[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

same here man, i respect you, and i disagree with you, that's why i go to such lenggths to argue with you.

i thought you called me a conformist for putting up with the limitations of democracy & for prefering to protect & defend it over other forms of government... show me something better and i'll convert, but in the meantime this is what i fight for you see, because we have nothing better, but could be much much worse.

i suppose mexican democracy has changed recently after the zapatistas & 70 years of PRI rule, and that prehaps because some people thought they could do a little better. i know it's fashionable to shit on the outgoing president, but if you don't believe me there's been progress in your country, go read that book by whats the name of this guy... jose agustin... his first book, hm... DE PERFIL. and think also about the massacres that came after that book was written. not sure that has happened, has it? but anyway, there are a lot of people in your country fighting to bring true democracy... which is still an incomplete project.

i don't know in how many ways to explain this, but i think that you are wrong on giving up on an incomplete project rather than helping to complete it. im not judging you from a moral stance, but i do criticize your... how can i say this.. your epistemological toolkit? or should i say simply, i think you've arrived to the wrong conclusion due to some faulty premises.

i'd like to discuss thos premises alone if we can. you know, no calling people this or that, just looking at the... way of knowing, so to speak.boil it down to essentials. i think if we narrow the issue sufficiently it will be easy to understand each other.

let's give it a try?

---

so:
let me see if i summarize your points correctly. you seem to be saying:

a) democracy is a flawed system of government
b) because it's flawed, it is not worth supporting it

am i correct?

let me know if i read you right before i continue.

yes, sorry i called you a conformist, i meant that your position was (or seems) to be that.

again, yes, democracy is the least worse of government forms, i agree and us people in democratic countries are better of than others with other political fronts in power.

and, i didn't want to go to specifications but if we must; i hate it when people here are all "the president sucks, blah blah!" (although that's a worldwide phenomenon, innit?), i think calderon is a great president and a really smart one, and much better than the other guy (lopez obrador) who was an extremist totalitarian. yes progress was made, and things are better; contrary to popular belief, the pri rule wasn't all bad, and we're in a much better position than most countries. the zapatistas have done nothing except take over lands.

my whole point is that we can aim higher, and that things are not started being full fledged, they start somewhere, even if the ideas are not exactly clear to begin with, they can form something else.

and to say it:

1) yes
2) yes

although, as there are no new ways of government yet, one has to live in this world and what's happening in it, so you can't completely ignore what's happening around you (i think that's something that wasn't clear before) but that doesn't mean that's an end to the problem.

[!@#$%!]

cool, thanks for participating in this experiment

so you say:

a) democracy is flawed
b) because it's flawed, it's not worth supporting

---

very well. now i ask you for a moment (and think of this carefully), is there something on this planet that is not intrinsically "flawed"? i'm asking because i want to understand what you considered flawed & flawless. this is not a bait. well it could be, depends, because i'm going to utilize your answer to construct my reply, but i'm not trying to set a trap or anything.

so, what is it that you consider flawless? i'm not talking about governments here-- im talking about flawless anything.

[Everyneurotic]

not flawless, just least flawed; it was flawed by design and, after centuries of use, it's starting to get to the breaking point.

the thing is, while other areas of human existance have evolved, researched and improved, government systems have come to a halt, there hasn't been any theorisists or thinkers in a long ass time and most of the "new" types have been recombinations of failed ones.

the ones in power are the ones keeping this, not letting something else develope because thing's are too good for them but not as good for anyone else.

just look at the "leaders" of the world and ask yourself why are they in power, it's coming to a point where the system will fail permanently, it's grim but it's happening.

in a utopian way, yes, a form of government of equality and reason would be best but that's something that's not going to happen.

i'm not asking for perfect, i'm asking for the best that can be, keeping errors to a minimum.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

not flawless, just least flawed; it was flawed by design and, after centuries of use, it's starting to get to the breaking point.

the thing is, while other areas of human existance have evolved, researched and improved, government systems have come to a halt, there hasn't been any theorisists or thinkers in a long ass time and most of the "new" types have been recombinations of failed ones.

the ones in power are the ones keeping this, not letting something else develope because thing's are too good for them but not as good for anyone else.

just look at the "leaders" of the world and ask yourself why are they in power, it's coming to a point where the system will fail permanently, it's grim but it's happening.

in a utopian way, yes, a form of government of equality and reason would be best but that's something that's not going to happen.

i'm not asking for perfect, i'm asking for the best that can be, keeping errors to a minimum.

ok, but we're going too fast here & we're going to miss the logical sequence of the ideas. you haven't answered yet about what you consider flawless.... on this planet. not just governments... anything.

we'll get to your point soon enough, just humor me for a moment so i can try to be socratic rather than preachy & polemical.

