Vive Sarkozy! Vive l'Anime!

[niwasatou]

Originally Posted by Lawfer

So funny I suppose your Engela Mercel is god sent? She's no better then Nicalas sarkozy actually..

Figured someone'd think that. No, she's no better than any of the others. No way in hell I'd ever vote her (aside from not being allowed to vote yet). Honestly, don't quote me for things I didn't say.
I even mentioned in my last sentence - EVERY European country. Now, since when is Germany not an European country? Must've missed something there. orz

[Kaoru Chujo]

Originally Posted by Nergol

All the modern parties of the west are irredeemably left-wing; even the vaunted American Republican Party. The west hasn't had truly great leaders since the days of Kaiser Wilhelm I and Queen Victoria. As for socialism and democracy, both of which are extremely bad ideas, Lord Woodhouselee was absolutely right when he said: "A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

1. The alternative to the present isn't the past, it's the future. We should think of something new, not the 19th century. The past looks idyllic, but in fact most people lived terrible lives.

2. Constitutional monarchs aren't leaders, they're figureheads. Heredity is a terrible way to choose a leader, as the USA can attest.

3. Yes, there is a danger that voters will learn to vote themselves big payouts, either in the form of welfare or of lower taxes. However, aristocrats and oligarchs don't have to learn that: they know it from the start and keep all the goodies for themselves.

4. I agree with Churchill's dictum about liberal democracy (not "liberal" in the US sense, but in the original sense) being the worst system, except for all the others. But we definitely have to work on improving it. The media's highest interest is in selling advertising, so they sensationalize and trivialize things we really should be thinking seriously about.

[Vexx]

Well... Nergol was being satirical (mostly) ... but that argument is the counterpoint to Jeffersonian philosophy, and even Jefferson was key that none of this stuff would work unless the population had an excellent secular education.

[Sazelyt]

After reading Churchill's words, all I can say is, his time has long passed...

One can tweak his words by saying that, the governments are forced to control their budgets, hence, if the majority - mid/poor economical level voters - vote for a better government that promises a better economy for them, there is always a limit as to how much they can be improved. And, the improvement will not be caused by outside resources, but redistributing the old-new resources within. At the end, it should typically converge to a more balanced economical structure among the citizens. And, it is difficult to see how a dictatorship can born out of that, unless the citizens in Churchill's mind are a good example of the word "idiot"...

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by Nergol

All the modern parties of the west are irredeemably left-wing;

After the tenth near-collision on the motorway it's a good idea to consider if it's really the others who are on the wrong lane.

Originally Posted by Nergol

The west hasn't had truly great leaders since the days of Kaiser Wilhelm I and Queen Victoria.

Originally Posted by Nergol

I don't buy it. Sorry, I'm a monarchist - I'll take Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm I over Bush and Blair any day.

Well, I beg to disagree. I'd rather be a citizen under Blair than a subject of Queen Victoria, knowing that the rules of a democratic state would keep me reasonably safe even if Mr. Blair disliked me as much as I dislike him. Whereas the same cannot be said about Queen Victoria.

Originally Posted by Nergol

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Repent, the end is nigh. It makes you wonder why most European states are actually decreasing their deficits at the moment.

Originally Posted by Nergol

As opposed to democracy, which respects all people, unless of course they're an American Indian and you need some land, or they're black and you need some cotton picked, or they're Iraqi and you need a punching bag on which to let out some national frustration.

When arguing against democracy, where is the point of citing examples that all describe people that , though under Amercian rule, were/are excluded from American democracy?

Originally Posted by Nergol

In terms of body counts, I'll take the age of kings over the age of people's governments and people's wars any day.

And there is the old saying that two democracies never have fought a war against each other.

BTW, Bush got his way exactly because after September 11 the US elites (and consequently the US public) put their hopes into a "great leader" and his simple, clear solutions instead of trusting the muddy and endless struggle for compromises that is characteristic for a democracy.

