Iraq at civil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

The idea of capitalism is to aquire money, goods, property, power and crumpets. When someone is so successful that they aquire a monopoly there is no longer competition and there is no longer a "purely voluntary" exchange.

Since FOL dismisses the pre-history of man I think we can do the same with his presentation of ideas and quickly dismiss the "purely voluntary" exchange of goods and services. There has not been a "purely voluntary" exchange of anything since man started keeping score. There has always been a winner and a loser, which is why wars happen. I think it was likely better when man was not quite as successful and was hunted as much as he hunted. The concept of keeping score was rediculous when something out in the darkness was going to eat you if someone else was not watching your back while you watched theirs.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Glad to see that you have given up the chase with this invalid election bit. That was what the links were for. I will take that as a nod that the election was valid. The experts agree with me.

Haven't given up anything as you have failed to prove anything other than Iraqis got purple ink on their fingers (obviously a perfectly reasonable way of administering a democratic election... for class president). What other tenets of democracy exist the claim that the mechanism is functioning? Is the government functioning at all? No. A vote happened (an illiberal one at that) and nothing has happened in regards to the formation of a government. Now, according to you, the December 15th vote was valid and was democracy in action. Fine, where is the government? It is coming up on five months later and still no signs of the formation of a government. Yup, that's democracy in action!

Sorry bonehead, but before people cast that vote they had to know what they were voting for.

Your thinking on democracy is so subjective and silly.

No, my thinking on democracy is concrete and requires comprehension of the concept. It is based on understanding the different structures for the existence of a functioning democracy and the support required for those entities to exist. Your idea (people vote, so that is democracy) is simple and silly. With your thinking anyone can stand up in a crowded bar and scream out that they should vote on who owns the bar and convince everyone that you should be elected, promising free drinks if you should win. Everyone votes and the majority vote for you. In your narrow little view of reality you just became the owner of the bar. You're the king of your world! Sorry, but that ain't democracy. That's a farce.

Your narrow definition of what make a democracy simply knocks every country into your "illiberal" democracy. Find some link showing that all the Iraqis didn't know what they were voting for and that all Canadians did, please. Heck, find a link showing that 100 percent of ANY county's voters knew or did not know what they were voting for.

We'll spin this around on you. Show me links that show that Iraqis knew what they were voting for. You won't find any, because there was nothing to vote for. Seriously, there was nothing to vote for. This was the elementary class presidental election in action. Names were thrown into a hat and someone was declared a winner. A winner of WHAT? What exactly did someone win? A representative of WHAT? Oh, you mean these things have to be defined prior to a vote? Go figure! Man, and here you thought that people just voted and THEN things were pulled out of their asses that set the constraints for the vote.

See, that's what makes a vote valid. There must be conditions in place the differentiate the voting possibilities. There must be things that identify the benefits of one thing over another. Those must be measurable and those must be tangible. You must also be able to define the democratic structures that these assets that people are voting for, and what their exact function will be. Until you can outline that, then the vote is bull**** and not democratic.

Maybe we should institute an essay question before voting? Please state in 3 pages or less why you know what you are voting for.

That's not a half bad idea. That would have kept the neo-cons out of office.

Or should we make it more simple?

#1: Did an imam, church, stray dog, leftwingnut and/or warmongering-neo-con group tell you how to vote? A Yes answer will invalidate your vote.

Considering that some of those are illegal in most democracies (the dog gets off scot free for some reason) that would make sense. It is actually illegal for a any organized group to instruct their membership on how to vote. They may throw their support behind a candidate, but they cannot explicitly instruct their membership on who or what to vote on. That is a criminal act and can be prosecuted accordingly. Individuals must be free to cast their vote as their conscience allows. That is a basic requirement for democracy. I think even YOU could agree with that.

#2: Do you have access to all 3 of these? Internet, TV(with more than one channel), and newspaper. A no answer will invalidate your vote.

I like that idea!

#3: Do you understand the function, comprehend the issues and have the ability to provide oversight?

I'd be more than happy if people could identify the people they are voting for and can actually explain the differences in between the platform their candidate campaigned on and that of the opposition. If someone can do that, then they have earned the right to vote. That is how democracy is supposed to work.

Will you be on the marking board Lanny? Since you and others here have elected themselves the high and mighty overseers of what makes a democracy.

Sure, I'll take on that responsibility. Sure beats the hell out you're view on things, "let them all vote, even if they don't know what is going on".

And you'll have to excuse those of us who think that "democracy DOES hinge on whether or not people know what they are doing" as obviously place a much higer value on the job that government does and realize the ramifications of casting an uninformed vote. Jesus, when people don't know what the hell they are doing some very bad things can happen. You know, like an idiot being elected who amits he speaks with God and believes he has devine right to invade innocent nations and start immoral wars.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Hakan

You should read up on communism before making assertions about it. It proves that you know utterly nothing about communism.

You are talking about Bolshevism and Maoism, not communism.

Which are just forms of communism. I have read abour communism and at the end of the day it does nto work, nor will it ever work as it contravenes human nature. Workign together to help each other should be left up to ther individual. FORCING people to help each other doesn't really have the same effect. People work together when it is in their own best interest.
A utopia in which all are equal and have the exact same means sounds nice. It is a dream and it's implementation has been a nigthmare.
People have to be free. When they are allowed to be free they will do alot of things that communism wants to get done anyways.

[White Doors]

"Interesting comment, not one that I completely disagree with from a political ideology angle. But the concept of "property claims" is a pretty new one to the human animal and not thought of until man started to develop societies and power bases. We might as well wipe out the previous 50,000 years of human history, living as commune-ists (I will modify the word so you'll crying about the political ideology) to protect, nurture and propagate the species."

Working together for the benefit of a group (family) does not a communist one make. Communism is the FORCING to work together that makes it the extreme system that it is.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by White Doors

"Interesting comment, not one that I completely disagree with from a political ideology angle. But the concept of "property claims" is a pretty new one to the human animal and not thought of until man started to develop societies and power bases. We might as well wipe out the previous 50,000 years of human history, living as commune-ists (I will modify the word so you'll crying about the political ideology) to protect, nurture and propagate the species."

Working together for the benefit of a group (family) does not a communist one make. Communism is the FORCING to work together that makes it the extreme system that it is.

Uh, what part of the modified word, so as not to confuse it with the political ideology, did you miss?

Another thing I literally laughed outloud at was you saying that FORCING people to work together under communism is extreme, but FORCING people to live together under the guise of democracy seems to be okay. Gotta love that contradiction.