, and law rule. So even if the majority wants someone to be killed, the law will stop it.
CTina94 5 months ago
@CTina94 The problem with a republic is that it's based on minarchy which is kind of self-refuting. An invasive-defender if you will as the state still takes your money from you against your consent to fund it's defence. Why not polycentric law where justice and defence is private and un-monopolized?
DoctorCapitalist 2 months ago
Lets say a family move into a house. They build a family run shop. Their prices are decent, though more then a majority of the shoppers want things to be free.
1) In a democracy, the shop must lower their price to Free, because the majority said so.
2) In a republic, the family can chose their prices freely.
CTina94 5 months ago
If democracy is a idea of a peaceful world in which diplomacy play's a key role and their primal goal are prosperity of their people,as well as world without war.Than why democratic people are the only one to vote for war,why the democracy keep killing people in a name of freedom hmmm.!!!!!
Democracy is 3000 year's old idea it's time to find better one!!!!!!
LittleSerbianFriend 5 months ago
"The enormous gap between what US leaders do in the world and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments of the dominant political mythology ...The real danger we face is not from terrorism, but what is being done under the pretext of fighting it." - Michael Parenti
TheeUnidentified 5 months ago
"Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve." - George Bernard Shaw
TheeUnidentified 5 months ago
religion is against democracy and freedom
online27ful 6 months ago
@online27ful The relationship between freedom and democracy is like the relationship between marxist and free market capitalists. They are not even on speaking terms.
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
As a CEO, I strongly believe Democracy is an overrated & outdated concept in running & organising modern society.
Time & again my innovative ideas for developing my town are prevented by petty council officials, members of an insular political class who know NOTHING about actually getting things done in the real world. One recently had the gall to say I was “infringing human rights” by making employee’s daughters sign a celibacy pledge- but how else are teen pregnancies to be stopped?
SuperTruth77 6 months ago
switzerland is a democracy and one of the countries with the most satisfied people in the world. now of course you can always point out the flaws of a political system, but that's complete nonsense because there is no perfect system. so the only thing we can do is to try and choose the one that works best.
Lihaschu 6 months ago
read of few of the comments on this video people dont know the meaning of this video or anything theyre talking about...
agnosticification 6 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Why is it right that any group of people should have the power to take away the life and property of peaceful people? People the world over think it's ok to vote away the freedom of others. The crazy thing is they have the nerve to call what their doing freedom. Democracy is never freedom, freedom is never Democracy.
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
Comment removed
yinzjagoffs 6 months ago
I -3 democracy ...and freedom yay usa
515killjoy 6 months ago
i used this for a project and got a B, thanks
izziflavouredjelly 6 months ago
Comment removed
akatsukileaderman 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@izziflavouredjelly I hope you gave him credit.
akatsukileaderman 6 months ago
don't speak without knowing what democracy is,democracy is the freedom to be whatever you wan't to be,democracy is the power of the people,people can chose a president.if the president is stupid that means that majority of the people are stupid.and the rest of the people need to be better than majority.and help the stupid people,democracy is the best.a really good video almost make me cry.thank you and sorry for my bad english ,i'm not a stupid american,a beliver in capitalism that kills people.
blinkgabriel 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@blinkgabriel "Even 51 per cent of a nation can establish a totalitarian and dictatorial règime, suppress minorities, and still remain democratic; there is, as we have said, little doubt that the American Congress and the French Chambre have a power over their respective nations which would rouse the envy of a Louis XIV or a George III were they alive today." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn
ImperialRussianGuard 6 months ago
Who gives a fuck if your democratic or republican. If I ever ran for president I wouldn't join a party, like George Washington did. it just gets in the way of running the country
angrygrenade80 6 months ago 2
Guud thing I'm democratic
Huntersinthesky 6 months ago
I see the slew of people that think (key word think) they actually know what they're talking about is still circulating here. LMFAO. Carry on simpletons.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@stevnated No, it's not. A representative republic is far superior. That doesn't mean you can't have voting, you can still vote for your representatives.
Sadly, with the abolishment of the United States Senate in 1913 (see the 17th amendment), we have actually been turned into a half-way house to a Democracy.
