What's so great about democracy and human rights?

[dust1n]

That's why we have to educate the little snowflakes to make sure they make the decisions we deem to be well and good. We know what is best, so it is almost an obligation for us to indoctrinate our little munchkins to ideals they cannot possibly conform to... or something...

If not, the kids might not learn how to mask their jadedness and apathy with a veneer of talking points appropriately. Then what will the neighbors think?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If democracy can be ill-affected by capitalism, then democracy doesn't work.

By that standard nothing works because everything can be ill-affected by certain things.

 

[Laika]

I was under the impression I only had one Representative in Congress.

I had to look this up but I remembered it from when I studied US politics at Sixth Form. We had a good teacher and We started the class by reading the US constitution. There are two represenatives for each state in the US Senate. The number of representatives you would have in the House of Represenatives will depend on which state your in, as it's relative to population size, but all states are entitled to at least one.Those that have more than one Represenative are divided down into single-member districts based on the Census. So, in very general terms, you are constitutionally gaurenteed a three people who represent you in Congress.

In the UK, you would be right as it is based on first past the post with a single elected Chamber (the House of Commons). [The Brits still haven't got round to reforming the House of Lords to actually be elected yet; since Blair most of them are life-time appointed peers along party lines]. So roughly 92,000 people (or 68,000 voters) are represented by a Single Member of Parliament.

 

[dust1n]

I had to look this up but I remembered it from when I studied US politics at Sixth Form. We had a good teacher and We started the class by reading the US constitution. There are two represenatives for each state in the US Senate. The number of representatives you would have in the House of Represenatives will depend on which state your in, as it's relative to population size, but all states are entitled to at least one.Those that have more than one Represenative are divided down into single-member districts based on the Census. So, in very general terms, you are constitutionally gaurenteed a three people who represent you in Congress.

Yeah, but Senators aren't Representatives, and certainly, I only vote for the Representative of my district; well if I voted, I would.

 

[dust1n]

By that standard nothing works because everything can be ill-affected by certain things.

It's unfortunate to have inform people that humanity itself is ill-affected by nature, so it doesn't work, so down with humanity and all.

 

[BSM1]

I was under the impression I only had one Representative in Congress.

I know, I know, Senators and Representatives but I was trying to be general. Seeing how you are the only one to call me on this may have made my case.

 

[Laika]

Yeah, but Senators aren't Representatives, and certainly, I only vote for the Representative of my district; well if I voted, I would.

They still offically represent you even if you didn't vote for them.


I think it is necessary to point out that most dictatorships, except those who are based on military rule or monarchies, have elections and cliam to derive their power from the people. It is something which goes back to when Napoleon (the first one) who had a referndum in 1800 over whether he could become First Consul and (I think) there was a referendum on whether he could be declared Emporer in 1803. His Newphew, Napoleon the Third ruled France and used a plebicite/referendum to consolodate his cliam to power in 1851.

Hitler was given power as the result of a democratic election with 43.9% of the Vote and appointed Chancellor in 1933 and continued to have elections under Nazi rule in November 1933, 1936 and 1938. The Bolsheviks were also involved in elections to the Tsarist Duma in January 1907, October 1907, 1912, and also participated in the elections for the national assembly in 1917 coming second with 23.5% of the Vote. When the Bolsheviks re-named themselves the Communists, they continued to have elections and elections were a feature of pretty much all communist governments, including the remaining ones like China, Cuba, Vietnam and even last year in North Korea. The idea that dictatorship and democracies are mutually exclusive is a false one, since all of the above had elections as a way to substanciate the cliam that power derived from the people, even when there was only one party involved in the elections.

I think it's less about a question about whether people want a democracy or a dictatorship and how we can be so sure that we indeed have the 'right' kind of democracy. Can we be sure that an election with only one party can be considered un-democratic and that the greatest dictators in history were not enacting the will of the people?

 

[dust1n]

They still offically represent you even if you didn't vote for them.

Yeah, but he said Representative, denoting the specific title of a member of the House of Representative, in which one case only one oversees my particular district. Consul, may we take a five minute recess?

I think it is necessary to point out that most dictatorships, except those who are based on military rule or monarchies, have elections and cliam to derive their power from the people. It is something which goes back to when Napoleon (the first one) who had a referndum in 1800 over whether he could become First Consul and (I think) there was a referendum on whether he could be declared Emporer in 1803. His Newphew, Napoleon the Third ruled France and used a plebicite/referendum to consolodate his cliam to power in 1851.

