Devil's Advocate has decided to duke it out with us. He wanted our thoughts on democracy. Read on as he and the Cunnlinguist slug it out, with occasional feedback from the Poison Pen.
-------------------------
Original posting from Devil's Advocate:
What do you think about Democracy? I personally think it's a horrible form of Government. It's not bad in theory, basically a form of government where the rulers are the people being ruled, but neither was Communism.
When put into practice, Democracy is purposeless, irrational, subject to public opinion and passing fashions, rambling, confused, underhanded, scheming, and in love with it's own purity... kind of like a woman.
Telling droves of people to make up rules for themselves is as stupid as letting a 5 year old govern himself. Children need parents to show them the way, just as society needs a strong ruler. Look at the choice we in America have today, this is pathetic. Al Gore couldn't be more phony if he were a professional Al Gore impersonator, and George W. Bush is 20 gallons of dumb in a 10 gallon hat. And how do the people base their decisions? The majority of America is going to vote for whichever jackass is going to take less of their money. Look at how fickle people are, and how smart a single person, or a small group of people can be.
And do you know the worst part about Democracy? A president can be elected twice in America. This is horrible, all through the presidents first term... 4 friggin' years... he's gotta worry about how the decisions he makes will look to the people, because he wants to be in there next time too. Should I help these guys out in their war.. well, what will the people think? Should assisted suicide and abortion be legal... well, will people get pissed off at me if they are? When you ask a president a question in public, he bases his answer on weather the people will approve or not, which is why you can never get a straight answer from a politician.
What do you think about Democracy? And by the way, I don't always give my personal opinions. I'm a bit of a devil's advocate, I love a good argument, even if I'm loosing, or taking the side of something that can't really be defended.
--------------
Here's the Cunnilinguist's first response:
Dear Devil's Advocate, you asked therefore, you shall now receive.
Let us first start our response to a question with a question, what practically applicable organized form of government would be your choice if it's not democracy? Can you actually think of one functional type of government in effect today (or in history) that has benefited society more than applied democracy? (A lasting effect). One could argue for the benefits of a dictator or for fascism in the short term, but look at where those people now stand on the world stage!
I offer you this, practically applied democracy works. You say this, that in Theory democracy is not a bad idea, but then you go on to say that you don't think that the masses should be given the right to govern themselves. That my dear reader is the Theory of a democracy, "the many shall speak as one". You then move on to say that the choices you have right now are bad, but I've gotta point out, if you're going to quote someone, even if it is Denis Miller, at least give him the credit he deserves. His rant on 20 gallons of dumb in a 10 gallon hat and voting for whomever is going to take less money from him was funny, especially when he emphasized the fact that the state of the American economy is such that "One person has to hold down two different jobs in two completely different fields just to make ends meet" was a good segue! Credit, where credit is due young man!!!!
I think you're correct in not liking your choices, but I don't think that it's democracy that's to blame. I think it's the establishment, the lifers, the ones that don't run out in the open. These are the people that suggest, support and eventually pull the strings of the figure heads.
A President or Prime Minister of a Democracy is ostensibly a figure head, a rubber stamp. The power of one unless in times of drastic measures in Canada, (the War Measures Act) or in the US (National Security Issues) is just that, the power of one.
And as for democracy following the whims and winds of the day, isn't that what government is supposed to do? Aren't they supposed to meet the needs and wants of the people of the time they govern? Would you prefer that the policies from the 40's be in play now? Would you prefer that women didn't have the right to vote (I actually think you would prefer that so lets take it one step further) If government hadn't followed the desires and demands of the nation, would you prefer that coloreds not be allowed the vote or their freedom for that matter. These may be increasingly far-fetched thoughts, but the fact of the matter remains, social change brings about new governing policy. I think one of the most important change has been the reduction of tolerance toward drunk driving. Take your new Pres for example, 24 years ago he plead guilty to a DWI. If it had been five years ago, he would have lost his job let alone have a chance at the Presidency. I think that above all other reasons (tongue in cheek of course) is reason enough to understand that practically applied democracy can and does work!