Unlimited power in the hands of a few (dictator) or in the hands of a majority (Democracy) is always a bad idea.
voogru 6 months ago 2
@voogru I don't even remember what I said. Guess that means you win! Hehheh.
stevnated 6 months ago
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. ~ Benjamin Franklin~
"Such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." ~James Madison~
TheHylander1314 6 months ago 15
@Golemoid I'am glad someone figured it out :)
lluukk24 6 months ago
@SanguineBullet667 I'm a liberal
UltimateNirvana1 6 months ago
it is such a good definition of democracy less than one minute =D... and there are 753 dislikes because they are those people who do not like to live DEMOCRACY at all...
miguelitomania 6 months ago
This guy had his own political agenda for this video.
Schweinsteigerrocks 6 months ago
@iamfreeize I do agree with you that democracy is a system we can and should improve upon in more ways than one, but doing your duty to what? Being an intolerant bastard? Seriously, not needed.
VanillaCoke5134 6 months ago
@VanillaCoke5134 Sorry, just jumping on the anti-semitic band wagon. Can't help myself, where else do you lay the blame on all the world's problems? I think deep down inside, we all blame some unseen person for everything that goes wrong. Saying that Jews control the media, government, and banks is our way of coming to terms with (and localizing) all our problems. It's sad, I know, but it's so much simpler to say that the people responsible for 9/11 also caused the economic recession. :'(
iamfreeize 6 months ago
Somebody of the goverment should see this ( maybe Obama LOL)
LuMu0804 6 months ago
Awesome. Shall spread the video!
huddini69 6 months ago
Politics in YouTube comments?!? FUUUUUUUUUU
CrazyMDproductions 6 months ago
Democracy is when the majority impose their will on the minority through force. This video would be accurate if the word democracy was replaced with "anarchy".
DoctorCapitalist 6 months ago
Democracy is...a system we can improve on.
iamfreeize 6 months ago
Democracy is not those things. Liberty is those things. People in a democracy can elect a dictator if they have the votes.
tats4cats 6 months ago
Coool
MrGleefanatic101 6 months ago
democracy is the majority forcing its will on the minority...get a fuckin clue, fools...."the consent of the governed" does not mean the majority can consent for individuals who dont consent...wash the shit out of your skulls, idiots
longfootbuddy 6 months ago
Very creative video. There is some, things, that are not true but, using your opinon is all that matters to you. I'm not into goverment and all that complicated stuff that everybody's worried about. Great video though! I still think it's the best animated movie on here!!
lyricsyear 6 months ago
@megakireth T_T really?! Try Michelle backman, sara palin, John mcain, George bush, Scott walker. Obama has done nothing but improve this country, sure he can be a little chicken. But atleast he has never gone to jail (George bush) actually plans out his speechs so he doesn't say flat out untrue stuff (palin and backman) an isn't diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (not to mention the chance of heart attack) like John mcain. And trust me, I'm not even getting into how much these peopl
MrCycloBoy 6 months ago
This is awesome! :D
MrCycloBoy 6 months ago
Love this
smileykelly101 6 months ago
Oops srry I meant love the video!
superbeyfast 6 months ago
I love I the of the noise when they walk!! Lve the vi
superbeyfast 6 months ago
Beautiful, just beautiful
jassyfresh14 6 months ago
Americans, at least in our lifetime, will never be mature enough to tolerate one another.
illiniwac1231 6 months ago
@WildAlfista you mispelled America :)
iPhreeze 6 months ago
@xgt1234 Touché
burchified 6 months ago
Wtf with the antisemitism? Personally, I really like this video. It's creative and explains democracy in a different light. If you're not for it, don't comment. Szozda was just showing his beliefs, not forcing them upon anyone else. In other words, if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all. Simply give the video a thumbs down. I do appreciate the long, valid political debates against it, but simply saying this is bullshit is both rude and thoughtless.
VanillaCoke5134 6 months ago
@VanillaCoke5134 The anit-semitic stuff was from me. No need to thank me, I'm just doing my duty. :)
iamfreeize 6 months ago
WORNG! Last time I checked it seemed democracy was wanting to control as much as possible!
Cab836 6 months ago
Someone should show this to Obama, seems right at his intellect level. Might learn a thing or two.