Hitler was given power as the result of a democratic election with 43.9% of the Vote and appointed Chancellor in 1933 and continued to have elections under Nazi rule in November 1933, 1936 and 1938. The Bolsheviks were also involved in elections to the Tsarist Duma in January 1907, October 1907, 1912, and also participated in the elections for the national assembly in 1917 coming second with 23.5% of the Vote. When the Bolsheviks re-named themselves the Communists, they continued to have elections and elections were a feature of pretty much all communist governments, including the remaining ones like China, Cuba, Vietnam and even last year in North Korea. The idea that dictatorship and democracies are mutually exclusive is a false one, since all of the above had elections as a way to substanciate the cliam that power derived from the people, even when there was only one party involved in the elections.

I think it's less about a question about whether people want a democracy or a dictatorship and how we can be so sure that we indeed have the 'right' kind of democracy. Can we be sure that an election with only one party can be considered un-democratic and that the greatest dictators in history were not enacting the will of the people?

That's a good point. Democratic elections are most illusory, at least in terms of describe how things actually play in the political world. They can sometimes have unexpected positive consequences.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've skim read this, but read the OP. I'd offer the following brief points;

1) I'm personally more interested in human rights than democracy. Democracy, to me, appears a means to an end, and shouldn't be considered the end in and of itself. If alternative systems appeared to better offer outcomes than democracy, I would readily switch.

2) Democracy ain't all equal. As was pointed out, in Australia voting is mandatory. We also have a nominal head of state who represents the monarchy. don't offer these as good or bad points, merely that any talk about 'democracy' is by default going to be generic in nature.

3) I tend to think an evolutionary model rather than a revolutionary one represents our best chance of successful change. Learn from the past and seek constant improvement, rather than wipe the slate. I have many reasons for this belief.

4) Education and engagement have been mentioned as important and I would agree. Consider though...an educated and engaged populace gives options for replacing democracy. However, it also, by it's very nature, IMPROVES an existing democracy. To some extent, we get the democracy we deserve.

 

[YmirGF]

I've skim read this, but read the OP. I'd offer the following brief points;

1) I'm personally more interested in human rights than democracy. Democracy, to me, appears a means to an end, and shouldn't be considered the end in and of itself. If alternative systems appeared to better offer outcomes than democracy, I would readily switch.

2) Democracy ain't all equal. As was pointed out, in Australia voting is mandatory. We also have a nominal head of state who represents the monarchy. don't offer these as good or bad points, merely that any talk about 'democracy' is by default going to be generic in nature.

3) I tend to think an evolutionary model rather than a revolutionary one represents our best chance of successful change. Learn from the past and seek constant improvement, rather than wipe the slate. I have many reasons for this belief.

4) Education and engagement have been mentioned as important and I would agree. Consider though...an educated and engaged populace gives options for replacing democracy. However, it also, by it's very nature, IMPROVES an existing democracy. To some extent, we get the democracy we deserve.

*gives standing ovation*
*Begins with hoots and whistles*

I especially like point 4. Just because a baby is sick doesn't mean you toss it in the trash.

 

[YmirGF]

The idea that dictatorship and democracies are mutually exclusive is a false one, since all of the above had elections as a way to substanciate the cliam that power derived from the people, even when there was only one party involved in the elections.

I think it's less about a question about whether people want a democracy or a dictatorship and how we can be so sure that we indeed have the 'right' kind of democracy. Can we be sure that an election with only one party can be considered un-democratic and that the greatest dictators in history were not enacting the will of the people?

I'm trying, desperately, to understand how a human animal could trot out a statement like this as if it was actually a substantive statement. The absurdity of suggesting that one party elections represent the will of the people is a troubling notion. Perhaps you were not being serious and this is a joke. One would assume that if a dictator was indeed doing the will of the people, they would allow open opposition to their thinking. If I, benevolently, give you a choice between A and A, there is no choice to be made, as the choice is already made for you.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Democracy doesn't necessarily amount to human rights. It can lead to tyranny of the majority, which is antipathic to freedom and human rights by definition.