Oh, I also think that a benevolent dictator is better than a democracy. What would be so benevolent about him if he wasn't? But, you see, I also think that instead of not smoking and dying at 70 it's better to smoke and die at age 120. The problems are
1. this is highly unlikely
2. you won't find out until it's too late

That it's better to put one's trust into a democracy than into a "great leader" is probably one of the best-tested theories in history. Democracies do actually quite well exactly up to the point where the people become convinced that a strong individual would do better. Talking about self-fulfilling prophecies.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by Nergol

petran;

I don't buy it. Sorry, I'm a monarchist - I'll take Queen Victoria and Kaiser Wilhelm I over Bush and Blair any day.

So... I suppose you can guess which side I like in Legend of Galactic Heroes....

Is it the Reich Empire? Yeah I prefer them and there culture that is a throwback to a time where mutal respect, politeness and noble behaviour under a benevolent leader like Kaiser Friedriech IV were the norm as well. Plus the Free Planet's Alliance is a sham anyway and their president does not seem at all trustworthy when he is appearing on a video screen to wish the fleet good luck in battle in one of the movies (kind of like a certain other president who does not seem sincere in his televised addresses).

[Sheba]

Funny how monarchist systems are seen through pink glasses. While democracy is flawed, it is not worse than a political system where your chances to climb the social ladder or earn the job you want are next to zero because you happen to not be born in the right social class.
I only liked one thing about the victorian age, it was the pretty clothes, just like how I liked the uniforms of the WWII german army.

[Kaioshin Sama]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Funny how monarchist systems are seen through pink glasses. While democracy is flawed, it is not worse than a political system where your chances to climb the social ladder or earn the job you want are next to zero because you happen to not be born in the right social class.
I only liked one thing about the victorian age, it was the pretty clothes, just like how I liked the uniforms of the WWII german army.

Well I'm not disputing that a class system is an unfair idea, but if we could just bring back the general overall politeness from that era and get the "How are you doing today sir" in the streets instead of the "Screw Yous gets out of my ways" then I'd be a very happy person. Status in society should be based on qualification and individual achievement in my eyes, not by birth. Oh and decent attire is welcome back into public society as well.

Also just while your on the subject of Military uniforms. I happen to like the Civil War era officer uniforms of the Union Army with the sabers worn on a belt the best. Oh and the whole idea back then of enlisted musicians to raise the armies morale and intimidate the enemy army was an intriguing bit of Civil War era culture too.

Which brings me to another subject, how do people think the prim and proper societies of the 1800's would have viewed even the tamest of Manga Strips that are serialized today? Consider also that the closed mindedness of Western Society as whole not even 20 years ago with regard to anime was embarassing to say the least.

I think the point I'm trying to make is, is that this battle is like a 2 steps forward (when the educated folk who know the anime culture well make progress) and one step back (when the thuggish and uninformed people get their way). We'll keep making progress, but there will always be those Jack Thompson and Jerry Falwell types to knock us back. We just have to keep at it like we always do though and social progress will happen. I just sort of paraphrased this from a speech the President of my Alma Matter University made at convocation (and I always thought he was a pompous man, but he impressed me today with this speech), but I like this message a lot.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Kaioshin_Sama

Is it the Reich Empire? Yeah I prefer them and there culture that is a throwback to a time where mutal respect, politeness and noble behaviour under a benevolent leader like Kaiser Friedriech IV were the norm as well. Plus the Free Planet's Alliance is a sham anyway and their president does not seem at all trustworthy when he is appearing on a video screen to wish the fleet good luck in battle in one of the movies (kind of like a certain other president who does not seem sincere in his televised addresses).