MegaKerith 6 months ago
Democracy is... something that no longer exists in Amerika :)
WildAlfista 6 months ago
Schaut euch die schweiz an es kann funktionieren... Aber demokratie ist teuer
simela2008 6 months ago
First of all the U.S.A. is a constitutional republic. Secondly in a democracy a majority can take everything from a minority including freedom.
lipswalet 6 months ago
Bravo!!!! ;)
99Luq 6 months ago
Democracy is not what America is... We are a democratic REPUBLIC! Hollywood has forgotten that: Democracy, just like socialism, in it's purest form does not work.
Paulgnewton 6 months ago
Too bad the USA is a REPUBLIC. Look in the Constitution if you don't believe me...
MissAlexa423 6 months ago
I missed the part where big corporations buy out our politicians...
hope4acureforcancer 6 months ago
Funny
desty9512 6 months ago
Stop hating it's a video not a political debate.
deadlife351 6 months ago
I'm an Iraqi:
victim of the Freedom mission of the u.s elected government, I suffer endless trauma due seeing many people of mine got killed and more...
Pls think twice before forcing the OTHERS to adopt your ideologies @?@
Nice step! Keep trying!
Zuagroast 6 months ago
He spelled "expression" wrong... -.-
RoxasDive 6 months ago
What does U.S.A stand for? Unwilling Servants of AIPAC!
iamfreeize 6 months ago
Democracy is none of those things, freedom is!
Democracy is the freedom to elect your government.
lolmakertycoon 6 months ago 24
@lolmakertycoon and we can't even do that sometimes
(Electoral College)
AnimeInazuma 6 months ago
United States of F***ing A**holes!
iamfreeize 6 months ago
So true
megaman01001 6 months ago
But on a serious note i did find this good.
ThePowerpointmaster 6 months ago
Ah america... Where we love TO BLOW SHIT UP!!!
ThePowerpointmaster 6 months ago
It seems you have accomplished a comment riot in which people show their opinions about your topic.
You, sir, have won the Internet.
DragonsOfPain 6 months ago
Then again power and greed will always win
crisleo469 6 months ago
democracy is the worst form of government except all the others.
-winston churchill
ScottiSmokesPotty 6 months ago
The best way to summarize Democracy is as follows:
"The best way to oppress a people is to divide them".
If the US is anything to go by, there's only Left and Right, and those two constantly bicker at each other, without acknowledging the true problem. Should a new side pop up, like center, it will have both Left and Right's attention focused on it, to eradicate truly independent thought. But for now, people are split between Left and Right, and must conform to those two.
LuwiigiMaster 6 months ago
cool:)
blackkjackk13 6 months ago
YOU STILL DON'T HAVE DEMOCRACY IN YOUR COUNTRY? THEN OUR BOMBERS ARE GOING TO FLY TO YOU
TheNaytron 6 months ago
Cool, very creative
twidtwidtwid 6 months ago
It's true!!!
TheArtifly 6 months ago
Spelled expression wrong
BorgVC 6 months ago
Video should have ended at 0:26 when the guys are all in chains and it's headed: "democracy is" HAHAHA!
iamfreeize 6 months ago
@rubbbersalt I'm sure you're smarter than you appear and you understand what I mean
portalatat 6 months ago
What is democracy? Is a shity typw of comunism
9852alex 6 months ago
@9852alex More like a type of Jewish control.
iamfreeize 6 months ago
Awww shit, now all the communist are raging and goes "why are we not have this amazing type animation 'what is communist...' videos on utube?! We must haz 1!!!"
specterseal999 6 months ago
This is pretty biased
goldenapple96 6 months ago
Son: "What is democracy"
Dad: "Well apparently it has something to do with young men killing each other."
Son: "When it's my time, do you want me to go?" (Enlist)
Dad: "For democracy, any man would give his only begotten son."
Son: "Well, I wouldn't." - Movie: "Johnny got his gun."
TheAwsumSammich 6 months ago
AMEN!
GaGaCrazy11 6 months ago
732 people don't have democracy in their lives...
forevercmtl 6 months ago
Amazing Animation Thanks for sharing It With Us ,,,,,:)
I like it.. :)
AshishO7 6 months ago
...you spelled expression wrong
House0fKrazees 6 months ago
Fascism is more fun though
Shezamlolz 6 months ago
@Shezamlolz Heil!