As for not being able to get a straight answer from a politician (please don't get me wrong, I'm not defending politicians in any way shape or form, but I am defending democracy) there is a good reason for this. The government is a business. Think of it as a business. They may not run it as well as you might like, but a country is in the business of making money. Do you think you could walk into your bosses office and ask him how much money Joe Blow makes, or if he wouldn't mind cleaning the shitter cause the smell bother's you, not a chance in hell. However, if collectively, society (the employees) demands answers (stages a strike or demonstration) it would behoove the government to answer the question or change the offending policy!
Essentially, what I'm getting at, is that I think you're talking out of your ass. Practically applied democracy does work and it works better than allowing one fucking yahoo order around the millions. The problem I see with modern day democracy is the small group of people that are in there for life. Now although I believe that they need to be there, I don't believe that they should have as much power as they do. Now this goes for Supreme court Justices all the way down to your senate (fucking fossils if you ask me!)
So in asking how we feel about democracy, it's better than any of the other choices but not as good as we'd like it to be.
Looking forward to your comments.
Regards,
The Cunninglinguist!
-----------------------
The Poison Pen also chimed in the following:
Thanks for your input. Just a short note (I may reply in more detail depending on my available time):
Is Democracy bad or is it that the public is stupid? You mention both and it seems to me that one does not necessarily lead to the other. You also state that we should "look at how smart one person" can be over a group of people. The problem with that is ... Gore is one person. I can't fathom what life would be with a dictator like him in unquestioned power.
Hopefully more to come in the future. The Poison Pen
----------------------
Our guest was not one to sit idly by:
He replied:
Ah, ya caught that little Dennis Miller quote. Heh heh, that guy's funny as hell, I figured I'd spice up the argument with something funny, and him saying that is the first thing that came to mind.
Anyway, America isn't a true Democracy... or at least not a direct one. A direct democracy is just plain stupid, a representative democracy is almost as bad. No, I'm not talking out of my ass really, I'm just bored as hell here and looking for someone to have an intelligent argument with. Anyway, what I meant with Democracy in theory vs. Democracy put into practice was that in theory, every citizen registered to vote will vote. When put into practice, you've got a shit load of citizens who don't even bother to register, and a huge amount of registered voters who don't even bother to go out and do it. In America, the amount of people voting is horrible, and getting worse. True, this year a lot more people voted then in the past, but I doubt that's going to continue.
When you've got a mass of people, the tend to think of themselves as a group instead of a bunch of individuals. This is a double edged sword, on one side you've got people collectively coming together, deciding things, etc.... but the bad part is that you've also got a bunch of people who think that their one vote doesn't matter much. Lets be serious, if my dad didn't go out and vote yesterday, would the outcome be any different? Hell no. I've even asked him why he bothers to go out and vote, if one more person stays at home and relaxes on Election Day, is there going to be a difference? He said, "Probably not... but I'm not that person. I'm the person who goes out there and does the right thing even if it won't make any difference at all." I wish more Americans would say things like that, unfortunately they don't. In the future, I don't really see that many people voting... I! see the majority of the people who make it to the voting booth are going to be the real fanatics on certain issues, and the military... two groups who do the exact opposite of represent the view of the common person. As for women voting, sure they've got a right to vote... I just wouldn't let 'em run for president. They're too emotional... and God help Iraq if they piss us off the wrong time of the month if we get a female as Commander In Chief.
Also, don't say that other forms of government haven't been that effective. A Theocracy is very effective, play with the people's ignorance and tell them ghost stories about an invisible man in the sky who wants them to do everything the leader says. (I'm an Atheist, as if you couldn't tell.) Look at Egypt, do you honestly think the great Pyramids or the Sphinx could have been created in a Democracy? Should we break our backs working for the president to make him these things to be buried in? Hell no, the Pharo was God, do what he said or die. Look at a Dictatorship, take Hitler for example. Yeah, he took most of his ideas way too far, but you've got to give credit where credit is due, he was one man who took one European country, and came damn close to taking over the world! You don't call that affective?