--

ps i got a couple of things to do & will be back later but please answer if you can, i'll reply as soon as possible.

[demonrail666]

Democracy. It's like multiple-choice...on acid.

[Everyneurotic]

me too, i'll get back to it later.

but before i go; no, there's nothing flawless in the universe but that's not the point, it's going for the less flawless, going for "best" not "perfect".

demonrail: repped!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

me too, i'll get back to it later.

but before i go; no, there's nothing flawless in the universe but that's not the point, it's going for the less flawless, going for "best" not "perfect".

demonrail: repped!

ok, so you say that nothing is flawless in the universe. agreed.

there aren't flawless appleas and we eat them, there is no flawless music and we listen to it, there aren't flawless guitars and we play them, there aren't flawless houses and we live in them, there aren't flawless people and we still have relationships with them.

so, what singles out democratic governments in particular that makes you reject them like you do? i'm thinking it's not the flawed characteristics that are the problem, i'm thinking it has to do more with governments in general and they way they bug you... am i guessing right?

let me know.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

ok, so you say that nothing is flawless in the universe. agreed.

there aren't flawless appleas and we eat them, there is no flawless music and we listen to it, there aren't flawless guitars and we play them, there aren't flawless houses and we live in them, there aren't flawless people and we still have relationships with them.

so, what singles out democratic governments in particular that makes you reject them like you do? i'm thinking it's not the flawed characteristics that are the problem, i'm thinking it has to do more with governments in general and they way they bug you... am i guessing right?

let me know.

you ignored my post.

i said that it's NOT about a flawless form of government, is about a less flawed one. best NOT perfect.

besides, i'm not singling out democracy over other present government forms, as i said above, dictatorship and comunism are much worse. the fact is that i disagree with democracy and think it's obsolete and if i started talking about this is because everyone thinks democracy is the best way of government and perfect, when in reality it's far from it, and that we should aim for something better.

yes, we listen to flawed music but do we keep only listening to whatever is popular because if everyone likes it, then it can't be bad? we play flawed guitars but didn't we strived for better designs and better materials? we live in flawed house, but haven't we found better ways of constructing them, or do we still live in "good enough" wooden shacks? we have relationships with flawed people but do we stay in them, even if they could hurt us or hurt themselves and would make us feel miserable? or do we strive to find someone we can be happy with the most?

it's flawed by design because, even though ethymologically it means the people choose their leaders, in reality it was started for the upper classes to vote for their leaders while denying this to the "ruled" classes.

furthermore, democracy as a system is really easy to manipulate to the will of the richest and most powerful, instead of the more qualified people, as proved by the 2000 u.s. presidential election. also, the "leaders" of today most likely seek their own well being above that of the people. lastly, in a best case scenario, if the majority vote for someone, then that someone wins, no matter how incompetent, dumb or bad this person can be (whether for minorities or the majority); the masses are not qualified to take such an important decision since a low common denominator mentality reigns among them (example: you hate mcdonald's, let's say that an election for the only food available for sale happens, do you think something tasty and nutritious would win or would people vote for mcdonald's?), and here, i'm talking about a best case scenario, where recalls, corruption and frauds don't happen (the only upside of democracy is that at least the leaders don't enforce their decisions to the citizens).

i'm not talking about "smashing the system" or any of that fashionable "rebel!!! hate the status quo because it's cool!" sentiments.

so you guessed wrong.

besides, your stereotyping is staring to bug me.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

you ignored my post.

i said that it's NOT about a flawless form of government, is about a less flawed one. best NOT perfect.

besides, i'm not singling out democracy over other present government forms, as i said above, dictatorship and comunism are much worse. the fact is that i disagree with democracy and think it's obsolete and if i started talking about this is because everyone thinks democracy is the best way of government and perfect, when in reality it's far from it, and that we should aim for something better.

yes, we listen to flawed music but do we keep only listening to whatever is popular because if everyone likes it, then it can't be bad? we play flawed guitars but didn't we strived for better designs and better materials? we live in flawed house, but haven't we found better ways of constructing them, or do we still live in "good enough" wooden shacks? we have relationships with flawed people but do we stay in them, even if they could hurt us or hurt themselves and would make us feel miserable? or do we strive to find someone we can be happy with the most?

it's flawed by design because, even though ethymologically it means the people choose their leaders, in reality it was started for the upper classes to vote for their leaders while denying this to the "ruled" classes.