TheRenamonLove 6 months ago
I like the video
cali4jose 6 months ago
.......hello (lo lo lo lo) ....is anybody there (there there there) - I guess this is my time to go finish my review of the Armenian Genocide
quenquen411 6 months ago
let's stray from the slavery talk.... it will lead nowhere... call it a necessary evil... okay.... 9/11 could be called that as well for some sickos.
quenquen411 6 months ago
The very premise of an anarchist "society" impedes on the idea of civil liberties as a whole.... what are you bound to, if everyone can not have a unified voice and branches of representation ? will slavery just be in one place and not the other ? will women not be able to work in certain places and not the other ? Will one place be incest ville ? *womp womp womp*
quenquen411 6 months ago
Amazing
detroit32002 6 months ago
"moral guidance from the people who practiced it"... oh how the points are missed... Yes white "Americans" (aka the supremacist foreigners) do have a sick heritage, but what are you gonna do ? lol... anarchy is not the answer.
quenquen411 6 months ago
Democracy is... that guy in the red shirt and green pants who walks by, and makes everything right.
KlovedFanyism 6 months ago
@KlovedFanyism lmfao... that's funny if it's satiric... bullshit if serious... in case you are serious, Janice Dickinson told me, to tell you, to ZIP IT BITCH ZIP IT, you're dead to me! ....lol
quenquen411 6 months ago
*woot woot* and *pwned*
quenquen411 6 months ago
@nocturnezero Wouldn't any America hating Muslim take an opportunity to kill U.S citizens. I believe that security checkpoints are important. Just look at 9-11.We allowed them to carry boxcutters and mace
(ect. other toxic chemicals) onto the plane and look what happened. We allowed Muslims that knew how to fly a Boeing 767-222. Al-Qaeda members barely put any planing into these attacks and over 3,000 American citizens lost their lives.
flippy55555 6 months ago
@Coondog3607 This is for two reasons: one, we were founded as a Republic and remain that way, and there's no difference between a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy and a Liberal Democracy and a Representative Democracy, etc. Two, the people who believe representation should be more direct and grassroots don't comprise the Democratic party, they comprise the Green and Socialist parties.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
Soo cool and super uplifting
Swypeqa 6 months ago
@Coondog3607 Since the foundation of the country, there has been no debate about whether we should be a Democracy or a Republic because they mean the same thing. Democrats and Republicans have historically been divided on a select few issues (today, the issues are social: abortion, gay marriage, and drug use, with a tiny little bit of differentiation on economic issues), but never on whether we should be more or less representative of the people's will.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
Well, throughout all the arguing on this comments page, I will say Democracy is the best way to go.:) lol nice video.
ermerritt 6 months ago
anarchy = barbaric survival of the fittest (eat or die) ...it takes out bureaucracy, if it is in fact real... anarchy... and says, fend for yourself. With no government standard, being administered, what the f*ck is gonna stop a sociopath from bashing your head and sacking your home at will and unchecked ? lmfao... anarchy is a video game dream.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Anarchy is a very well-developed historical theory that implies a very vast and well-structured system of organization. Both economically and politically, it advocates for a federated network of unions, collectives, communes, neighborhoods, and other communal structures who make decisions both locally and on a larger scale on democratic principles. If someone bashes in your head, the community would come to your defense and punish or rehabilitate him accordingly.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero In that sense, what you just describes sounds like direct democracy.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 The people who have the natural impulse to kill and act on it sacrifice their freedom, so perhaps they should be tried by the affected parties (family) and witnesses and then incarcerated or rehabilitated. Most anarchists, though, believe that many murders and almost all thefts are the result of unequal power relationships, so they should disappear or at least become far less frequent under anarchy, when the natural morality of men will not be poisoned by the state.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@Coondog3607 No, they're the same thing.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@quenquen411 The definitions of direct democracy I've heard are that each person has a say in the decision proportional to the degree in which they would be affected by its outcome, not majority rule.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero excuse me ?
quenquen411 6 months ago
@asdfqwerty2000 In no democracy are people who have no stake in a decision allowed to make it. That's antithetical to any democratic principle. I shouldn't be allowed to tell you what to wear or what to put at your desk. I should have a say in, for instance, whether you build a landfill in my backyard without my consent.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@1cme1 In direct response to your question, though: rehabilitate them. Current society subjects them to the abhorrent prisons the state builds where criminals foster their methods so when they are on the outside they can be more fruitful in their crimes. Society should be directing its resources to discouraging immoral behavior like murder and destruction and rape, not fostering it.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero good luck doing that when you live in an anarchy with no government structure or order in place. how do you figure you would get all these looters, murderers and rapists into a "rehabilitation center" without capturing them and turning them into a prisoner? anarchy would change nothing, it would simply set humanity back hundreds of years. things became the way they are today through progression.