 

[Laika]

I'm trying, desperately, to understand how a human animal could trot out a statement like this as if it was actually a substantive statement. The absurdity of suggesting that one party elections represent the will of the people is a troubling notion. Perhaps you were not being serious and this is a joke. One would assume that if a dictator was indeed doing the will of the people, they would allow open opposition to their thinking. If I, benevolently, give you a choice between A and A, there is no choice to be made, as the choice is already made for you.

I'm being quasi-serious as this is the line I've seen come up in Communist literature and I've spend long enough reading about them to know that even if that what made them dangerous was the absolute sincerity of their beliefs.Even when I think they're crazy, they often have a point. The question is really how we establish what the people want from a government and in the case of dictatorships, ussually it is a question that an shared ideology and set of goals takes predence over individual choice. As bizzare at it sounds, Communists believed in a "Socialist Democracy", but the small print is that the 'socialism' came before the 'democracy' and therefore only the party which represented the goals of building socialism as the lower stage of communism could therefore be chosen in an election. i.e. The Communist Party. this was how they justified one party rule; that the "historic mission of the working class" took precedence over the outcome of the election so there was only one candidate in the elections- the Communist one. I'm not sure how the Nazi's justified it, but I imagine it would be a question of racial/national interests taking precedence over individual ones.

Democracy and Dictatorships are not mutually exclusive, because as Debate Slayer pointed out Democracy (without minority rights) is a tryanny by majority and is as dictatorial (perhaps worse) than a single individual with a state apparatus. Is there not a contradiction between individual liberty and submitting to the will of a majority simply because we are part of a group? it's an issue which comes up with libertarians and anarchists and has made some ground in anti-political attitudes in which we reject the status quo in favour of our own beliefs. Individualism can be corrosive to democracy and democracy can overwhelm individualism. I n a liberal system human rights take precedence over democracy; in a communist one democracy takes precedence over human rights.The US government supported nearly any form of dictatorship that was anti-communist because it protected private property which (so it is argued) all other individual rights were derived. human rights violations defend the concept of human rights from instances where 'democracies' were making the "wrong" choice.

If you give me a choice between A and A and I accept that A is inevitable or necessary irrespective of my own interests- it is always the "right" choice. Our conception of Democracy relies on assuming people have free will, whereas the communists had a democratic system which assumed people were deterministic; only the communists were the right choice because they represented a 'law of history'which (they believed) inevitably co-incided roughly with the 'will of the people'. Democracy was a means rather than an ends in itself. The Liberal-individualistic conception of democracy is not the only one.

Does having a choice between parties in an election necessarily make it democratic? Is a democratic system one in which people chose their own ends, or are there certain ends that take precedence over individual interests?

 

[YmirGF]

I'm being quasi-serious as this is the line I've seen come up in Communist literature and I've spend long enough reading about them to know that even if that what made them dangerous was the absolute sincerity of their beliefs.Even when I think they're crazy, they often have a point. The question is really how we establish what the people want from a government and in the case of dictatorships, ussually it is a question that an shared ideology and set of goals takes predence over individual choice. As bizzare at it sounds, Communists believed in a "Socialist Democracy", but the small print is that the 'socialism' came before the 'democracy' and therefore only the party which represented the goals of building socialism as the lower stage of communism could therefore be chosen in an election. i.e. The Communist Party. this was how they justified one party rule; that the "historic mission of the working class" took precedence over the outcome of the election so there was only one candidate in the elections- the Communist one. I'm not sure how the Nazi's justified it, but I imagine it would be a question of racial/national interests taking precedence over individual ones.

Democracy and Dictatorships are not mutually exclusive, because as Debate Slayer pointed out Democracy (without minority rights) is a tryanny by majority and is as dictatorial (perhaps worse) than a single individual with a state apparatus. Is there not a contradiction between individual liberty and submitting to the will of a majority simply because we are part of a group? it's an issue which comes up with libertarians and anarchists and has made some ground in anti-political attitudes in which we reject the status quo in favour of our own beliefs. Individualism can be corrosive to democracy and democracy can overwhelm individualism. I n a liberal system human rights take precedence over democracy; in a communist one democracy takes precedence over human rights.The US government supported nearly any form of dictatorship that was anti-communist because it protected private property which (so it is argued) all other individual rights were derived. human rights violations defend the concept of human rights from instances where 'democracies' were making the "wrong" choice.