Actually, the argument in Legend of Galactic Heroes is a strawman. The comparison there isn't between a monarchy and a democracy; it's between a functioning monarchy and a non-functioning democracy. It's quite possible for a monarch to be better than his democratic equivalent, but it's very unlikely for a functioning monarchy to be superior than a functioning democracy over time. The reason is that even the best of monarchs don't live forever, and there's no guarantee that his sucessor will be anywhere nearly as good. And since there aren't any systems in place to legitimately remove a poorly performing monarch, the people are sort of screwed. That's the precise reason why democracies are a better system - it provides a way for a peaceful succession. It also illustrates why a democratic system isn't always the best choice for all countries and in all situations. Often, questions about succession are much less important than short-term stability.

Originally Posted by Sheba

Funny how monarchist systems are seen through pink glasses. While democracy is flawed, it is not worse than a political system where your chances to climb the social ladder or earn the job you want are next to zero because you happen to not be born in the right social class.

That's quite true. However, it's not always easy to maintain democratic traditions. From what I can tell, democracy is fairly healthy in most of Europe (Britain being a wierd exception), but it's being sort of skewed in the U.S. Democracy isn't supposed to mean "rule of the rich", but that's sort of the way it's turning out. A disturbing amount of Congressional senators and representatives are millionaires, and the same goes for last few decades of presidents.

[Navel]

What is a functioning democracy ? Isn't it the one that actually happens in real life and not the one presented as an ideal that doesn't survive in the wild ?

But yes, a highly centarlized power like that of a monarch is not a good model either. There simply is no "perfect" solution, only choices with different characteristics.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Navel

What is a functioning democracy ? Isn't it the one that actually happens in real life and not the one presented as an ideal that doesn't survive in the wild ?

Not really. Just like you can have nonfunctioning governments, it's equally possible to have nonfunctioning democracies. Theres a few basic perequisites:

1. Rule of law.
2. The people have a way of affecting policy.
3. The people are well-informed enough to make decisions.
4. The government itself is functional.

Remove any of these, and the governmental system doesn't function like a democracy any more.

Originally Posted by Navel

But yes, a highly centarlized power like that of a monarch is not a good model either. There simply is no "perfect" solution, only choices with different characteristics.

On the contrary. In a lot of cases a benevolent dictator can be very good for a country. This is especially the case where there's a marked lack of stability - for example, Vladimir Putin is pretty much a dictator, and he's arguably the best thing to have happened to Russia in the last twenty years. However, the guy before him pretty much brought Russia to its knees.

The American system, on the other hand, is (was) geared towards giving power to mediocrity. Ideally, while it means that it's very rare to come across a really effective leader, the system also reduces the amount of harm that can be done by a really bad one as well.

Overall, stability is much more preferable than hoping that you'll come across one of the good dictators. Check out Slice of Life's points; they're really quite good.


On a different note, I think that looking for an ideal form of government is a bad idea. The question shouldn't be whether something is ideal, but whether it's better than the alternatives.

[Navel]

I realize I did not make myself understood, and that's no surprise as there were only a few lines of text. There were two ideas behind my post:

1. what a human being imagines about something is not how it will really look like in reality. That's because when human beings try to imagine something, they don't really come up with all the details that in fact will make the complete picture. Making theories and measuring to make sure those theories are accurate was and is the only way humanity made significant progress and overcome the limitation of our capacity to come up and reason on complex models. "I believe this" (which is what we do all the time) let place to "I believe this is, but let's make some experiments, measure the results, and if what happens doesn't match what I believed, then let's see what details I was not aware of were involved and rephrase my belief to take them into account".

This is linked to the "functioning democracy" bit. The democracy you speak of is a model that only works within a certain context. However, the people in the real world do not make the context where your model works. If you were to speak of a "functioning democrarcy", I expected you to mean "the democracy that exists right now in the real world" and not a theoretical model that can't exist in the real world.