1cme1 6 months ago
@1cme1 If the community feels it's a worthy endeavor to dedicate resources to tracking the murderer or rapist, who have sacrificed their freedom by the act of murder and rape, then they'll do so. Of course they'll be a prisoner, but at least they won't be poisoned by the abhorrent conditions of the current government prisons, which are more or less centers for criminals to exchange methods and to learn hatred for society. They'll be rehabilitated rather than punished.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero anarchy isn't a progressive philosophy... it's what the founding father's were avoiding with the Constitution. It's archaic. The prison systems are worse than what ? the angry mobs, that are supposed to be oh so rational when coming for "justice" ? that system sounds so eye for an eye. Murdering and theft isn't as basic as unequal power... when a person has that character, they will rob at the lowest level, and highest level. exploitation is prevalent. Humans are flawed.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 They were technically and actively trying to avoid overreaching state power with the Constitution (which sets up a whole host of limits on the power of the federal government in the Bill of Rights). Of course, by establishing a government they were avoiding anarchy, but it's not like the idea ever came up at the Constitutional Convention. The important problem was monarchy and tyranny, not too little government.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero I don't know what your point is, in reference to the constitution and them not trying to... but you seem a bit mistaken. Have you ever heard of Jeffersonian Democracy ? and the democratic-republican party ? they were anti-federalist (for lack of a better word) ...they were set on limiting the power that the Federal Government should have over the people ! what are you saying here ?
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 It's as progressive as libertarianism. Non-progressive philosophies include Conservatism and Capitalism, because they don't advocate radical change in the established structures of society. The prisons are worse than the systems of rehabilitation that an anarchist society may be expected to institute. Don't we already have angry and armed mobs, called police squads, pursuing criminals today?
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero capitalism philosophical is to promote economic growth... GROWTH, GROWTH.... things are privately owned and for profit... that's not non-progressive.... conservatism, is obviously a non progressive front... but that is what a partisan government is about.... you have those asses... then you have liberals and moderates... I hate labeling, and am a no nonsense person that hates politics, but meh.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Economic growth means more production, a higher GDP, but it's not inherently progression. More production has nothing to do with social or moral changes in society, or more equality, or radical change. It just means there's more production. And there's not a system in the world that advocates for LESS production, so you could say all economic systems are progressive, but it wouldn't be true. Production is not progress.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero The point IS and remains.. I don't see what is NON-PROGRESSIVE about a system that PROMOTES the growth of OUR economy. Equality, what is equality ? Moral changes ? what do you propose... radical change ? to what end and by what means ? what are you pushing... and how does your anarchy do anything for the betterment of the INHERENT HUMAN CONDITION ? All systems are flawed... they always have been, but this is the best we've got. Why do you hate that so much ? wtf, You're brainwashed
quenquen411 6 months ago
I think what you really want, is socialism. The "anarchy" you speak of, was a flawed and actively avoided "system" from the start. How does such a myopic nit of factions promote this "RADICAL CHANGE" that you speak of ? I think the biggest proponent of your RADICAL CHANGE, is the fact that we have this Representative Democratic government, that is bound by it's constitution. Allowing for a united voice to speak out on various fronts. It's not perfect, but it's the best we've got.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Anarchy seeks to do away with the social conditions that we view as breeding most acts of crime. If someone persists in committing one even under the favorable conditions of egalitarianism, the community can incarcerate him, put him to productive work, and seek rehabilitation. Claiming there would be angry mobs is pretending there would be no social structure, when humans are inherently structured and sociable beings who seek order over disorderand organization over chaos.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero you say humans are inherently structured and sociable, but don't think there will be angry mobs ? THERE ARE ANGRY MOBS NOW.... people going unchecked will do what people do... the condition that breeds most acts of crimes, is the HUMAN CONDITION... this has become a philosophical debate, and I in no way share your view. What you've expressed to me, is a direct democracy, with less structure even than that... your theory seems inherently flawed to me.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Angry mobs exist in certain Middle Eastern countries as we speak, and they are dismantling the structures of the state. Surely you understand that this is the result of state oppression? You think "angry mobs" just spring up out of nothing to oppose nothing?