If you give me a choice between A and A and I accept that A is inevitable or necessary irrespective of my own interests- it is always the "right" choice. Our conception of Democracy relies on assuming people have free will, whereas the communists had a democratic system which assumed people were deterministic; only the communists were the right choice because they represented a 'law of history'which (they believed) inevitably co-incided roughly with the 'will of the people'. Democracy was a means rather than an ends in itself. The Liberal-individualistic conception of democracy is not the only one.

Does having a choice between parties in an election necessarily make it democratic? Is a democratic system one in which people chose their own ends, or are there certain ends that take precedence over individual interests?

I can almost hear the theme song from the old TV show, "The Twilight Zone", reading your response. In regards to being given the A choice alone, it is bizarre to even call it a choice. There is no alternative regardless if you agree with it or not and therefore it is stretching credulity to refer to it as a choice. It like asking you to pick an item off the menu in a restaurant and the only item available is a pork chop. "Um, I'll have the pork chop, I suppose." What is weird is that, for the most part, Communist dictatorships seized power. True they had their supporters, but after installation there was precious little people could do to get rid of them. Their overlords knew best and wisely eliminated any and all opposition, ensuring their survival long after the people had lost interest in their revolutionary thinking and the horrid results of Communist economic theory.

 

[Laika]

I can almost hear the theme song from the old TV show, "The Twilight Zone", reading your response.

lol.

Orwell was right to characterise as "doublethink". it is like that honestly.

"Of course this dictatorship is democratic; The people want to be oppressed!"

In regards to being given the A choice alone, it is bizarre to even call it a choice. There is no alternative regardless if you agree with it or not and therefore it is stretching credulity to refer to it as a choice. It like asking you to pick an item off the menu in a restaurant and the only item available is a pork chop. "Um, I'll have the pork chop, I suppose."

Communists were materialists and so measured freedom in a very different way to liberals who attribute freedom to choice, consciousness and free will. Freedom for a liberal is the ability to chose what's on the menu even if they can't afford it; Freedom for a Communist is the ability to have a full stomach and not be denied our needs based on not having the money to buy the pork chop, in the hope that they would then be able to pursue science, art and culture and that they would not be the privallage of a few. Ibut i it's crudest form, power is freedom.

What is weird is that, for the most part, Communist dictatorships seized power. True they had their supporters, but after installation there was precious little people could do to get rid of them. Their overlords knew best and wisely eliminated any and all opposition, ensuring their survival long after the people had lost interest in their revolutionary thinking and the horrid results of Communist economic theory.

This is the 'thing' that still gets at me. for all the passion, fear and hatred that is poured out against communism as unnatural it was something that people sincerely believed in. In the wake of world war I, it was quite credible to think Europe and even America were about to go Socialist/Communist through a revolution as the war had so utterly screwed things up. people wanted more than was being offered and were prepared to put the effort in to get it. There was a utopianism in the air and all things seemed possible. If you accept that it was sincere, and that it wasn't a lie propagated by a power-hunry few or a form of self-deception it necessarily questions whether liberalism is automatically man's natural social state. liberalism is not the only form of free society, but the definition of freedom is completely different and admittedly problematic.

 

[leibowde84]

Democracy is a con. It's a word used to placate you into accepting a given system - this system. It also doesn't work.

It does't work because most people, in general, are not educated enough to arrived at informed decisions on who to vote for. They're not educated enough to read through policy, decipher the language, and make a rational decision on which policies are best for them.

The people that are educated enough to read policies and decide what's best for them are the same people who we decry as manipulating the system, as being the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes. These people run the multinationals, the military, and so on.

Yet, generally, people tend to make an emotional decision on who to vote for or they vote with their position of differential advantage. If you're rich, you want to protect that wealth so you vote conservative. If you're working class, you want to protect your job and family so you vote for whichever party seems to promise the security of these things. Then you get upset when they break their promise.

The truth is, however, a party policy always carries out what it intends to do. A politician may have reneged on his word, but he has not reneged on his party policy, which never reflected the promise he made anyway. It's just that people, generally, don't or can't read the policy.

Democracy in our day and age is, simply, a system whereby five hillbillies know better than two scientists.

Doesn't this prove the OP's point though? These issues with education and ignorance seem to be a problem with implementation of democracy, not democracy itself.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Today, someone said to me that human rights are a "Western" concept that is not applicable or effective everywhere in the world, and that democracy is not always the best system.

So I thought I would provide some information about these topics, and if anyone wants to argue against them, they can go ahead.

