Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Absolute power corrupts absolutely - eventually. We're only human so succession has to be factored in. But sorry, although I know there have been and are benevolent despots in the world that worked- I cannot agree that it would ever be a good choice for starting a new government - because we're human.

Of course I recognize the irony that VideoSift is not a true democracy. But the analogy between a community website and a country only goes so far. I can't chain you to your computer if you decide you want to leave.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

heh - can't slip anything by you, can I? I was intentionally vague, but I was talking about democracy. I think certain authoritarian governments of the past have proven more effective. The problem with them wasn't a particular ruler, but the method of succession, which inevitably would produce a ruler that was not just ineffectual, but harmful. Augustus was an incredible leader, but ultimately, the method of succession in the Roman Empire would lead to someone like Nero.

In reply to this comment by dag:
Do you mean voting for quality content or democracy?

In reply to this comment by jonny:
I knew the quote, but didn't realize that was Churchill. I thought it was a supreme court justice or something. On a side note, and maybe you already guessed this about me, I don't necessarily agree that it's better than all the others that have been tried.

In reply to this comment by dag:
It's actually a mangled Churchill quote:

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried."

@aaronfr

Maybe you're right about me being a tad bit pessimistic. But on the flip side I believe others here are being overly optimistic over how quickly these nations can pick themselves up and all of sudden become a thriving nation.

You argue that transitory period will only temporary, but you have no way of predicting how long or how bad the damage would be. And after the damage has been done, the economy would be in a worse state than it originally had been, hence making it even harder to have a nondiscriminatory democratic state.

So, thinking that it will always end up better, or it'll all be worth it after the deed's been done, sounds a tad bit ridiculous to pessimists such as myself.

And why would you say it's going 'backwards'? Having a little less freedom to keep things in line is considered 'backwards'? (I wanna drink a beer instead of going to my job, because my boss grants me a lot of freedom.). Freedom vs control has always been the key issue all government philosophy, and one is not better than the other. When you focus too much to just one aspect, you always end up screwed (i think everyone can agree with this one). It's the balance of the two that's important. Saying 'democracy is the only progressive way' is a very biased thinking in my opinion. I believe both are equally important, and country needs to exercise both equally to be a successful nation.

You also say that as one demographic moves out of that transition, the result is a much more stable society where people can redress their grievances and not resort to violence. If this is true, then how come liberal/democratic nations such as USA (including the 60-70s), Germany, UK (including IRA), France and Belgium are having riots and domestic uprising, and had to use force to control their own populace?

Liberal nations put extra emphasis on freedom, but they still practice all the order and control other nations practice, just that those others aren't as careful with individual freedom. But apparently there are a lot more people living in peace outside of these liberal nations than just the US and all other 'liberal banner' countries. For example, countries with socialistic views such as Norway, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and maybe Syria, practice lot stricter control than its neighbor Sweden. Yet, people there have high happiness rates, not because the surveys are rigged, but they really are content with what their government is doing (just go talk to your typical Turk).

So all liberal/democratic nations having more happiness is just another 'our way is best' type of narcissistic thinking. You've got just as great a chance of ending up with happy citizens no matter what type of government it is, as long as it exercises freedom and control evenly.


@farhad

Whut! centralized power onto individuals always leads to collapse?!?!?!?! WHUT!!! That's a vastly generalized claim! How could you even say such a thing if you've educated yourself with history books?!?!?!

King SeJong of Joseon Dynasty, Louie the XIV of France, Genghis Khan and all other military conquerer types, Octavian Augustus of Rome, Emperor Han Wudi of Han Dynasty etc etc etc etc....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Chung-hee


Democratic/republic/parliamentary government these days are just a modified version of ancient kingdoms, where your advisors get to vote who would become the next king for 4 years, 10 years instead of automatically making the latest king's idiot son as their next leader. By the way, Russia is technically a parliamentary government too ya know. United States is also a democratic republic, but that didn't stop a certain guy from dominating the senate with his team. Conclusion: if you have a smart bloke on the throne, things go well. If you got an idiot on the throne, things suck. Doesn't really matter what kind of government you have, as long as they're designed to choose good leaders (Saudi Arabia's absolute monarchy also fits this description by the way. They do dethrone incompetent kings).

And also, military growth is a good way to jump start your economy. It's a good method proven through time and history. Russia has nothing left since the USSR collapsed except millions of weapons factory. Why not use this infrastructure to good use? I think it's a pretty good decision of using what you're dealt with to maximum effect if you ask me.

I agree that quoting the Bible makes little sense when speaking to an atheist since a Christian believes that the scriptures are inspired by God and the atheist does not believe in God. However, the Bible does not only contain the wise sayings of sages, but descriptions of people and events – historical references -- that can be substantiated or disproved by comparing them with accounts provided by secular historians of the day. Since the Bible contains detailed genealogies of actual people who lived and died, it is quite reasonable for an atheist to believe in the historically verifiable pieces of the Bible while still discounting the parts that cannot be proven. If the Bible has been shown to historically accurate, the atheist should have no trouble agreeing that Jesus Christ was a descendant of King David, who was a descendant of Moses. In fact in the face of historical texts, it would take more faith to disbelieve this. It is also reasonable for an atheist to agree with the Christian that a man born in Bethlehem, Jesus Christ, during the rein of Cesar Augustus does appear to fulfill many prophesies written concerning a future descendant of King David (most notably that he would claim to be the son of God and that he would be put to death for it). What we do with this claim is the primary thing that separates the Christian from the Atheist.

But let's be clear on what is in the Bible and what is not. Slyrr is quoting the Book of Mormon, not the Bible. There is a big difference. The Book of Mormon was unearthed and translated from text inscribed on shiny sheets by Joseph Smith (founder of the Church of Latter Day Saints) in 1823. According to Wiki, these texts were only shown to eight people and most of them fell away from the religion, so the whole thing seems rather suspect to me. I see no historical basis for it that can be substantiated.

Snake: I noticed that you quoted Blaise Pascal. Pascal devoted much of his life to using reason and logic to argue for the existence of God, it seems odd to use one of his quotes to argue the opposite.
"It is the heart which perceives God and not the reason. That is what faith is: God perceived by the heart, not by the reason." -- Blaise Pascal

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Augustus, don't drink directly from the chocolate river, Augustus?!