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero you miss the point... we are not oppressed.. definitely not on the standards of people in the middle east... that might I add, are not under our system of government. They don't spring out of nothing to oppose nothing obviously... but you want to take a Representative Democracy bound by it's Constitution... and go to a direct democracy ? that is in fact, mob rule ? it's baffling
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 I just don't agree that criminality is a "character trait" rather than a result of unfavorable social conditions and power structures (of course a hungry man will steal to feed himself, the alternative is death, etc). Again, if someone persists in crime, any society would have institutions first to protect the victim (this is true even in animal societies) and then to rehabilitate the criminal.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@1cme1 I 100% agree with you on this. The anarchy in the sense that he or she speaks on is direct democracy... only with more segregation... and the founding father's did NOT, want that at all. It is preposterous.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Who cares what the Founders thought? They hardly agreed on anything, the development of the United States was just years and years of fighting over what sort of government to have with input from libertarians, authoritarians, democrats, monarchists, theocrats... and even the principles they came upon weren't enlightened, they maintained slavery and did nothing to aid the downtrodden in 18th century society except giving them a small voice in government.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero Poisoned by the state ? the state of what ? the human condition ? every system is ran by man... you want your perfect system you get rid of humanity... all else is nonsense ! now you're talking about the development of the country ? what developing country doesn't have great battles for progression ? out of this you propose anarchy ? that's silly ! that's counter productive... Anarchy aka Direct Democracy, was avoided for A REASON... this system is chill, you are way off base.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 No, the literal state, the government. Men are forced by their governments to fight in wars and kill people in foreign lands, they are hired as police officers and mercenaries to imprison marijuana users who harmed nobody, they are hired as terrorist organizations to go dismantle opposing government. The government is a barrier to morality. Take the US - how can a government that tried to undermine a democratically elected government in Nicaragua be trusted with moral decisions?
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@quenquen411 Of course systems are run by men, but governments are not an inherent condition of men. Indian societies required no governance, Israeli Kibbutzim required no governance, native South American societies required no governments - governments were imposed on them, but they did not form from within, and for very good reason:
Men don't need government.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero If only I was more in dept on the examples you just just... for I am 100% certain, you are being misleading. But you again miss the point... government is not an inherent condition of men... but the human condition is.... mob rule can't work.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@nocturnezero hardly agreed on anything? and had slavery? umm so did every other major country in the world, and the south needed those slaves, or they would risk losing the southern states, most noticeable is Virginia, dude where on earth did you learn your american history? the founders agreed on quite a lot of things. they are most important especially in court settings, where judges are influenced on decisions made about the constitution on their writings. kid.