IMO, the pursuit of democracy and human rights is paramount to human progress, everywhere. If you don't like the way a country or group of countries are working towards these ideals, its not because the ideals are flawed or unattainable. It's because they haven't been implemented optimally. So, try contributing to improvement instead of trying to take the world in an authoritarian direction.

Please read this short description of the characteristics of a democratic society before posting:
Characteristics of a democratic society | AustralianCollaboration

"Human rights" can be defined as those rights outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948):
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I'd agree democratic systems are preferable, though they are not perfect and I personally prefer some sort of constitutional monarchy that is restrained by democratic process, as we have in the UK. It makes a big difference when the elected person is not the head of state, but serves the state. This was most notable when we invaded Iraq, there was thought by some in America that it was "unpatriotic" to go against the embodiment of the state, the President. In the UK, it was open season for the Prime Minister, who technically serves the Queen and is accountable every week in Parliament.

On the issue of human rights, I'm going to say they're not that effective. Honestly. "Human rights" are such an abstract concept, governments differ in how they implement them. Courts especially will use all sorts of strange appeals to "human rights" and interpret them in different ways to satisfy their worldview. To me they're just a bunch of idealistic notions that have no real practicality.

We had a better system in the past. In the United Kingdom, after the Glorious Revolution in 1689, the Parliament created the Bill of Rights (the British one).

It did not list a bunch of abstract notions open to interpretation. Instead, it provided specific and defined limitations on the government that could not be interpreted away in a court. Ultimately the document was made up of things the government can't do, rather than abstract rights that a person has, and listed specific things like petitioning the King, electing members of Parliament, freedom of speech in Parliament etc. This goes even earlier back to the Magna Carta, when limitations were placed on the King for the first time.

The same goes for the American Bill of Rights. This too (inspired much by the British one), declared limitations on government, rather than an abstract set of ideals. Real, practical limitations which could not be argued away in a court somewhere.

Conversely, the sorts of declarations of abstract ideals that makes up modern documents don't do much in the way of restricting governments. Hitler governed quite legally under the 1919 Weimar constitution, which was one of the most liberal in the world at the time, because of the way in which these types of statements can be interpreted to mean whatever one wants.

The best way to implement rights is through the rule of law, specifically laws which directly bind and limit the state. Treating these abstract notions almost as if they're the Ten Commandments is idealistic and effectively open to interpretation and practically useless. Labelling them "human rights" does not make them special, or somehow sacred and beyond criticism. They are open to abuse due to the way in which they are written, and courts can interpret them in all sorts of actually liberty-restricting ways. (For example: PETER HITCHENS: Wherever there¿s trouble, you¿ll find Human Rights | Daily Mail Online )

 

[Tumah]

• Freedom of the press makes possible the exposure of corruption.
This doesn't really exist anymore. Most sources of news are sponsored, and they'd never speak out against their own sponsors for fear of losing money even if they were aware of a corruption. This is not freedom. Also, most news is owned by about the same 10 people who all have pretty similar values.

•It gives them freedom to make choices about their lives
This also rarely happens. Nobody is independent. We all have something that keeps us in a set pattern of behaviour conducive to the State: a job, a mortgage, children, etc. People, also, are not educated enough to arrive at intelligent decisions for themselves. This is why anarchy, as a system, would never work.

•to develop their potential as human beings and to live free from fear, harassment and discrimination
Doesn't happen. If you can't afford education, you don't have the freedom to develop your potential.
Also everyone lives in fear of something, due to high dependancy. People are discriminated against and harassed.

•It gives them protection under the law and the right to elect legislators of their choice and to remove them if they do not perform to their satisfaction.
See my other post.

•Public officers such as Auditors General and Ombudsmen,
All bought out years ago. They pass most incidents off as 'business decisions' now.

•Such a democracy gives its members many opportunities to participate in public life.
Well you didn't get to vote on the last freeway expansion, or the demolition of this or that building, or the design of another building, or whether this or that traffic system should be put there, etc. Where's the participation?

Also, I find this ironic. The article is about Australian democracy. A country that take punitive action if you if you don't vote... So that isn't democracy. It is, again, just a word being used to placate you into accepting that system.

I think there are some inherent flaws in the concept of human rights. Consider what we mean by "human".

