How does any authority exist in a democratic society?

[HappyJoy]

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

You have an arbitrary definition of "direct democracy." According to you definition, you have direct democracy if children can't vote, but you don't if children and women can't vote. Saying "children don't have full rights" is just another way of saying they can't vote. In the time of ancient Greece children were the largest segment of the population.

So basically everything you said was bullshit.

I'll just let that sit there.

 

[bripat9643]

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Voting does not define freedom. Voting isn't even a fundamental individual rights. It's simply a means for making decisions.

 

[HappyJoy]

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

Our democracy doesn't work. It certainly hasn't lasted as long as Athenian democracy lasted. You description of it as "successful" couldn't be more absurd.

They had slaves, we don't. Comparatively speaking representative democracy works.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our democracy doesn't work.

We don't have a democracy. The Founders hated democracy.

 

[HappyJoy]

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Voting does not define freedom. Voting isn't even a fundamental individual rights. It's simply a means for making decisions.

Good luck with your direct democracy fantasy.

 

[bripat9643]

Our democracy doesn't work.

We don't have a democracy. The Founders hated democracy.

For all intents and purposes, we do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Our democracy doesn't work.

We don't have a democracy. The Founders hated democracy.

For all intents and purposes, we do.

Nope.

 

[bripat9643]

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

Our democracy doesn't work. It certainly hasn't lasted as long as Athenian democracy lasted. You description of it as "successful" couldn't be more absurd.

They had slaves, we don't. Comparatively speaking representative democracy works.

That's just another arbitrary distinction signifying nothing. What does "works" mean? As far as I can see, all it really means is that you approve of the result.

 

[Agit8r]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

IT has been tried, and the result was mass starvation.

 

[Agit8r]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

IT has been tried, and the result was mass starvation.

It hasn't really, has it

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

IT has been tried, and the result was mass starvation.

It hasn't really, has it

Yes it has. You just aren't aware of it because these experiments only lasted a very short while. Economic democracy is impossible. Allowing people to vote on every economic decisions leads to paralysis and starvation.

 

[Agit8r]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

IT has been tried, and the result was mass starvation.

It hasn't really, has it

Yes it has. You just aren't aware of it because these experiments only lasted a very short while. Economic democracy is impossible. Allowing people to vote on every economic decisions leads to paralysis and starvation.

If it impossible, then it hasn't been.

 

[bripat9643]

Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government?

Only if there was also economic democracy.

IT has been tried, and the result was mass starvation.

It hasn't really, has it

Yes it has. You just aren't aware of it because these experiments only lasted a very short while. Economic democracy is impossible. Allowing people to vote on every economic decisions leads to paralysis and starvation.

If it impossible, then it hasn't been.

So you think that means we should keep trying?

There's liberlogic for ya!