h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

THat is where it falls down of course. Ideals are so hard to achieve.

Someone could come to power by force, and then turn the country around to the better.

Indeed, and if one lives in a nasty dictatorship then attempting to overthrow the dictator is a perfectly reasonable activity.

Most western countries today are - historically speaking - excellent places to live. Although not perfect, they are prosperous, tolerant, and safe places to live. In terms of health, wealth, quality of life, personal choices etc we have never had it so good. Is it just coincidence that this has been achieved under a liberal democratic system of government, run on the principles of majority rule, minority rights? I can't think of any regime that hasn't been democratic that has produced a comparable standard of living for its citizens, and I'm always surprised and slightly alarmed to hear suggestions that a benign dictatorship would be a better sytem of government, even if such a system were achievable.

It's easy to criticise modern societies, and much of that criticism might well be valid - things aren't perfect by any means. But it's always worth stopping for a moment to realise how lucky we really are and how far we've come, as well as thinking about how far we have to go.

Er yes.

I have an aunt who travels the world trading in fabrics, (mainly in India, but also China), and is married to a Pole who used to live in the Occupied terratories of Isreal and a Grandma who doesn't.

Last Christmas the Grandmother was complaing about a plan to build a tram near her house which make it easier for her to get into town but would make the street busier.

My Aunt was horrified, and just said 'what on earth have you actually got to complain about, things seem pretty good here, you've got a roof over your head, enough to eat, a decent pension, and three tortosises, why are you wasting your time complaining about something so small.'

<<'what on earth have you actually got to complain about, things seem pretty good here, you've got a roof over your head, enough to eat, a decent pension, and three tortosises, why are you wasting your time complaining about something so small.'>>

I think it's human nature to complain about the little things, even when life overall is good. This is a trait which is especially pronounced in grandmothers!

I used to claim to be an anarchist, mostly because I thought it would sound cool, but when I actually read up on it and discovered the flaws in the system I said 'b*ll*cks to that' and my political beliefs now centre around what I think is 'right'.

Me and a friend were discussing Communism a few months ago and decided that for Communism to work properly we'd need a Star Trek style society. i.e. one where technology is sufficiently advanced and sufficiently cheap that poverty and famine can be completely eliminated.

Agreeing with Otto's post.

Really, when we start complaining about our governments - for those of us who totally by chance got born in Western countries - what exactly are we complaining about?

A few examples. Not enough day-care? Petrol prices going up? Housing prices soaring? Or going down? Health care issues? Being over-taxed without the government spending enough on our creature comforts? Too much government spending on military protection?

Get real.

We live in a society wherein we always have more than enough food to eat, even the poorest of us can mostly manage a roof over our heads, we have state funded education for our children . . . so what are we complaining about?

The government is almost like the weather - everyone complains about it but nobody ever actually does anything about it. Heck, that would take time out of our precious leisure moments of watching dvds or reality tv shows.

In a democracy we have the power to vote for those who we feel will run our countries to the best of their abilities, and we vote for those whom we feel have our own best interests at heart. In this sense we forfeit personal responsibility. We leave it up to THEM. And when THEY f**k up, and they invariably do, we get all upset.

Well, tough. We forfeited our responsibility. We handed it over to the polititians willy nilly. We want THEM to do what they promised without us having to raise a finger, without us having to be in any way made uncomfortable. In any way responsible. So really, too bad for us.


az

I don't get people who go on about anarchy. I would have thought the flaws in it would be damned obvious. But I suppose the "cool" thing is a big factor.

Personally I'm just worried where democracy could lead us. If we end up with a society whose sole aim is bread and circuses.

Frankly, if people want bread and circuses then what the hell is wrong with that?

I mean what are 'great endeavours' other than people entertaining their megalomaniac tendancies (I'm sure we all have them ) for their own entertainment.

And meanwhile, in a Democracy Az, what choice do we have other than to forfeit out responsibility to one of the biggest two parties? Its not like we can choose otherwise.

Xanatic
What makes you feel bread and circuses are particularly a feature of democracies?
Free grain and games may have originated with the Roman Republic but they were massively expanded under the Empire

dudeintheUniverse: <<"I would place new requirements for media outlets to provide free time for candidates to air their messages during election years, on an equal basis, in new and renewed FCC licensing agreements."

I like the idea but it would get realy complicated and ultimately, somebody has to get paid for something to air. Also, I thought I'd point out that its something of an authoritarian act. You called yourself a moderate liberaterian farely accurately.>>

Not as authoritarian as you think. Broadcast frequencies are not ownable by anyone, and are therefore publicly held. The FCC licenses them out for a miniscule fee. The broadcasters are therefore receiving an unlimited use of a publicly-owned resource, which they use to generate large sums of wealth. Requiring broadcasters to carry political messages free of charge puts a very small dent in their revenue stream, and they owe it to the people whose broadcast rights they hold. The broadcasters have enjoyed a free lunch for too long.

Furthermore, it's vitally important that the cost of running for election be drastically reduced. The idea that the successful candidates are the ones who raise the most money makes our government slave to corporate interests, and the people are screwed. This is a terrible imbalance to the current system and requires immediate redress. The overwhelming majority of costs for running an election campaign go to television and radio advertising.