Article 1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The biological condition of being human is NOT the basis of "human" rights; rather it is the recognition of moral-legal personhood. Humanity is defined by the condition of being "endowed with reason and conscience". Therefore rights are a qualification dependent on a person's moral faculties. If you can argue that someone is not 'human' as they have diminished faculties or moral responsibility they are not entitled to 'human rights' because they are not recognised as 'persons' capable of exercising them. The reason this is important is because if you came to ascribe someone as morally inferior, as behaving like "animals" or "savages", it is a short step to saying they aren't "human" and are not members of the community and therefore do not enjoy those rights.

• In the Abortion debate, you can see that whilst the condition of a fetus being 'human' would necessarily ential a 'right to life', the fact that a fetus has diminished mental faculties means they cannot be recognised as legal persons.

• Doctors struggle to deal with the 'rights' of coma patients, who whilst having the status of being humans cannot exercise their moral faculties because they are unconscious and therefore do not qualify as 'persons' to exercise their rights.

• Children are widely accepted as having diminished moral capacity to make judgement and there rights are not recognised, and are instead the responsibility of a parent or guardian.

• Mental Patients have diminished faculties whilst being 'human' and are deprived of their 'human' rights and are instead under the protection of psychartrists.

• The Rights of Prisoners are often compromised, such as whether they have a right to vote, or in the case of the death penalty, a 'right to life', because they have violated the standards of 'humanity' and that calls into question whether the breach of the law means they are inherently incapable of exercising "reason and conscience" whilst "acting in a spirit of brotherhood".

Now consider where entites have rights, whilst not actually being 'human';

• In the US, Corporations- whilst not being 'human- are recognised as legal persons and therefore exercise there 'human rights'. Preventing a corporation as a legal person from donating money to an election or lobbying congess is therefore a violation of the corporations "human rights"- even though, it is not actually 'human'.

• The elasticity of the concept of personhood goes further and can apply to non-humans when we look at questions of what it means to be "endowed with reason and conscience" such as with animal rights and with robot rights. If we look at the former, apes are our evolutionary 'cousins' but do not have rights even though they do have a capacity for empathy, the ability to feel pain and distress, but because they aren't biologically "human", they are not entitled to 'rights'. The latter is more in anticipation of the problems that will develop with the technology and are stretching the very definition of conscienousness from being a feature of biological 'persons' to mechanical ones.

The concept of human rights is derived from the theory of 'natural rights' in the 18th and 19th century. In that period, Women and Ethnic Minorities were deprived of their "human rights" because it was believed they were morally inferior and incapable of exercising them. It was the "natural right" of white landowners to own slaves since it was assumed black people couldn't look after themselves. It was the "natural right" The same argument was used against "racially inferior" peoples who, as they were "savages" who did not have a culture or civilisation comparable to that of white europeans, were not entitled to recognise their rights to own land or even the very existence of their tribe. Denying these people's right to life through Genocide was the White Mans burden and was accepted based on the belief that inherent differences in biology and race meant that "personhood" was not a universal condition and therefore "rights" were not universal.

The concept of human rights therefore has very little to do with 'humanity' and much more to do with what we think qualifies as "human". Humanity as the basis for entitlement to rights is therefore not a universal biologcal condition, but a much more relativistic 'moral' qualification based on how we assess a persons faculties.

I can't say whether I agree or disagree with both of you, but I have to personally thank you both for opening me up to something I hadn't even considered before.

 

[BSM1]

I can almost hear the theme song from the old TV show, "The Twilight Zone", reading your response. In regards to being given the A choice alone, it is bizarre to even call it a choice. There is no alternative regardless if you agree with it or not and therefore it is stretching credulity to refer to it as a choice. It like asking you to pick an item off the menu in a restaurant and the only item available is a pork chop. "Um, I'll have the pork chop, I suppose." What is weird is that, for the most part, Communist dictatorships seized power. True they had their supporters, but after installation there was precious little people could do to get rid of them. Their overlords knew best and wisely eliminated any and all opposition, ensuring their survival long after the people had lost interest in their revolutionary thinking and the horrid results of Communist economic theory.

...or Henry Ford's you can have any color Model T as long as it was black.

 

[Laika]

I can't say whether I agree or disagree with both of you, but I have to personally thank you both for opening me up to something I hadn't even considered before.

Your Welcome. Thats kind of why I do it as when you realise the "bad guys" weren't insane it changes the way you see things because it challanges what we think is self-evident and can turn the world on it's head. intellectually Its alot of fun and very rewarding. I'm genuinely flattered.