furthermore, democracy as a system is really easy to manipulate to the will of the richest and most powerful, instead of the more qualified people, as proved by the 2000 u.s. presidential election. also, the "leaders" of today most likely seek their own well being above that of the people. lastly, in a best case scenario, if the majority vote for someone, then that someone wins, no matter how incompetent, dumb or bad this person can be (whether for minorities or the majority); the masses are not qualified to take such an important decision since a low common denominator mentality reigns among them (example: you hate mcdonald's, let's say that an election for the only food available for sale happens, do you think something tasty and nutritious would win or would people vote for mcdonald's?), and here, i'm talking about a best case scenario, where recalls, corruption and frauds don't happen (the only upside of democracy is that at least the leaders don't enforce their decisions to the citizens).

i'm not talking about "smashing the system" or any of that fashionable "rebel!!! hate the status quo because it's cool!" sentiments.

so you guessed wrong.

besides, your stereotyping is staring to bug me.

no no-- i wanted to keep this simple-- SIMPLE. i wanted to keep this simple to avoid the kind of silliness this has become.

you make A LOT of assumptions about what i mean and what i say, so that at the end you end up dialoguing with yourself and your imagination of what i may be saying.

i never said you were any of those things you speculate about in your post. i simply asked you the question-- what sets apart government from other flawed entities.

the reason i ignored your post is because i requested that we keep things to the basic minimum-- every time one of us goes off into a long rant, confusion ensues. so i didn't really ignore it-- i postponed the discussion of the many issues until we solved the basic question i was inquiring about.

now it seems to me you are reluctant to communicate, and prefer to hide behind a haze of unfocused anger rather than have your beliefs confronted? i don't know why it's so hard to stick to a simple discussion instead of making drama.

and about the stereotyping you mention, please discuss it with your mirror because i have nothing to do with it.

(i guess i got cranky and this last line above is a put down? but really, stop ascribing to me the circles of you own mind. stop making assumptions, they are totally off the mark.)

i do have better things to do with my time than fight over the internet. if you're not up to having a discussion, let me know, and i'll drop the matter.

[Everyneurotic]

i'm not assuming, you said that if i thought anything in the universe is not flawed, i answer that i didn't thought that but at the same time i wasn't talking about something flawless, i was talking about the best that can be. you wanted me to answer you with "black" or "white" and i said "neither, it's grey"

by ignoring this answer, you bypassed it and kept typing about how we still used things even though they were flawed, i answered that not because they are flawed we just stood there and made nothing about them, that we actually went and tried to do things better.

then you asked if it had anything to do with my disgust with authority (more specifically, government in general), i said no and explained why i've seen democracy being designed and worn out into an obsolete state. the reason my posts have been large are because i think i need to explain myself more in order to get a better understanding of what i'm trying to say.

and, by asking if it was because governments in general bug me, like you did on previous posts like me not being content with my country, is what made me think you're stereotyping me into a something. it irks me because i assume i'm talking to an individual and it seems you keep trying to label me into a generalization.

maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

i'm not assuming, you said that if i thought anything in the universe is not flawed, i answer that i didn't thought that but at the same time i wasn't talking about something flawless, i was talking about the best that can be. you wanted me to answer you with "black" or "white" and i said "neither, it's grey"

pardon me, but you agreed that democracy was flawed and that's why you didn't support it. i asked you a couple of questions, namely, if there was something flawless in the universe (you said no) and i asked you what set government apart from other flawed things. but i did not take my reasoning any further, did i?. did i make a point you could reply to? no-- so you're replying to something that only happened in your mind. you were arguing with the mirror.

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

by ignoring this answer, you bypassed it and kept typing about how we still used things even though they were flawed, i answered that not because they are flawed we just stood there and made nothing about them, that we actually went and tried to do things better.

no, i didn't bypass it, i mentioned we'd pick it up later but let's stick to the basic now. to answer those points would have meant to side with the assumptions you had made about where i was going with this. which were totally wrong. you had no clue where i was going with my questions.

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

then you asked if it had anything to do with my disgust with authority (more specifically, government in general), i said no and explained why i've seen democracy being designed and worn out into an obsolete state. the reason my posts have been large are because i think i need to explain myself more in order to get a better understanding of what i'm trying to say.

well, i think the long posts add more to the confusion because they answer the assumptions you're making about what i'm going to say rather than answer the simple questions i was asking

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

and, by asking if it was because governments in general bug me, like you did on previous posts like me not being content with my country, is what made me think you're stereotyping me into a something. it irks me because i assume i'm talking to an individual and it seems you keep trying to label me into a generalization.

maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.[/quote]

again, that's in your own head-- i wasn't thinking of your country. in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.

maybe you're the one who unconsciously feels stereotyped?

