Jump to content

Democracy, Autocracy, or Anarchy?


Guest DRL

Democracy, Autocracy, or Anarchy?  

5 members have voted

  1. 1. Democracy, Autocracy, or Anarchy?

    • Democracy
      3
    • Autocracy
      3
    • Anarchy
      2


Recommended Posts

Just a poll to check how much believers of Democracy,

Autocracy, or even Anarchy are around.

Before you take any conclusions, let me explain:

1] Democracy. Theorically 'The Goverment of

    The People for The People' - as USA president

    Lincoln once said, Democracy stands for elected

    representatives. Today there are many different

    types of Democracies. Some allow the populace

    to vote directly for their President/Leader, others,

    make a more 'Republican' aproach, making people

    elect provincial/local leaders who in turn are the

    ones who vote for the President/Leader. Please

    note that 'Parlamentary/Constituional Monarchies',

    such as Australia's or United Kingdom's also count

    as Democracies, because the Prime Minister (most

    important figure in the executive branch) is elected

    by the populace, or at least by the Parliament (whose

    representatives are voted by the populace).

    Many Democracies today favor the 'division of powers',

    meaning that Executive, Legislative, and Judicial powers

    are seperated, and do not control one another.

2] Autocracy. Human story is plagued by Autocracies.

    Autocracies are, for example, middle-ages Despotic

    Monarchies (Monarchs that could do everything they

    wanted because they were 'the Monarch'), ranging

    to it's worst example at Hitler's Dictatorship, to

    it's best, Lenin's Dictatorship.

    Regardless of the economical/social ideas, an Autocracy

    is basically a single goverment body, or person, with

    centralized power.

    In short, Autocracies seek to centralize power and create

    one-person or one-party states.

3] Anarchy. Anarchy can be seen from two views:

    Either 'The lack of a goverment' or 'no goverment'.

    Proponets of Anarchy say that as long as there exists

    any centralization, as limited as it may be, corruption

    exists, and the only way to eliminate it is to eliminate

    any central autority - be it Democratic or Autocratic.

    Anarchists on the left say that centralization leads

    ultimately to capitalism and/or exploitation. They do not

    view 'Communist' states as legimate because they keep

    a strong central autority, which Anarquists see as corrupt.

    As for Democracy, the leftlist Anarquist would say that

    it is corrupt because it attempts to centralize autority,

    even after if it was elected by popular vote. Additionally,

    it will view Capitalism as corrupt and as a system were

    the rich abuse of the poor.

    There are not many right-wing Anarquists. That is because

    right-wing Anarquism is basically 'let anyone do everything'

    - and we all know that turns into a lawless mess quickly.

Me? I am moderately a leflist Autocrat. I am not a Communist,

but I am a Socialist. Furthermore, I believe that South-American

styled Democracies have failed to archive the goals they preach.

Right-wing Dictatorships have been tried, but the repression of

the masses was just too much to bear, and the economy was badly

damaged.

Maybe after everything is re-organized a [limited] Deputy/Senate/Congress

of a few elected-by-the-populace people could work, a la Politburo.

Functional enought to make a law or two, or help in an emergency. Not

enought power to block any of the leader's laws or remove it from power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not a Communist,

but I am a Socialist

Same difference. It's bollocks either way.

I'm of the opinion goverment atm is crap. To much corruption. As a utilitarian, democrasy for me (on paper, but the reality is crap)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather be held accountable by people I interact with on a day to day basis who know more of the facts, not some public servant perched afar who happens to have heard about it through the grapevine, and won't stand for it because it doesn't fit with their worldview that may be based on a completely different set of circumstances - and who steals half of the money I make for the privilege of being hounded by them. I'll take my chances with something closer to anarchy, thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

None of the above.  I'm more of a totalitarian militarism state.  Top gov't officials are mostly mean vicious military generals (don't touch them, they'll bite you! :wink: ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right wing democrat. But I did find the concept of anarchy appealing in some ways several years ago. Problem is that it wouldn't work, because some people with nothing better to do would inevitably band together, and appoint themself rulers of a geographic area, and thus, it wouldn't be an anarchy no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

None of the above.  I'm more of a totalitarian militarism state.  Top gov't officials are mostly mean vicious military generals (don't touch them, they'll bite you! :wink: ).

Did you read my post below the

poll? :|

That is an Autocracy,

a la Mussolini,

but ultimately an Autocracy.

Autocracy = 'Government of the

Authority'. :wink:

Same difference. It's bollocks either way.

I'm of the opinion goverment atm is crap. To much corruption. As a utilitarian, democrasy for me (on paper, but the reality is crap)

Sorry to contradict you, but it is not.

The Soviet Socialist or Communist believes

in a highly State-Controlled economy & media.

The Socialist - in general, be it Social Democract

or Socialist Autocrat - believes in Private Economy,

but with State Regulations. Neither it attempts to

control the media, althrought it may have one or

more state-owner TV channells or radio stations.

Right wing democrat. But I did find the concept of anarchy appealing in some ways several years ago. Problem is that it wouldn't work, because some people with nothing better to do would inevitably band together, and appoint themself rulers of a geographic area, and thus, it wouldn't be an anarchy no more.

Correct. Or, it can happen that

it becomes a right-wing Anarchy.

On left-Anarchist theory, this would not

happen, but it is the most certain thing

to happen. Namely, a group of people

rule by 'the strongest is the ruler' rule.

