Democracy, in short (I guess), a nation rules itself. Is it true? I don’t think so for so many reasons, here are some: - 1. It opposes itself; the winner (president) doesn’t represent every body. He does for only those who voted for him. What if he won something like 55%, it means 45% of the people don’t want him. 2. What if there is a majority of a certain type of people (according to their root or to their religion or whatever), it means they would be the real leaders, they will have always the better chance of poisoning whoever they want, one of them probably which seems not fair to me. 3. In a similar way, even with its present positive ideas, democracy is not a right choice everywhere, in so many parts in this world race plays badly in this issue. The chosen president would be so due to his color, religion, from which tribe he is? (like in some places in the East) ….est. 4. Is every body gets the right to vote (No, like some places in this world), mostly they are prevented not because they are not qualified, is this is fair? 5. Opposing (4) it is also not logic to let the uneducated, un-trustable (like criminals) to have the right to be involved in deciding the future policy of the nation. 6. Is the candidate’s policy represents his own believes, morals and principles or just he will let it be in the way satisfies those who voted for him in order to gain their votes once again. This opposes the nature of positions. Why this is a lawyer? and why that is a policeman? and that’s a baker? Everyone is good at something. Imagine if the baker is doing the job of the lawyer. To me, this is the same when everybody gets involved in the government’s policy. Don’t think even for a second that I mean the president (or the government in general) should be out of probation, what I say it shouldn’t be by everybody. a ship with more than on captain will sink. I have my way of thinking and I like some ways of ruling were taken by some nations in the past.
Of course its not perfect. But please remember, in a dictatorship or true monarchy, one guy gets to play god with zero controls on him and there are good odds that he will fall into bloodthirsty megalomania. In a theocracy, a handful of clerics bred for fanaticism do the same with only the beliefs of the other top zealots as controls. In an aristocracy, peasants have ZERO control over their own fate and are animals to the nobility. An internally elected republic, one with senators elected only by other senators, would result in the government not giving a damn about the common people, and the senators would do nothing but vote for their own pay increases and crush dissent. Yeah, democracy is wriddled with problems and so are people, but every other course is worse.
If you go through the Indian, Persian and especially Arabian history you will find that at some periods there were wonderful ways of ruling, for example in Oman which is an Arabic country they used to have a committee that they used to call “ the employing and relegation” . It was made of the finest scientist of all kind of science. The only job they were allowed to do is to employ some one as a president or relegate him from this position. It was quite complex. It was designed in which those scientists are with no extra power. Also the president can’t harm them in any way. Only the court can accuse them, where the court was completely independent from the government.
You're equating the president with rule of America. In fact, the President's powers are limited. Congress has more to do with rule of law. Congress is made up of multiple parties. Far more representative. But of course, they all cater to the special interests. Democracy is fucked in many ways, but it's better than totalitarianism.
Democracy is fucked in many ways, but it's better than totalitarianism. I'd say it all realtive, better in what way?
Meaning that if the current administration is doing things that we don't agree with, we have the option of not voting for them. A dictator does what he will and damn the masses. It is relative, there could be a benificient despotism. Where the dictator is a cool guy that has the best interests of the people and the nation at heart. A rule like this could get things done quickly and efficiently. Unfortunately, it doesn't happen much. And when it does, chances are pretty good that his successors will be different.
Things would be better better solutions might be found as soon as we start believe that what today is called democracy is not that good thing. if anyone today tries to oppose democracy will be accused badly. Humanity can find itself a better life. The problem some like it the way it is now although they know it is wrong. In the past as I said previously people could find a better way although their knowledge their.... were so limited. can’t we do it today?
I would suggest that you separate the powers as much as possible. There should be one group to write laws and one group to vote on weather to pass them or not. There should be one branch to decide which cases should be heard and which ones should not be heard. They should send the cases to the group which decides the cases that are selected. I also believe that people should be able to decide what percentage of their tax goes to each program. They should not be able to decide not to be taxed but they should be able to say where their money should go. There should be recommended percentages and defaults but I think that that would definitely remove a lot of my complaints about government extortion/taxes.