nintendude60 6 months ago
@nintendude60 slavery isn't to be justified, but as I said, many developing countries went through social depravities... Thomas Jefferson did in fact call out against slavery... calling it a "abominable crime" and "social depravity" ..however, he kept slaves until his death... I can't say I don't understand. He also hooked up with one of his slaves and had children with her.... ....what was I saying again ? lmfao - They did hardly agree on anything... it's called a civil war... yes, proof
quenquen411 6 months ago
@nintendude60 And? Why would you look to an apologist for slavery for your moral decisions? If you've read the Federalist Papers, you'll see there were incredibly polarized debates about everything from the legislature to the powers of the president to slavery to the scope of government to federalism and so on. Saying "the Founding Fathers want this or that" is meaningless. You have to specify which founder you're talking about to have any backing.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nintendude60 Let's take democracy vs. aristocracy, for instance. Which do you say the Founders want? It doesn't matter, because they didn't agree - James Madison was a very outspoken aristocrat who opposed any democratic action where the people had power. Thomas Jefferson, on the other hand, remained a proponent of democracy and the rule of the people until his death.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero The New World, was just that ! the New World... what was agreed upon is that they did not want the New World to look like the Old World... Madison is the author of the Bill of Rights... his work laid the ground work, for what was at that time a social experiment... you grabbing things out of the air is not fair in the least ! Jefferson and Madison were "political" allies ..the Federalist Papers of which many were written by Madison, spoke out against a Direct Democracy and factions
quenquen411 6 months ago
@nintendude60 And every other country didn't have slavery. Portugal, Chile, Sweden, Iceland, Japan, and pretty much all of England had abolished slavery at this point. Though your point that slavery was widespread is still valid, and that does excuse most instances of slavery, but we still shouldn't be taking moral guidance from people who practiced it.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero you suggesting that south america didnt have slaves at this time? haha! no the fore-founders were smart. for how could they create a country and unite a country if they banned slavery? they wouldnt had won the revolutionary war thats for sure. so dont assume they were for slavery, cuz the original constitution banned slavery, but Jefferson had to re-write it. so sorry. they were against slavery, but it was "a neccessary evil"
nintendude60 6 months ago
@nintendude60 the founders were not "against slavery" ..and there was not this greater scheme of things, lmfao... Jefferson was publicly against it... but this country not only supported slavery, but also later made laws that were injurious to the lives of the "former" slaves. The KKK (a big organization).... Jim Crow laws... it's safe to say, this country RESOUNDINGLY supported the oppression of black people, throughout much of it's history... but that's something I'm not about to go into.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@nintendude60 What the... oh, dear, my phrasing was off. I should have said "not every other country had slavery." My bad. The list of the actual countries that had abolished slavery should have tipped you off as to what I meant, but I don't blame you for getting confused.
Speaking on the Founders as a whole is, again, dangerous. Seven Founders didn't hold slaves, and perhaps they are respectable moral guides, but the rest lose all ethical credence for being slaveowners.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero how did they lose credence? for being a slave-owner? wtf? people have owned slaves for thousands and thousands of years before them. respectable honorable men. wtf? the founders are founders of a country, where we had slaves. now we dont. they tried to abolish it, but they had a bigger problem to solve first, their independence. if you want to condemn them, then you sir are just a slave to Royal britian.
nintendude60 6 months ago
@quenquen411 And democracy is a system of decision-making. It does not necessarily imply a state. Israeli Kibbutzim made democratic decisions outside the context of the state, as did the commune of Freetown Christiania before it's destruction by the Danish Police and the anarchist communes in Spanish Catalonia in the 1930s.
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@1cme1 Of course things are how they are because of progress. Anarchy is, if nothing else, a progressive philosophy advocating radical change. How can you deny the destruction of the state and the abolition of unjust power relations to be change?
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero because after you create your anarchy you'll slowly start rebuilding the things you find out you still need, and what you'll end up with is a world that is the same as the one you destroyed. and honestly, why do you feel anarchy is needed? you have a home, a family, no threat of starvation, no fight for survival, so why do think you need to destroy everything and send yourself into the dark ages?
1cme1 6 months ago
@1cme1 *woot woot* I'm with you on this one.... *boom chicka wa waaaaah*
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 erm... wut? o_ o
1cme1 6 months ago
@1cme1 Rebuilding... what? What do you mean rebuilding? What do you think anarchy is, destruction of all buildings and property? I can't believe I'm explaining this, but anarchy is is the abolition of unjust social relations and the institution of egalitarian and democratic economic conditions. This has nothing to do with blowing up public buildings or killing politicians, and it certainly does not necessitate any "rebuilding." The physical factors of production would obviously be...
nocturnezero 6 months ago
@nocturnezero you are in the clouds... egalitarianism is another subjective ideological philosophy... you are so on the same page as Mr. or Ms. Meritocracy. I think when one says REBUILD... they mean the system... not in the literal sense... and "unjust" ... this representative democracy bound by it's constitution, is for the purpose of people having a higher post on deliberating on what is "unjust" ...direct democracy, is not a stable system... it is mob rule.. yes it is.
quenquen411 6 months ago
@quenquen411 I don't know what you mean when you say egalitarianism is subjective, but in any case, the opposition to unjust authority and the belief in the equality of all men are inseparable.
Even so, claiming that anarchy will require the re-introduction of government is absurd. I can't conceive of a state where all men have their needs met and no one man lords over another dreaming of a return to statism.
nocturnezero 6 months ago