2. How do you compare one model to another ? What do you do when you have to compare characteristics that are not opposite one to another. Like how do you compare water and fire ? Which one is desirable and which one is not ? Which one is better and which one is not ? What happens if what someone else classifies as desirable and good seems both very wrong and not desirable to you ? Would you be willing to accept someone else's view instead of yours ? (after all, a democracy doesn't say "everyone's wish will be accepted" but "the wishes most people agree on will be accepted) How about others, would they do the same ? How many such different point of views are you willing to accept ? It's easy to speak on an abstract level (it has fewer details than real-life complexity, as I sad above, which makes it easy to reason with), but real-life is full of details that don't care about our simplified models.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Navel

This is linked to the "functioning democracy" bit. The democracy you speak of is a model that only works within a certain context. However, the people in the real world do not make the context where your model works. If you were to speak of a "functioning democrarcy", I expected you to mean "the democracy that exists right now in the real world" and not a theoretical model that can't exist in the real world.

I didn't base any of my post on any particular models of democracy. I merely stated the conditions that must be in place for a functioning democracy to exist. Note that I didn't distinguish a systems where democracy wasn't functioning properly and non-democratic systems. Such a distinction isn't the focus of what I'm talking about. But we still need rules for testing governmental systems otherwise we'd take things like the German Democratic Republic by its name literally. And there aren't a lot of countries that were less democratic than the GDR.

Originally Posted by Navel

2. How do you compare one model to another ?

I don't bother, because I'm not playing that game. I'm not interested in whether one model is better than another as far as democracy goes. It's just that the four conditions I listed are prerequisites; if a government system lacks any of them, then it's not working like a democracy. If you dispute any of my points, you should actually address them.

[Navel]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

On a different note, I think that looking for an ideal form of government is a bad idea. The question shouldn't be whether something is ideal, but whether it's better than the alternatives.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I don't bother, because I'm not playing that game. I'm not interested in whether one model is better than another as far as democracy goes. It's just that the four conditions I listed are prerequisites; if a government system lacks any of them, then it's not working like a democracy. If you dispute any of my points, you should actually address them.

The end of your last post denies what you said in the end of your previous post. Because I don't see how you can say something is better than the alternative if you don't compare them.

The "functioning democracy" bit was a naming issue. I define a functioning democracy as any example of a self proclaimed democracy in the real world while for you a democracy is defined as one that obeys the rules listed above. To me, a democracy like the one you defined could not exist in the real world because human beings have characterstics that make it impossible. Ironically, this is a board for people that watch and fansub tv airings or dvds for which they have no right to do so according to the law, nor do they care unless it's about twisting said law and their ethical and moral ideals to make the practice appear legitimate and righteous. And guess what would be the consequences of the law they would vote regarding filesharing of fansubs if said people are given the right of affecting the law making in a country. So, what do you think would prevail: filesharing of fansubs and more without paying anything to the creators of anime (despite the fact anime creators have to put bread on the table too) or no more filesharing of fansubs allowed, let's all be nice and pay the anime creators for each and every anime episode we see ? The ideal democracy you desire would not work in the real world because the society that would have to respect the rules of that ideal democracy is made out of individual human beings that have wishes and desires which go against those rules.

Let's stop this, it's not going to bring anything useful to anyone. These contradictory dialogues are quite pointless as everyone defends his favoured (but limited) point of view and denies any evidence the world is larger than that.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Navel

The end of your last post denies what you said in the end of your previous post. Because I don't see how you can say something is better than the alternative if you don't compare them.

"On a different note, I think that looking for an ideal form of government is a bad idea. The question shouldn't be whether something is ideal, but whether it's better than the alternatives."

"I don't bother, because I'm not playing that game. I'm not interested in whether one model is better than another as far as democracy goes. It's just that the four conditions I listed are prerequisites; if a government system lacks any of them, then it's not working like a democracy. If you dispute any of my points, you should actually address them."

These aren't actually contradictory. In, the first quote I'm saying that looking for an ideal form of government is a silly idea best left for philosophers. In the second quote, I'm talking about how I'm not interested in what model of democracy is better in this particular thread. While I didn't specifically qualify the latter, it's quite obvious given the context. And since you obviously looked over my post fairly carefully for any contradictions, are you going to address any of my points now?