as i said before, you're not arguing with me but with the projections of your own mind. i normally enjoy conversing with you, but please, this is past the point of absurd. you argue with things i might say, practicing bad telepathy. it gets really annoying, and it's a waste of time to attempt dialogue with someone who ultimately is only talking to himself. please, i give up on this discussion, we've wasted enough time on this already. yes?

i'm cool with you as far as other subjects go, but please, this one must die.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

pardon me, but you agreed that democracy was flawed and that's why you didn't support it. i asked you a couple of questions, namely, if there was something flawless in the universe (you said no) and i asked you what set government apart from other flawed things. but i did not take my reasoning any further, did i?. did i make a point you could reply to? no-- so you're replying to something that only happened in your mind. you were arguing with the mirror.


no, i didn't bypass it, i mentioned we'd pick it up later but let's stick to the basic now. to answer those points would have meant to side with the assumptions you had made about where i was going with this. which were totally wrong. you had no clue where i was going with my questions.


well, i think the long posts add more to the confusion because they answer the assumptions you're making about what i'm going to say rather than answer the simple questions i asking


maybe you trying to stereotype or label me is something you didn't realize, did it unconciously.

again, that's in your own head-- i wasn't thinking of your country. in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.

maybe you're the one who unconsciously feels stereotyped?

as i said before, you're not arguing with me but with the projections of your own mind. i normally enjoy conversing with you, but please, this is past the point of absurd. you argue with things i might say, practicing bad telepathy. it gets really annoying, and it's a waste of time to attempt dialogue with someone who ultimately is only talking to himself. please, i give up on this discussion, we've wasted enough time on this already. yes?

i'm cool with you as far as other subjects go, but please, this one must die.[/quote]


ok, i agree this is getting past the point of confort, one of the reasons i don't like talking politics (i rather talk about turds, really). but i have one last thing to say.

i know that line of questions, what you were trying to do, prove me wrong by responding to the questions in stark answers, objectifying something fairly subjective (for the reason of this being a discussion), and by breaking the objectively nature of the sequence of questions, i kinda threw you off.

again, and this is becoming a slogan, but my point is to have a form of government that's best, not perfect.

you wanted to me to answer you that i didn't support democracy because it's flawed, and that i agreed that nothing is flawless yet we live and use those things and that i was just angry at any form of government, therefore, my plea for something new politically was a dumb one and i was just angry at something else and projected it to the government. but that was not the point.

the point is: democracy is flawed that's why i don't believe in it, nothing is flawless in the world YET we try to improve upon things instead of leaving them the way they are, even if they remain competent. i believe there should be a government and that democracy is a "good enough" for now form of government, i don't think government is evil and should not be.

and about the stereotyping, you said it: "in fact, i was thinking about libertarians who believe that every government is essentially evil. so i was trying to ascertain if this was were you were coming from philosophically, and if not then i would pursue a different line of questions to clarify things.", you can stereotype people for anything, especially for the way they think, perhaps more so than for race, culture or country of origin. that's what irked me, you tried to classify me and my thoughts and i didn't do that to you.

[!@#$%!]

dude you get too defensive and it becomes impossible to communicate. you continue guessing shit and guessing wrong. WRONG. just fucking drop it.

[Everyneurotic]

fine.

just for the record, i never got angry at any moment, i just felt bad that i was treating you like an individual and you tried to stick me with a label the whole time.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

fine.

just for the record, i never got angry at any moment, i just felt bad that i was treating you like an individual and you tried to stick me with a label the whole time.

you were not treating me like an individual. you were dialoguing with your own imagination and you continued to do that. it's true that we bring our own projections and assumptions to every exchange, but in this case you have been arguing with your echo. thanks for listening.

[Everyneurotic]

that's only because you were not willing to listen, man.

seriously, as someone who likes you and likes talking to you, it's really annoying to try to group people by how they act or what they say.

i don't even care about this discussion anymore.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

that's only because you were not willing to listen, man.

seriously, as someone who likes you and likes talking to you, it's really annoying to try to group people by how they act or what they say.

i don't even care about this discussion anymore.

 

[Everyneurotic]

thanks for keeping assuming things.

now i have to leave and go watch myself in the mirror.

[demonrail666]

Has nobody mentioned proportional representation yet? The idea that instead oif having a single vote you have, for example, three, and select three candidates in order of preference. This effectively eliminates a simple two-horse system but can also lead to the election of a party that everyone decided was second best.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Has nobody mentioned proportional representation yet? The idea that instead oif having a single vote you have, for example, three, and select three candidates in order of preference. This effectively eliminates a simple two-horse system but can also lead to the election of a party that everyone decided was second best.

that's a pretty good idea. i've also read theories that propose expanding the jury system to allow for citizen participation at all kinds of level of decision, rather than delegating total authority to elected officials.