Enter Nepal, new republic
#1
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:00 PM
http://news.bbc.co.u...sia/7424302.stm
#2
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:04 PM
Good for them. Another win for democracy.
Not that I believe in it.
#4
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:08 PM
Not that we've ever had one. But in theory, it would be better than democracy. More efficient, and a greater force for good, less tied to corporations and to winning over voters based on the skin colour/gender/political tricks of its representatives.
#6
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:11 PM
Anyways, I guess Nepal will be heading our way in ideology now. Has it become an out and out democracy?
#8
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:14 PM
They call it Socialist Democracy.
#9
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:15 PM
#10
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:15 PM
#11
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:17 PM
DarkSword, on May 28 2008, 10:15 PM, said:
You mean Nepal or my shameless off topic references to liberal dictatorships?
If the latter, then I would say look at China once again. The CCP could be overthrown if the Chinese people wanted, but haven't been cos they're doing a good job.
#12
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:20 PM
#13
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:24 PM
Apart from that its Communist. Is it similar?
For that matter, is Nepal now Communist?
#14
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:26 PM
And I dunno myself xP Raven. I think they're similar to China. They do massively support gay rights though (I don't think China do lolz).
#15
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:28 PM
#16
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:31 PM
Free food. Free housing. Free education. Free electricity. Free everything.
#17
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:32 PM
#18
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:34 PM
Neither do anyone end up in huge debt or don't even go to college cuz they can't afford it...
#20
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:39 PM
Hey, I rather Cuba be a democratic country, but um, it's not as bad as the US media protrays it.
Ask Michael Moore ^-^
lolz, actually, Cuba is doing reaaallly well despite being embargoed by the US.
#21
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:43 PM
Yeah, and while I'm listnening to that douche, why don't I have sex with a guy, burn down my house, and go on a suicidal rampage?
#22
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:44 PM
#25
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:52 PM
#26
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:53 PM
#27
Posted 28 May 2008 - 03:54 PM
#29
Posted 28 May 2008 - 07:50 PM
Also I am glad democracy has another win.
@raven
I agree that communism is the best form of government in theory, but not when actually practiced.
#30
Posted 29 May 2008 - 08:28 AM
Communism isnt the same as liberal autocracy, which is what I was suggesting.
#32
Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:16 AM
#36
Posted 30 May 2008 - 03:26 PM
Gio, on May 30 2008, 07:50 PM, said:
Well then you're on the right lines - except that this would be an autocracy. Which is why its different - im not proposing any new theories here, I'm combining two that have never been combined.
EDIT - Nyktos, very observant. But you knew what we meant right? So really you're just debating semantics.
I keep referring to autocracies anyway - thats the main point.
#37
Posted 30 May 2008 - 03:53 PM
Nyktos, on May 30 2008, 04:06 PM, said:
yep I knows that. It was formed by Mr. Carl Marx. He hate capitalism which is why he created communism and those two things happen to be two different kinds of economies.
@Raven
explain to me what you mean by autocracy, because the only definition I could find said that it was similar to a dictatorship but that it wasn't exactly the same. It said that the ruler was self appointed and could be turned on by the military at any moment. That just doesn't tell me a lot.
#39
Posted 30 May 2008 - 05:45 PM
Ravenblade, on May 30 2008, 05:26 PM, said:
I keep referring to autocracies anyway - thats the main point.
I was replying to your "communism and liberal autocracy aren't the same thing", which they aren't, but they aren't mutually exclusive either. That was my point.
#40
Posted 30 May 2008 - 06:02 PM
@Gio: Yes, usually self appointed - but they would have to be cos it would defeat the point to elect someone to stay in power forever. I would imagine this would work best if someone simply took power during some sort of disaster and then just held it.
Perhaps the better term would be an oligarchy? But then, my understanding of those is that they operate beneath a figurehead, which wouldn't be necessary for this to work. But anyways, yeah, someone who becomes the leader and stays there. In an ideal world, this leader would be concerned with the fate of the nation and would work to better peoples lives (or risk being overthrown). Said ruler would not have to worry about winning votes, and would not have to adopt stupid, backward policies in order to appease the generally not so well educated masses of people.
The ideal solutions to the political problem, are dictatorships - they develop faster than democracies and are less restricted by the collective ignorance of their people. However, they are very susceptible to corruption and misuse of power.
As I detailed earlier, this would be very difficult in my equation because the system of government would dictate that the leader would be 'elected' from a small group of higher governmental officials, who would choose him based on his leadership skills. He wouldn't have to be the most appealing candidate, he would just have to be the best one.
Democracies are won by those with the most appeal, and we are fortunate if the same person is also the most qualified.
The part about it being liberal is simply another restraint on the government to keep it from totalitarianism.
It is of course possible that the entire government could be corrupt, but you would think that this would quickly become apparent and that the ensuing outcry would put paid to it.