What is the most effective way a ruling a country/people? Is it throught fear and intimidation like something along the lines of Big Brother? Or is it to make everyone feel they make a difference/ democracy? No BS, serious school question.

Eleminate all other candidates like hitler did

StrangeDays

Dictatorship and/or opression migh the the best way to rule a country, for the leading elite. If they don�t get toppled, bankrupt and even killed before they can enjoy it.

Best way to rule a country for the leaders and the people, as well as for the neighbour countries and their people: Democracy.

In the history of democracy as we know it, there hasn�t been one single war between two democracies. Neither has there been an unprovoked (note that) attack by a democracy on any country since the 19th century, and even then they were few.

This in itself is reason to call democracy the best system (yet).

But it also gives real freedom, real responsibility and real influence to the people.

I noted that you, perhaps unwittingly, wrote "Or is it to make everyone FEEL (my emphasis) they make a difference/democracy?" Democracy, is not to make people FEEL they have influence, while not giving it to them. Democracy IS that everyone HAS influence. That might not always work perfectly in the democracies we have now, but it works fair enough, and it can get better.Modern democracy has, after all, only been around for a little more than 200 years.

It�s hardly a coincidence that the most prosperous and fastest progressing countries of the world are, with very few exceptions, democracies. Democracy paired with capitalism, or democratic socialism, results in progress of every kind (and too much of some kinds, perhaps).

Both capitalist democracies and socialist democracies (I�m still talking about real democracies) have proven that they can take care of their people. Far from perfect, but better than any system has managed before - or now.

As the last two paragraphs points out, democracy can use political ideas, that usually have required opression to work. The mix of political ideas, balanced by public influence, rules out the risk that ideology takes over from reality. For example: Too much socialism equals communism, equals closed country and opression, equals regression and a suffering people. A look at North Korea is enough; the country is literally dying.

Most of this also applies to many non-democratic countries in the third world. A main reason for the peoples� suffering is opressive leadership. Another is the fact that opressors very often go to war, against each other...

FoxLeonard



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-13-2002).]

Point Taken, thanks for you input. I see now even more proof that socialism and communism don't help anyone except those at the top. Democracy is the only way to go.

quote:

---

Originally posted by FoxLeonard:
In the history of democracy as we know it, there hasn�t been one single war between two democracies. Neither has there been an unprovoked (note that) attack by a democracy on any country since the 19th century, and even then they were few.

---

That is great. I guess I knew that, but not in those particular terms. Thanks again.

Nox

From sitting here in a suppossed democratic country, i don't realy see the benefits. and my democratic, i mean represented democracy.

Either Egyptian-style Theocracy, a Roman sort of Republic, or a Monarchic version of either.

Nox & StrangeDays!

Here is the source:
www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

StrangeDays, you can find a lot to add to your school paper (?) if you read some of Rudolf J Rummel�s writings on democracy vs other systems.

You might also want to read my post again, as I have added what I realized I forgot the first time...

FoxLeonard

what works best or what WOULD be best?

Ask the jews! Look for "The Protocols of Zion" on a search engine, there are about 24 'protocols', each a few pages long or shorter. It goes into great detail and has certainly proven its effectiveness.

Here!: http://www.totse.com/en/conspiracy/institutional_analysis/zion.html

[This message has been edited by SATURNROCKETX (edited 11-14-2002).]

The protocols of the elders of zion is a complete piece of crap. It was invented by the Russian Czar to create a scapegoat for his awful rule.

"Neither has there been an unprovoked (note that) attack by a democracy on any country since the 19th century, and even then they were few."

Depends how you define 'unprovoked' doesn't it?

If a provocation includes 'having something we want' or 'being communist'. Then you're probably right.

The people who have power in a Democracy are the same who would be in power in a feudalist state, or a communist one. What the fuck are you talking about Fox?

quote:

---

Originally posted by doctor drunk:

Depends how you define 'unprovoked' doesn't it?

If a provocation includes 'having something we want' or 'being communist'. Then you're probably right.

---

Statistics are, by definition, black and white, while reality fades towards grey.

As you say, it comes to definition, and also to limitation.

What I say in my first post is limited to direct warfare between states, and direct warring attacks by one state on another. The purpose is to show that democracies are, by far, less prone on warfare than non-democracies. Democracy therefore preserves human life. This is an important and valid point in itself.

In other words, the purpose was NOT to try to say that democracies are flawless or faultless in their interactions with other states (or in any other way, for that matter).

If we include other actions than direct warfare, as you suggest. The numbers will change on both sides. The statistical balande will be, more or less, the same. The advantage for democracies will remain.

If we, by change of criteria, find a few unprovoked, direct warring attacks by democracies, it will not make a significant change in the balance. Once again: The advantage for democracies will remain.

"Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." (Lord Acton)

"Power kills; absolute power kills absolutely." (Rudolf J. Rummel)

FoxLeonard



[This message has been edited by FoxLeonard (edited 11-14-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
The people who have power in a Democracy are the same who would be in power in a feudalist state, or a communist one. What the fuck are you talking about Fox?

---

Spirit

I�m not so sure that I understand what (the fuck) you refer to in my post.

FoxLeonard

Fox,

I went to the site. Interesting to say the least. Thanks for the link.

Nox

You�re welcome!

To paraphrase your earlier post:

We actually know it, but we need to be reminded about it...

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by preying mantis:
From sitting here in a suppossed democratic country, i don't realy see the benefits.

---

It isn't too hard to imagine life in huts with dirt floors, food shortages, no work (or bullshit work at no pay), poor education, civil unrest, national vulnerability, restrictive speech/useless and boring media, shitty healthcare, poor national and social morale, a scientific community that is relegated to rediscovering the wheel just to muster some national pride (but reeks, just the same, of a stockyard on a hot afternoon.), etc.
___

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
The people who have power in a Democracy are the same who would be in power in a feudalist state, or a communist one.

---

Similar but not the same. Only the democracy requires that it's leaders appease their constituents, the others merely have to kiss the ass that's on the rung above them.

The others don't have to go through the campaign process either. In our system; the leaders are bribed up front, and then they end up spending most of it on the campaign. the others; pay a bribe first, then get paid after they're appointed.

Attaining leadership in a fuedal system often requires battle skills, and a Congressman or a commie probably has none.

Ambition is the only common denominator that i can think of.

a negative utopia

I forgot to reply to the topic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by StrangeDays:
What is the most effective way a ruling a country/people?

---

Ruling implies control, so the systems with a military that is dedicated to those ruler(s), would be best. However, if you want the society that you created to last beyond your grave, then you would lead instead of rule. And, the best way to lead, is by example.

No one conglomerate of businessmen, politicians, religious leaders or masonic manipulators control Control. They do however administer its needs.

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by NukeChild:
The protocols of the elders of zion is a complete piece of crap. It was invented by the Russian Czar to create a scapegoat for his awful rule.

---

Nope.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SATURNROCKETX:
Nope.

---

Yep!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by SATURNROCKETX:

---

Since August 2002, in summary...

A public service clarification by the Hyperborean Illuminati.

Sorry for the interuption, the topic continues below.

In my opinion, a successful government that controls the people effectively but also gives the citizens of the country a high level of freedom would have to be a democracy with a great deal of checks and balances. You have somebody watching everybody. Then you get a phonebook at pick out people at random to look over the guy who is watching the first guy. This will get rid of corruption, which will make a better government for the people.