And now a few words about democracy, which we don't have.
Democracy. It's a funny thing.We talk about it as if we have a pure form of it in the U.S. But everyone knows we don't. Never have and never will.
Every so often we vote to elect our representatives. That makes us a democratic republic, or so they say.
But we swear by this particular form of government. But it's not true democracy.
Democracy in its purest form would be unmanageable, or so they say. At the time the country was founded that might have been true. But no more. The vast majorityof Americans could go to the polls every day via one medium or the other and vote on issues that affect them.
But that's not going to work with the lobbyists who depend on the fact that those who determine policy are relatively small in number and generally in one place - Washington D.C. - where they are acceccible and buyable.
As best as I can determine, we aren't peddling pure democracy in Iraw. We re peddling another democratic republic beause those who make such decisions would probably gag at the thought of a pure democracy.
Besides, what if we had a pure democracy in the U.S. at this very moment?
We would be out of Iraq, In a in heartbeat.
We would never invade a country that didn't attack us first.
We would probably have universal health care.
And the current two-larty system. It would be long gone.
And who knows what else would change?
But would all those changes be for the better.
If we truly believe in democracy, it would truly be better.
posted by Dave Peyton @ 10:51 PM
4 Comments:
Ah, but don't forget about the tyranny of the majority.
Better in every way than the tyranny of the minority.
We may not have liberated Iraq if we had a true democracy, but if we left it "in a heartbeat" (I doubt we would, but let's pretend you're right about that), that wouldn't be an indication that "true democracy" is better, it'd be a sign that we are a nation of spoiled brats who don't understand the basic adage of "you broke it, you fix it." Whether or not you supported the original invasion, demanding that we leave immediately, abandoning the Iraqi people again (like we did back in the 90s) is shortsighted and selfish.
Tyranny is bad no matter which direction it goes. Much better to have a government that gives you nothing than a government that gives you everything by stealing from someone else (which is exactly what "universal health care" is).
Personally, I'd rather have a government free of any kind of tyranny. How about a government that says that you work for what you get, or you rely on the generosity of your neighbors, rather than relying on getting more powerful entities (the government) on your side to force generosity on your neighbors? A government that stays out of your business completely, provided you're not damaging or taking another person's body or property?
I'll mark that down as one vote against democracy.
Post a Comment
<< Home