You see, Democracy, just like every other form of Government, has it's advantages and disadvantages, and in my opinion, there are much better alternatives. Also, what the hell do you mean by "A Lasting Affect." The only forms of Democracy that have worked out very well that I can think of in the past is in Rome. Do you consider America or Canada countries that have lasted a long time with democracy? We're less then 300 years old! That's nothing compared to some of the other countries who've had Theocracies or Absolute Monarchies.
Also, I'm pretty sure you said something about not liking the fact that people on the Supreme Court are in for life. I'm talking out of my ass? Were you drunk when you wrote that? Could you imagine if Supreme Court members... the highest court in the country... the people with the right to deem a law unconstitutional weren't in there permanently? These guys have to be impartial, if Joe Blow was deciding on whether or not a law should be considered unconstitutional or not, I sure as hell wouldn't want him to base his decision on whether or not it would get people to vote for him again so that he could stay in his nice cozy seat on the Supreme Court for another term.
That's pretty much all I can think of. I love having arguments like this, I'm looking forward to your response. -The Devil's Advocate
-----------------------
The Cunnlinguist drunk? Ha! Never! (yeah, right!) ;-) Anyway, the gauntlet of challenge has now been thrust down at the feet of the Cunnilingual master. Like a labial tongue lashing, he has given his full attention to this matter thusly:
You're not very comfortable with continuity of thought are you? I'll assume it's the fact that you still live at home that has so befuddled your young mind!
Allow me to point out a contradiction made by yourself. You said, in your overzealous perfunctory retort that, "Democracy, just like every other form of Government, has it's advantages"! This statement, is in direct conflict with your original attestation that "Democracy is purposeless, irrational, blah, blah, blah, kind of like a woman". Another statement that can probably be attributed to the fact that you still live at home!
I'm not a big fan of arguing for arguing sake. However, if there's a topic worthy of discussion, so be it, but to speak just to hear myself do so is not something that I generally do. However, that being said, I do believe that some of your comments warrant a response!
First off, you indicated that you didn't believe that America was a true Democracy, primarily because those who can, will choose not to register and those who have, will choose not to vote. On that I have one word, "Florida"!
Generally speaking, elections are foregone conclusions, hence generally poor voter turnout. There are so many pre-election poles that although not an acceptable practice, complacency is certainly understandable when it comes to the task of voting. However, it's not the process that's bad, it's the fat, lazy, bon-bon eating couch potato(e)s - {for the benefit of those old enough to remember Dan Quail I've added the (e)} that have ruined the practice. Yes a democracy allows for free will, and in a society where free will is a privilege, there are those that will choose to exercise that free will by being lazy; but that's their choice. You continue with your contradictions by attesting to the fact that "women have got the right to vote". By your choice of diction (right to vote), you unconsciously affirm that you believe that the right to vote, is in fact a Right! It's not. It's a privilege. Ask your dad. Ask him if he believes that voting is a right or a privilege. I'm betting that he'll say it's a privilege. The vote is something that has been fought and died for in America and around the world, still is. It's a privilege that should be treasured, exercised and defended. A Democracy may have it's bumps and bruises, but they're not the result of the theory, they're a result of individuals within the Democracy.
I can't honestly believe that you'd rather live in a Dictatorship or a Feudal system. Would you really want your life to be so worthless as to have it rest on the tips of the fingers of one person(s)? You make reference to the Pyramids and the Sphinx and ask whether or not I believed that they could have been made under a Democratic system, probably not 3500 years ago. But that's irrelevant. Slavery is what made those pieces of architecture. Are you saying you'd rather have (and live) in a system of slavery? Are you rich? Do you think you'd be the one with the slaves? Do you feel that you'd like to have slaves? And as for Hitler, nope! He deserves no credit from me. He ruled with an iron hand and his power was solidified through fear. I don't respect a man (woman) or society that has to resort to exploiting the fears of his people in order get in, or stay in, power. As for it being affective, that comes down to perspective. Morality and ethics play a rather large role in effective governing. Nazi Germany had a warped sense of what was morally and ethically correct.
