I do not think that democracy is the best type of government there is. Look at our society, there are corruptions, leaders that don't do their jobs well. And look at the ancient countries such as Rome. They didn't have democracy, and they became one of the most powerful nations in the history of the world. Also look at nations such as Soviet Union. They did a lot of killing, but beside from that there were many good things about it.
I believe that democracy is the best government there is. people use the term "democracy" as shorthand for liberal democracy, which may include additional elements such as political pluralism, equality before the law, the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances, due process, civil liberties, human rights, and elements of civil society outside the government. This gives people the freedom of speech which will include the freedom to vote to all the people. |
 |
They say that democracy is a type of government where the majority rules. When majority rules, there can be a lot of mistakes such as electing a wrong person for a leader etc...... I think that a small number of wise, intelligent, fair people would be much better than leaving people's destiny to a system called democracy, where a larger number of people rules, and a small number of people is ignored, and let them be alone.
Back in history, there was monarchy. As you know a monarchy includes the king. However, some glitches in history tells us about he tryants who ruled and slaughted the peasants. They can be tryants or just plain idiots to be determined to be strong. Democracy can change all that because democracy does not include one person controling the whole government. Instead, a group of minds work together peacefully to rule a country. Communism is another failure. An example is the north korean lead kim jong ill. He is an idiot who wants all the good stuff for himself and does not care about he suffering people. |
 |
But, there were good kings such as King Sejong (세종) who invented hangel (한글) and cared for peasants and was fair and intelligent. And look at our current President No. He's nothing but an ugly stupid president compared to King Sejong. There were kings like Elizabeth 1st who is a very respected monarchy in England. She was a great ruler and she defeated the Spain Armada and made a good start of a nation which will become the most biggest and the strongest empire in the world which conquered many of the world's territory. I'm not saying that conquering Asians were good, but they were good for her people. yoon172 forfeited this round. |
 |
2. You said that the President we have is an idiot, and democracy made him win. I agree with you that he is an idiot, but many believe that he cheated in the election. In that case democracy did not make him win.
3. You said "I think that a small number of wise, intelligent, fair people would be much better than leaving people's destiny to a system called democracy, where a larger number of people rules, and a small number of people is ignored, and let them be alone." How will we select the "small number of wise, intelligent, fair people"? Oh, of course, we wont select them. That means that they will have to select themselves, creating a monarchy were people kill each other over power. Unless, we the people select them, which is a democracy.
but do I have to debate with you???
I don't want to, though.. -_-
oh..well...
what topic do you want to debate about,then??
oh yeah, just to tell ya.. my id is, as you can know, gokorea-so weird,huh??
anyway.. bye for now.. and see ya tomorrow at Samboh!!
Well I completely disagree with you. You are being a relativists by saying one should do which they think is relative to them. What too busy with family and friends? Then why are you here? You are being inconsiderate of the other person's time and energy. Yes, one should always judge on merit and I am not saying that one should win or lose because they forfeit a round but when two people are debating and it appears that they are equally about the same, then factors like a forfeit should be considered. Most people it appears seem to vote from their subjectivity rather than looking at it from an objective perspective.
They have an Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch , and all three of them are corrupt. Per chance that you do have an excellent ruler in the D.R. all the constitutional checks and balances and safeguards are working against him, ranging from corruption Justices in the Supreme court to bought out votes in the (DR) House of Representatives and senates. For heavens sake the congress voted down a bill that would work to reduce bureaucratic corruption...what a coincidence huh? Then in order to give people some rights in that country you'd have to actually take them away which is something Democracy does not allow.
To give them the right to walk down the street with the security that they will not be robbed, you would need to enforce curfews and subject them to search and seizers, and at times discard the rite of habias corpus. Democracy is very good when things are working great, but when they are not it is the worst government because one person can be opposed by everything that the Democracy protects.
However in a dictatorship if leadership is bad, the country suffers (just like a democracy) but if the Leader is good , no matter who came before or will come after, or who does what the country will be successful. We look at examples such like the ones previously mentioned and also Friedrich the Great of Prussia a monarch who struggled his whole life to be the "first servant of the state", a vastly enlightened leader who loved his people.
In many cases absolute power can do absolute good, not just absolute corruption. In an authoritarian you can have one corrupt person , in a democracy you can have fields. Positive change in a Democracy requires inefficient bureaucratic footing around, in an authoritarian society it happens at the snap of a finger.
You claim that our system is bound to be corrupt. And that our leaders don't lead well.
Ok. That's fine to make that claim, even though I disagree with you.
But then you go on to talk about Ancient Rome and the Soviet Union, and I have a question: Have you ever taken a history class?
Ancient Rome was powerful because they ruled by the sword, not because of some mass acceptance of their ideals. They were a split state, constantly at war, and controlled about 1/4 of the world's population (then) by using a strict military law. I guess that makes them a great military power, but their government was run by an authoritarian government. Basically, you'd be foolish to think that an open forum of ideas for the common man would be allowed in a society like the Roman Empire, so you're kind of self-defeating on that point.
And then about the Soviet Union, I ACTUALLY laughed out loud when I read that. The Soviet Union did kill a lot of people, like you said, but the other 'good things that they did' that you claim they accomplished, well, that's where I take issue.
What did they accomplish? Do you actually know or have you never actually studied the Soviet Union? They collectivized farms, created heavy industrial infrastructure and truly had a 'planned' economy, as Communism would dictate. But did they have freedom of the press? Did they have freedom of assembly for redress against the government? NO, they did not. Their personal freedoms were suppressed in that period. Would you be willing to give up your freedom to criticize the government? I should hope not...
Along with all of that, the Soviet Union was MUCH more corrupt. You ever heard of gulags?
And by the way, the Soviet Union lasted from its establishment in 1922 and began to fall in 1985 and officially ended late 1991, making it last how long? 69 years. The U.S. has been around more than three times longer. Wow.