NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/9chickweedlane;_ylt=Aj6zxWxgNnHNbFCyMaz.0WQDwLAF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/070128/cx_chickweed_umedia/20072801;_ylt=AnzIL_4T0JPka7x200PozfwL_b4F;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

lol

Beautiful.

"Long live the American Republic!"

American democracy, though.

Meh. Democracy is overrated.

Meh. Democracy is overrated.

True, but it's currently the best we have (that works to an extent).

True, but it's currently the best we have (that works to an extent).

Well, plenty of governments work to an extent. That doesn't make them the best.

Well, plenty of governments work to an extent. That doesn't make them the best.

I never said it did. I said that compared to other governments that work to an extent, democracy is thus far the best, despite its faults.

American "democracy", though.
You forgot the quotations around democracy. :p

I never said it did. I said that compared to other governments that work to an extent, democracy is thus far the best, despite its faults.

It depends on your preferences, but I'd say no. Taxation, regulation, employment in the public sector, spending and debt are much higher in the democratic states than they ever were in privately-owned states (i.e. kingdoms and the like.) Not saying that kingdoms are great, but one's a harder pill to swallow than the other.

It depends on your preferences, but I'd say no. Taxation, regulation, employment in the public sector, spending and debt are much higher in the democratic states than they ever were in privately-owned states (i.e. kingdoms and the like.) Not saying that kingdoms are great, but one's a harder pill to swallow than the other.

yeah, it's amazingly. people actually want things for themselves, rather than merely having it go to the elite, and so when given any ability to affect decision making at all that's what they push for. how dare they!?

It depends on your preferences, but I'd say no. Taxation, regulation, employment in the public sector, spending and debt are much higher in the democratic states than they ever were in privately-owned states (i.e. kingdoms and the like.)
Oh dear! Are you complaining that people vote for governments that tax them?

Not saying that kingdoms are great, but one's a harder pill to swallow than the other.
Nevertheless, we choose one pill over the other every four years.

It depends on your preferences, but I'd say no. Taxation, regulation, employment in the public sector, spending and debt are much higher in the democratic states than they ever were in privately-owned states (i.e. kingdoms and the like.) Not saying that kingdoms are great, but one's a harder pill to swallow than the other.
I wouldn't say that any legitimate conclusion can be gotten from that, or even that the opposite conclusion could be derived. The past, before capitalism or anything of that nature took place cannot be the best judge of the state. I would argue that the actual privately owned state though, is more modeled by Kim Jung Il or other anti-democratic states in the third world, and represents a far worse threat to liberty than a constitutional democracy.

I never said it did. I said that compared to other governments that work to an extent, democracy is thus far the best, despite its faults.
I disagree. A dictatorship in which I am in power would be better than a democracy.

Of course, if I'm not in power, democracy can stay. You know how it works.
You forgot the quotations around democracy. :p
Well, since they call it that, I might as well quote it verbatim.

American [sic] democracy [sic].

Imagine if G.W. got appointed for life...

...

Let that one sink in.

Imagine if G.W. got appointed for life...

...

Let that one sink in.

:eek:

*Runs off in fear*

Imagine if G.W. got appointed for life...

...

Let that one sink in.

So cold...

9 Chickweed Lane is a terrific strip.

Representative democracy is fine in theory, but in practice (much like Marx's communism), it's something else entirely.

K Street lobbyists, pork barrel legislation and bridges to nowhere. True, a better way hasn't yet been proposed, but it if IS propsed, does anyone seriously think that those who are currently living off the government teat (and I'm not talking public assitance or Medicare) will just stop suckling and allow that new, more honest, less corrupt and less money-centric proposal to happen?

Imagine if G.W. got appointed for life...

...

Let that one sink in.

Meh. Bush is just a politician. And a not very good one at that.

True, a better way hasn't yet been proposed

i know of a number of such proposals

but it if IS propsed, does anyone seriously think that those who are currently living off the government teat (and I'm not talking public assitance or Medicare) will just stop suckling and allow that new, more honest, less corrupt and less money-centric proposal to happen?

of course not. hence the necessity of revolution.

Meh. Bush is just a politician. And a not very good one at that.

Have there ever been good politicians?

It depends on your preferences, but I'd say no. Taxation, regulation, employment in the public sector, spending and debt are much higher in the democratic states than they ever were in privately-owned states (i.e. kingdoms and the like.).
Wha . . .? Taxation during the Middle Ages was far more brutal than in any modern democracy, and most of that wealth was then spent on ridiculous looking hats for the royalty to wear.
Democracy may be a miserable system of government, but it at least manages to prevent you from being taxed into starvation.

Oh dear! Are you complaining that people vote for governments that tax them?

Or tax others for them. I wouldn't mind if people were the only ones affected by their apalling choice in representatives, but unfortunately I have to have the same leaders as the "Democrats hate freedom!" or "RepubliKKKans hate women!" crowd.

Nevertheless, we choose one pill over the other every four years.

Or we have to swallow the pill that the numerically superior number chooses for us.

I wouldn't say that any legitimate conclusion can be gotten from that, or even that the opposite conclusion could be derived. The past, before capitalism or anything of that nature took place cannot be the best judge of the state. I would argue that the actual privately owned state though, is more modeled by Kim Jung Il or other anti-democratic states in the third world, and represents a far worse threat to liberty than a constitutional democracy.

I'm not referring to feudalism. I'm referring to the 19th century/pre-World War I era. Unless you mean to say that capitalism did not exist in this time, then what I say is applicable. This is especially visible in light of the fact that soon after the defeat of the non-democratic states in Europe, taxes increased to 20 to 30 percent And as to private states being necessarily aliberal, that is not true. While the American democracy changed sauerkraut to "liberty cabbage", and imprisoned and deported dissenters against WWI, Austria-Hungary did no such comparable thing. With this in mind, and with the democratic states so much bigger and more controlling of their countries than the kingdoms that preceded them, I say, rather, that democracy is the greater threat to liberty.

[QUOTE=H N Fiddlebottoms VIII;12269119]Wha . . .? Taxation during the Middle Ages was far more brutal than in any modern democracy, and most of that wealth was then spent on ridiculous looking hats for the royalty to wear.
Democracy may be a miserable system of government, but it at least manages to prevent you from being taxed into starvation.

Again, not the middle ages, 19th century and pre-WWI. I think both systems of government are terrible, but one is worse than the other. At least the wise feudal lord would try not to tax his people TOO hard, lest he lose the capital value of his territory and not be able to bequeath anything to his heir. But I can't say the same thing of Western democracies, what with the out of control spending, rising tide of debt and looming insolvency of various social programs that dearly threatens the economic value of the various countries.