By your own admission, you are my friend, talking out of your ass. You said you were "bored, like good arguments" which we can from that infer you're arguing for arguing sake and "even if you're losing or taking the side of something that can't be defended" will continue to argue!
If you really believe that you'd rather live in Theocracy or Feudal system, so be it. But as for modern day life and practical application of a governing system, there is none that comes close to Democracy in the way of a realistic and just administration of it's citizenry!
That's really all I have to say on this topic, but if you want to respond with any novel thought on this issue, please feel free to do so. And if you feel so inclined, consider penning yourself a rant that we'll consider posting to this site.
Thanks for the input Devil's Advocate. Looking forward to hearing from you soon.
The Cunninglinguist!
-------------------
He may have been down folks, but he's definitely not out. Devil's Advocate comes back with some stinging right hands (retorts) to The Cunnilinguist. When referring to Cunnilinguist's original postings, D.A. has used quotation marks.
Here then, is Devil's Advocate's reply:
"You're not very comfortable with continuity of thought are you? I'll assume it's the fact that you still live at home that has so befuddled your young mind!"
Are you that desperate for things to say that you have to comment on my age? I'm 17, not 12, I know damn well what I'm talking about. Saying things like that proves you've got nothing left to argue about. Well, that and this piss poor argument that you sent me.
"Allow me to point out a contradiction made by yourself. You said, in your overzealous perfunctory retort that, "Democracy, just like every other form of Government, has it's advantages"! This statement, is in direct conflict with your original attestation that "Democracy is purposeless, irrational, blah, blah, blah, kind of like a woman". Another statement that can probably be attributed to the fact that you still live at home!"
I said Democracy, just like every other form of government, has it's advantages and disadvantages. Being purposeless, irrational, blah blah blah were it's disadvantages. I couldn't think of any advantages off the top of my head, but I'm sure there are some if I think real hard. Also, what you meant is, "Living with your parents," not living at home. Everybody lives at home.
"First off, you indicated that you didn't believe that America was a true Democracy, primarily because those who can, will choose not to register and those who have, will choose not to vote. On that I have one word, "Florida"! "
I'm not sure weather you call it a true democracy, but it's definitely not a Direct one. It's a representative democracy, and you want to know the most screwed up thing? The people who vote in the electoral college are not bound by law to vote for the people in their party. This means that everyone in California, the state with the most electoral votes (50 something) can have every citizen vote for Al Gore, but then the 50 something democratic electors can all turn around and vote for bush! Now no, that has never, and probably will never happen... but the point is it can. Do you call that a true democracy? And the other reason that I pointed out, that not all citizens register, and not everyone who registers actually does vote, still stands. In a true democracy, you'd have every citizen voting. In America, you have far from it.
As far as weather voting is a right or a privilege, lets call a spade a spade. It's something that every citizen can do, but not every citizen does.
"I can't honestly believe that you'd rather live in a Dictatorship or a Feudal system. Would you really want your life to be so worthless as to have it rest on the tips of the fingers of one person(s)? You make reference to the Pyramids and the Sphinx and ask whether or not I believed that they could have been made under a Democratic system, probably not 3500 years ago. But that's irrelevant. Slavery is what made those pieces of architecture. Are you saying you'd rather have (and live) in a system of slavery? Are you rich? Do you think you'd be the one with the slaves? Do you feel that you'd like to have slaves? And as for Hitler, nope! He deserves no credit from me. He ruled with an iron hand and his power was solidified through fear. I don't respect a man (woman) or society that has to resort to exploiting the fears of his people in order get in, or stay in, power. As for it being affective, that comes down to perspective. Morality and ethics play a rather large role in effective governing. Nazi Germany had a warped sense of what was morally and ethically correct."