Originally Posted by Navel

The "functioning democracy" bit was a naming issue. I define a functioning democracy as any example of a self proclaimed democracy in the real world while for you a democracy is defined as one that obeys the rules listed above.

Why? And doesn't that mean that the GDR counts as a democracy?

Originally Posted by Navel

To me, a democracy like the one you defined could not exist in the real world because human beings have characterstics that make it impossible.

Why not? Which of my four prerequisites is impossible to achieve? You're never going to get anywhere as long as you refuse to actually address my points.

Originally Posted by Navel

The ideal democracy you desire would not work in the real world because the society that would have to respect the rules of that ideal democracy is made out of individual human beings that have wishes and desires which go against those rules.

What the heck are you talking about? Since when did I say anything about my "ideal democracy"? I specifically said that to talk about "ideal" is silly to begin with. Moreover, I didn't even attach any value statements as far as my prerequisites go.

Originally Posted by Navel

Let's stop this, it's not going to bring anything useful to anyone. These contradictory dialogues are quite pointless as everyone defends his favoured (but limited) point of view and denies any evidence the world is larger than that.

Nonsense. You're just projecting here.

[Nergol]

Vexx:

No, I wasn't being satirical. I'm really a monarchist, I really don't like democracy one bit. Yes, monarchism has serious flaws, and a bad king is a total terror. But "the people" aren't any better at making decisions, nor any less likely to be corrupt, nor are democracies less likely to shed blood uselessly.

A corrupt king can spend a lot of money, but very few can spend a nation into bankruptcy like a democracy can. Check out the US' national debt, and consider what will happen when the Chinese cut us off.

Having a democracy is hardly a guarantee of human rights, especially for minorities. Alabama was a democracy in 1850, and even had the black people of Alabama been allowed to vote, they were a minority and never would have gotten anywhere. The US was a democracy at the time of Wounded Knee. The Nazi Party won the election of 1933.

Democracies do not necessarily guarantee peace either. Ask an Iraqi.

1. The alternative to the present isn't the past, it's the future. We should think of something new, not the 19th century. The past looks idyllic, but in fact most people lived terrible lives.

I'm reminded of a Dorothy Sayers essay. It was about education (in particular Sayers' support for an education system based more on the type medieval intellectuals got), but I think the general sentiment applies here. In part:

"Before you dismiss me with the appropriate phrase--reactionary, romantic, mediaevalist, laudator temporis acti (praiser of times past), or whatever tag comes first to hand--I will ask you to consider one or two miscellaneous questions that hang about at the back, perhaps, of all our minds, and occasionally pop out to worry us...

What, then, are we to do? We cannot go back to the Middle Ages. That is a cry to which we have become accustomed. We cannot go back--or can we? Distinguo. I should like every term in that proposition defined. Does "go back" mean a retrogression in time, or the revision of an error? The first is clearly impossible per se; the second is a thing which wise men do every day. "Cannot"-- does this mean that our behavior is determined irreversibly, or merely that such an action would be very difficult in view of the opposition it would provoke? Obviously the twentieth century is not and cannot be the fourteenth; but if "the Middle Ages" is, in this context, simply a picturesque phrase denoting a particular educational theory, there seems to be no a priori reason why we should not "go back" to it--with modifications--as we have already "gone back" with modifications, to, let us say, the idea of playing Shakespeare's plays as he wrote them, and not in the "modernized" versions of Cibber and Garrick, which once seemed to be the latest thing in theatrical progress".

In other words, unless you've got your Flux Capacitor ready, we ain't going back to 1890. But no one was talking about that. Look, the one inescapable rule of life is that everything changes. Some of those changes are going to be for the better, and some are going to be for the worse. Someone who thinks that all changes are for the better is just as silly and unrealistic as the kind of nostalgist who thinks that all changes have been for the worse.