Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (209043)	10/28/2004 2:50:30 AM
From: AK2004	Respond to of 1574683

re: The MC was the basis for English common law and for our democracy. MC had nothing to do with democracy

To: tejek who wrote (209043)	10/28/2004 3:06:53 AM
From: Elroy	Respond to of 1574683

Its arrogant because you are suggesting that you know what's best for some other group of people with whom you have very little experience. Whether you think it arrogant or not, I believe the spread of the basic American values I listed (freedom of speech, representative government, freedom of religion, rule of law) is good for people, whether I have any experience with them or not. If you disagree, tell me which types of societies or cultures should not have or at least progress toward A)freedom of speech, B)rule of law, C) representative government, or other basic American values. In a nutshell, lack of representative government results in some form of slavery and inequality - there is no way around that. Its also arrogant because it assumes a great deal. The Declaration of Indepence, Bill of Rights et al were written over 300 years after the Magna Carta had been drafted. The MC was the basis for English common law and for our democracy. That means that for 300 years prior to our independence the English [and colonists] had been toying with with one form of democracy or another. Democracy is not easy. Its not like riding a bike........a couple of times with training wheels and then you are on your way. It takes a lot of work and commitment. I suspect the Iraqis are capable of working hard but I don't believe they have the commitment. And that's because they have very little experience with democracy. For all the wonders of the Islamic Empire and then the Ottoman Empire, democracy was not one of them. Its takes lots of learning time and experience to be democratic. Hence, expecting that the Iraqis will pick up on democracy like ducks to water is not only arrogant, its absurd. We will be doing well if Iraq has a working democracy, much like ours, by the 22nd century. The above is all interesting stuff, but I'm not discussing Iraq at this time, I'm discussing the general idea that the previously listed American values are good for the planet. The process of spreading the values can be debated, but their spread is good. And plenty of cultures (Japan, Korea, Indonesia, Germany, etc.) have had democracy forcibly imposed on them and done fine, so your argument against it in Iraq is specious. Just because it is challenging to spread democracy (the despots in charge don't like to give up their coveted, inequal, preferred position) doesn't imply it isn't worth the effort. It was tough to get slaveowners to give up their slaves (the North had to kill a huge percentage of them), but you surely don't think that therefore they should have just been left well enough alone do you? Your analogy is a weak one and there is no reason for me to answer it. Its not an analogy, and is neither strong nor weak. I'm not discussing Iraq specifically; rather, I'm discussing the responsibility of a powerful entity to intercede when it sees a weak entity abusing an even weaker entity. In order to help me understand your views on when it is appropriate to interfere in a separate family's or country's or culture's activities, just let me know what you would do. You have three strong sons, and your 98lb neighbor abuses his 60lb wife EVERY night. There are no police or outside regulators. What do you do about it - something, or nothing?

To: tejek who wrote (209043)	10/28/2004 5:35:04 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 1574683

Re: Re: Democracy is not easy. Its not like riding a bike........a couple of times with training wheels and then you are on your way. It takes a lot of work and commitment. Indeed! Just ask the Swiss: 1971: Swiss women get the vote Swiss women can now vote in federal elections and stand for parliament after a national referendum. The official result shows 621,403 of the all-male electorate supported the vote for women and 323,596 were against. All of the Swiss political parties, both houses of parliament, and many church and business leaders supported the vote for women. The Swiss media has also welcomed the result. Tribune de Geneve said the referendum ended a status quo that had become "unjust, untenable and abused". The poll was almost a complete reversal of a 1959 referendum, when women were refused the federal vote by a 2-1 majority. news.bbc.co.uk Now compare that with Malaysia, a Muslim country: Female suffrage: 1957 [47th of 166] Definition: Year in which women received the right to vote. Data refer to the year in which right to vote or stand for election on a universal and equal basis was recognized. Where two years are shown, the first refers to the first partial recognition of the right to vote. First female parliamentarian: 1959 (elected) [94th of 159] Definition: Year first woman elected or appointed to parliament. nationmaster.com So tell me, how come you, Holy Crusaders for Democracy, didn't invade and napalm Switzerland, back in the 1960s, instead of Vietnam?? You ought to have bombed the Swiss into enfranchising women, ought you not? You Yanks keep blathering about Democracy while all your Mideast policy boils down to enforcing a Judeocracy, that is, the Israeli Judeocracy... Your notion of democracy is increasingly tainted by racial prejudice --hence the growing mess you yanks are creating for yourselves the world over... Don't expect the rest of the world to agree with your "racialized" version of democracy. Democracy, that is, a global democracy, can't be a sort of worldwide caucus wherein one country or one race --however "chosen" or "indispensable" it fancies itself-- enjoys a "golden share"() status... got what I mean? Gus () Glossary: Golden Share Updated Nov 2002 A share which has voting rights capable of exercising a veto over specified or significant changes to the constitution or articles of association of a company. The term came into common usage through the 1980s to refer to the government's continuing interest in companies which it had privatized. The golden share supposedly protects a privatized company from being taken over. But some people say it was designed to protect the management from the real competitive world! moneyworld.co.uk