While we're pointing out contradictions, here's one. First, you say that Hitler ruled his people through fear. Then, you go on to say that Nazi Germany had a warped sense of what was morally and ethically correct. Well, which is it? Did the Nazis do what they did because their sense of what was morally and ethically correct was warped, or because they were afraid of what Hitler would do if they didn't?
Back to what we were talking about, who said anything about where I'd rather live? Why are you brining me or you into this? When I look at a form of government, I look at it from third person. I say, "Will it work out or fail," not, "is it a place where I'd like to live at the top? What about the bottom? Somewhere in the middle perhaps?" 3,500 years ago, like it or not, Egypt created the sphinx and the great pyramids. This was an amazing feat, and I'm pretty sure that today the pyramids are one of the world wonders. Are you going to ignore that and say that their form of government was worse then a Democracy because you wouldn't like to be one of those slaves? Get over yourself, don't be so arrogant as to think that a type of government is not right or effective just because you wouldn't want to be a part of it.
"If you really believe that you'd rather live in Theocracy or Feudal system, so be it. But as for modern day life and practical application of a governing system, there is none that comes close to Democracy in the way of a realistic and just administration of it's citizenry!"
Since when is administration of citizenry the only aspect of government? What about getting things done quickly and effectively, such as making laws? Do you have any idea how long it takes to get a law passed in the U.S? What about going to war? True, if there was a shortage of troops the U.S. could draft, but even that is nothing compared to Israel, everyone enlists in the military for a minimum of 4 years at age 18, which is the only reason they're still standing. Look at the arab-isralie conflict. They fought off Palestine, Egypt, and few other countries which surrounded them. Do you think that would have happened in a Democracy? Hell no.
I will probably send you a rant pretty soon, whenever I think of something to go off on. Also, I have to go now, but when I get back online I'll reply to the battle of the sexes.
The Devil's Advocate
-----------------------
Hmmm ... many questions. The Cunnilinguist answers:
Heh heh heh, okay D.A. I apologize if you felt that my retort was "piss poor". I will endeavour to ensure that future responses are given the proper time and thought required to suit your ecclesiastical standards. That being said, you've gotta lighten up! There's no need to get all pedantic, I suggest that you read between the lines, and as for saying that you still "Live at home" versus "Living with your parents" this is either a Canadian colloquialism or just you being semantical. I'll let you decide which!
Where to start? Okay, let me explain something first. I've been taking it for granted that you'd be able to understand what I was getting at without having to go into too much detail (I wouldn't want to be accused of treating you like a 12 year old!) I will however alter that mind-set and explain in crystal clear fashion exactly what, why and how I say something.
Your first paragraph in your retort will henceforth be ignored (unless I want a chuckle now and again). Now I say that in good humour and jest. I don't take the fact lightly that you're 17 and view yourself as (I'm assuming here) an adult. Fred Durst (Limp Biskit) is right when he says that "My Generation is the reality that people are gonna have to come to grips with." Essentially he says, that you (your generation) will inherit the earth whether I like it or not!
This whole discussion came as a result of you saying that you didn't like Democracy. I subsequently asked you which form of government would you prefer. I use this opening as a segue into your second paragraph, wherein you state that you couldn't find any advantages to Democracy; actually, I think you said, you couldn't think of any off the top of your head! That being said, I want you to think back to something else that you said in an earlier e-mail. You said that you liked the idea of a few or one (individual(s)), governing over the many. Right? Well, I'm going to tie-in your second paragraph of the most recent e-mail with your third paragraph of the same, wherein you bash the practice of the Electoral college. Essentially, the electoral college is doing what you ascribed to. A few making the decisions for the many. Essentially, the Electoral college does what you think is best for the people, by telling them that they can't think for themselves and given the example you presented, vetoing their vote. This is a tie-in to the continuity of thought comment part I made in an earlier e-mail and why I said that you had a hard time with it. You're passionate, but you're not sure what it is you're being passionate about.