It is not a goverment, because that position

is only guaranted by strenght, and it is not

a leftist-Anarchy, because 'the people' would

live in fear rather than freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Did you read my post below the

poll? :|

That is an Autocracy,

a la Mussolini,

but ultimately an Autocracy.

Autocracy = 'Government of the

Authority'. :wink:

Ooops!  I got that mixed up with Oligarchy :facepalm:

Fine...autocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooops!  I got that mixed up with Oligarchy :facepalm:

Fine...autocracy.

Oh, it is ok.

For the account,

our Minister-of-Land

Luis D'Elia, calls the

other parties other than

his own 'Oligarchysts', yet

he is an Oligarch himself. :facepalm:

'Oligarchy' = 'Goverment of few for

their own benefit'. It suits him soo

perfectly. :roll:

Furthermore, our Democrcacy is a

Demagogy since 1991.

'Demagogy' = 'Elected Goverment pretending

to act for the people, but acting in reality

to it's own benefit.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

'Demagogy' = 'Elected Goverment pretending

to act for the people, but acting in reality

to it's own benefit.'

California!  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

California!  :P

Every state plus the federal government of the United States! :P

Let's not single out California - it's really quite epidemic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Every state plus the federal government of the United States! :P

Let's not single out California - it's really quite epidemic.

Cali is a microcosm to America, and America is a near microcosm to the world  :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, to be fair I voted for it at the top but didn't say exactly what I clicked for. That sort of slipped my mind, sorry!  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, to be fair I voted for it at the top but didn't say exactly what I clicked for. That sort of slipped my mind, sorry!  :D

Then nobody voted for Democracy,

plus now Anarchy is 3 v 3 with Autocracy. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democratic republic. Or maybe just a republic. Democracy relies on the people, and mass amounts of people are stupid, and when in power, dangerous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democratic republic. Or maybe just a republic. Democracy relies on the people, and mass amounts of people are stupid, and when in power, dangerous.

Agreed. That is why South American

Democracies ended up like they are

now; situation that can be described

with three words.

Corrupt, Overwhelmed, and Disabled.

Corrupt, in the sense that after some time

of establishment the Democracies became

little more than the rich guy's tools-to-even

-more-fortune.

Overwhelmed, in the sense that it's bureacracy

is inefficient - to the point were laws contradic

each other, organs created to regulated the others

fall under those who they are supposed to regulate.

It's inspector systems are inefficient as well, thus

unable to cope up with the high level of corruption.

Furthermore, what needs to be done takes much time,

and when it is done, it is either no longer the main problem,

OR, there are bigger priorities around.

Disabled, in the sense that people who want to do the right thing

find themselves with too little power, or none at all. Thus,

it does not matters if you are a honest Deputy. Because you

are just that - A - ones Deputy. Just one, and there are 399 others,

of which it is know that at least 250 do nothing but sit there and drink

coffee (or sleep  :facepalm:). In this situation, being just 'the honest guy',

around when everyone else is just a pig where the rich puts money into

does not works. Or worse, they are their own pigs, putting the money

they should use for State Assets into their own accounts.

The people in my country should see the reality. 'Democracy' has failed

to archive it's goal. It is time for a new goverment - one more centralized,

and of course, WAY more efficient - to take it's place. At least in South

America. Not sure about other countries, but in South America, Democracies

are little more than Demagogies now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

Democratic republic. Or maybe just a republic. Democracy relies on the people, and mass amounts of people are stupid, and when in power, dangerous.

Yep.  Just look at the Democratic Party of America.  :trollface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep.  Just look at the Democratic Party of America.  :trollface:

I c wut u did thar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy....by FAR.

*Too lazy to write up a synopsis of my thoughts after missing a few days in the Pub*  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Democracy....by FAR.

*Too lazy to write up a synopsis of my thoughts after missing a few days in the Pub*  :lol:

Then DO NOT come to South America.

Democracy (with 'pupular' vote, as

oppossed to 'Democratic Republic' vote)

has failed big time.

I already explained it: Overwhelmed, corrupt,

and disabled. Not sure about the rest of the

world, tought. Democracy seems to work in

Europe (in most countries).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then DO NOT come to South America.

Democracy (with 'pupular' vote, as

oppossed to 'Democratic Republic' vote)

has failed big time.

I already explained it: Overwhelmed, corrupt,

and disabled. Not sure about the rest of the

world, tought. Democracy seems to work in

Europe (in most countries).

If I do visit for one reason or another...can I like...bride someone to give me their vote and then sell it?  :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I do visit for one reason or another...can I like...bride someone to give me their vote and then sell it?  :lol:

Well, I bet you have not been born

here, so you can not appoint for Presidente...

Never-the-less, after you get dual-nationality

you can be appointed for other goverment tasks

(provincial governor, for example.)

HOWEVER, as funny as it sounds, YES, you

can give 'incentives' to get votes. Examples:

1] On a small province, a small party offered

a lottery among all of it's voters. You could

win a 0/km car.

2] Our current Presidente (not 'Presidenta',

as that is a faked term to attract feminists to her

side.) offered several electronic appliances to her

personall thug army poorer voter base to

retain them on her side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I bet you have not been born

here, so you can not appoint for Presidente...

That is not what I meant.  I meant could I buy a vote from SOMEONE ELSE and then sell said vote at a higher price?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...