its great to read the different opinions. it give me (and anyone reading) a better perspective of the issue.

what i try to mean with long term democracys (its not the correct term) , is a sort of mature party sistem thats well stablished. not necesarly a bipartidism, but at least several parties sharing power trought time.

(if you are interested in a party sistem thats not well established you can check the political history of my country :P , of course this is my opinion, im not an history expert).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...983-Present.29

ps: i dont know why they delete posts. we are all discussing in a respectful way. bad moderators , different pov enrich the topic, well managed controversy is a great way to undesrstand others opinions.

hope you understand sorry for the bad english- S!

One of the oldest democracy on the world is in Switzerland! IMO it is the best system on the world! Each citizen of Switzerland has the right to vote, to vote on laws. Every citizen can collect signatures to start an initiative or a referendum! There are two parlaments, the Nationalrat and the Staenderat both are voted directly from the crowd! The government will be voted from the two parlaments and is build of seven ministers. Every year they change the president. IMO the only democracy that realy works on this planet!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

Democracy: two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch

Liberty: A well armed lamb contesting the outcome of the vote


There' something in that to consider ;)

I have been reading Noam Chomsky for over 20 years .... in fact I have several of his books.. including this one.. very thought provoking.

I do not want to rant and rave.

But yes in answer to the topic question. The 80% of the masses is pretty accurate, and they will never accept "conspiracy theory" or anything that is contrary to the news or politics as they know it. Even though the truth is easy enough to find.

As Thomas Jefferson stated "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers."

On a related note ...

Apple is a cult and its users are brainwashed zombies.

In the event of a Zombie Apocalypse keep a close eye on Cupertino, Ca.


On a more on-topic point ...

With internet and social networking its now technically feasible to have a true democracy (rather than representational democracy) with citizens voting personally on everything. Would YOU bother spending several hours every day at a computer voting on policy questions ?

LOL, Arthur. That depends what you mean by agreement. Sociology is a difficult animal. On the political scale I come in about two degrees to the left of Genghis Khan, but in reality it makes little difference these days.

I know you a bit, and I believe that you and I are more of a like mind than either of us would rather admit. Our friendship notwithstanding.

The problem with self government is apathy. I think that most people don't give a crap about anything so long as they can do what they want. It's just reality. The friction comes in when people start giving a crap. The sad thing is that those who give a crap are often led astray by people who don't give a crap, but who pretend to give a crap in order to profit off those who actually give a crap (let's, for the sake of argument call these people, er.....say maybe, "politicians")

In the end the real lines should be drawn between the ones who don't give a crap and those who do. In the end it doesn't work out this way. The "politicians" get the people who give a crap arguing amongst themselves to the point where they forget what they were arguing about while the "politicians" reap the benefits and the whole rest of society pays the price.

In the end, I think that Chomsky was correct in that the majority is not fit to govern themselves. I disagree with the method of separating the wheat from the chaff. The difference comes in the philosophies of "education", and of "parenting", two institutions that have changed massively in the past decades.

I doubt that this answers any one's questions, let alone yours, Arthur, but it does give some indication about how I feel about the subject.

Edit: I can't believe I wrote "in the end" three times! In the end I'm just an idiot.

Oh God, I hope not! (see my other posts)

Don't really care too much for Chomsky, has too many skeletons in his own closet like adoration for Pol Pot and his wonderful utopia. And the idea of a superior 20% to manage seems a chronic plague, you see it everywhere, since Plato and beyond. Never works, always ends in implosion, there is no difference in humans, simply an excuse to rob and plunder. Besides it's a little bit too 'Reptilian' like in scope. ;) If you accept the thesis, your already a slave.

I'd rather listen to Alan Watt, he's my kind of dissident, maybe a little crazy, but definitely a thinker. You can find his stuff on utube.

But yeah, in the modern world of true believers in social darwinism, if your a thinker, you truly are on your own. Eventually with peak resources they will cull their competitors. You see it now, anyone whom they cannot directly control culturally is ruthlessly destroyed. Whether it's a primitive Amazonian tribe, or the Afghan hill people.

i would do it with entusiasm , im sure i can represent my interest way better than any "professional politician". and it would be a great way to learn new things.
at leasty here (im sure in any country is similar) most of the senate aproove projects without even reading it, only becouse the head of the party or block order that have to be voted, many of those laws are ridiculous (http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106291) , and the ones that must analyze them dont even read it..

im sure in the us its not so diferent. i dont think the trillions of the bailouts can be approved by a election, (well, with a all mighty media lobbyng for it it can be possible)