Now, as for my opinion on the electoral college, they are a mistake. They (the American people) never should have adopted the process. It's a dinosaur and archaic in thought. I see the merits, especially in regards to an uninformed public. But in this day and age, wherein the media is King, those that do not know the issues, choose not to know the issues. I therefore think that the particular system within the practical Democratic system of the United States, should be abolished! Was that clear enough?
I want to define a couple of things and tie them into something that you said; first off, you said "Since when is administration of citizenry the only aspect of government?" This was in direct response to a comment I made that stated, "But as for modern day life and practical application of a governing system, there is none that comes close to Democracy in the way of a realistic and just administration of it's citizenry". A wee verbose I realize, but in reality, a pretty succinct personal affirmation for Democracy. Allow me to break this down!
A modern day, practically applicable governing system. By that I mean, a system that is fair, in use today and for practical purposes, compared to the systems of today, taking a look at the globe and how the political arena is set up. I generally don't say things without thought, I personally believe that you choose to ignore the complexities of what I wrote because I offended you. Regardless, if you'll consider this thought, democracy in comparison to other forms of government, works the best for the greatest number of people. Now as for the second part of what I wrote, in that democracy is realistic and just in the way of it's administration of it's citizenry, I'll ask you to think again before you react. Administration is defined as "management of a business (as I noted in an earlier e-mail, that is what a government is, a business) or the management of public affairs; government". Government is defined as "the system by which a State or community is governed; the act or manner of governing". You asked the question, "since when is administration of citizenry the only aspect of government?" The answer to that question my friend, should be more clear to you now. Governments' primary responsibility is the people and henceforth the administration of it's citizenry. In so saying, I also believe that a governing body should be fair and just. My belief is that democracy fits this bill. Additionally, as for the expeditious passing of laws in the States, that falls under the administration of the citizenry. You may not like the way that it's currently handled, but look at the current alternatives as they are applied today in other systems of government.
As for your comment about me having to get over myself because my personal opinion is that democracy is the best form of government, I really think that you need to think before you speak. You asked for our opinion and you arbitrarily assume that because I ignored what I thought to be flawed arguments on your part, that I was ignoring the other forms of government that you put forward. Okay, fine, I won't ignore them. I will point out why I originally ignored them! You are apparently basing your belief that a system was good because great architectural accomplishments were made during that period; the Sphinx and the Pyramids. My belief is that the people of these regimes suffered as a direct result of the administration (read government) of that era. Just because they built a fucking statue and a couple of sarcophaguses, doesn't a successful administration make! They exploited their people to do this. They killed those that didn't abide by the rule of the Pharaoh. They lived to serve. Now you want to make a comparison of this unjust, unfair, domineering Theocratic system to one that allows freedom of choice, expression and until recently, association, you go right ahead, but I'm going to ignore it, because my belief is that a governing body must first look out for the people, not some fucking structures, regardless of how grandiose they may be!
Next, you say I contradicted myself with respect to my Nazi retort. First off, you flummox the issue by not taking the time to read the paragraph. Yes, I say Hitler ruled by fear. Yes, I say that Nazi Germany had a warped sense of what was morally and ethically correct. You say that I contradict myself because it has to be one or the other, right? Wrong. One is a direct result and an indirect result of the other. Fear of what would Hitler would do, enabled the Nazi's (not regular German's) to accept and believe what they were doing was just. It's almost comparable to how Patty Hurst acted after she was kid-napped. She not only befriended the kidnappers, she assisted them. The delusional principles are the same. Fear will warp and change your perspective and allow you to act in ways that you never thought possible. There is no contradiction in what I said, there is however one mistake I made, and that was thinking that you would be able to draw that conclusion.
Hopefully this retort is more to your liking as questions and feedback is what makes this site worthwhile. Again, if you have any novel thoughts on this issue or new topics you'd like to discuss, we look forward to hearing them.
Regards.
The Cunninglinguist!