[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Everyneurotic

you ignored my post.

i said that it's NOT about a flawless form of government, is about a less flawed one. best NOT perfect.

besides, i'm not singling out democracy over other present government forms, as i said above, dictatorship and comunism are much worse. the fact is that i disagree with democracy and think it's obsolete and if i started talking about this is because everyone thinks democracy is the best way of government and perfect, when in reality it's far from it, and that we should aim for something better.

yes, we listen to flawed music but do we keep only listening to whatever is popular because if everyone likes it, then it can't be bad? we play flawed guitars but didn't we strived for better designs and better materials? we live in flawed house, but haven't we found better ways of constructing them, or do we still live in "good enough" wooden shacks? we have relationships with flawed people but do we stay in them, even if they could hurt us or hurt themselves and would make us feel miserable? or do we strive to find someone we can be happy with the most?

it's flawed by design because, even though ethymologically it means the people choose their leaders, in reality it was started for the upper classes to vote for their leaders while denying this to the "ruled" classes.

furthermore, democracy as a system is really easy to manipulate to the will of the richest and most powerful, instead of the more qualified people, as proved by the 2000 u.s. presidential election. also, the "leaders" of today most likely seek their own well being above that of the people. lastly, in a best case scenario, if the majority vote for someone, then that someone wins, no matter how incompetent, dumb or bad this person can be (whether for minorities or the majority); the masses are not qualified to take such an important decision since a low common denominator mentality reigns among them (example: you hate mcdonald's, let's say that an election for the only food available for sale happens, do you think something tasty and nutritious would win or would people vote for mcdonald's?), and here, i'm talking about a best case scenario, where recalls, corruption and frauds don't happen (the only upside of democracy is that at least the leaders don't enforce their decisions to the citizens).

i'm not talking about "smashing the system" or any of that fashionable "rebel!!! hate the status quo because it's cool!" sentiments.

so you guessed wrong.

besides, your stereotyping is staring to bug me.

no no-- i wanted to keep this simple-- SIMPLE. i wanted to keep this simple to avoid the kind of silliness this has become.

you make A LOT of assumptions about what i mean and what i say, so that at the end you end up dialoguing with yourself and your imagination of what i may be saying.

i never said you were any of those things you speculate about in your post. i simply asked you the question-- what sets apart government from other flawed entities.

the reason i ignored your post is because i requested that we keep things to the basic minimum-- every time one of us goes off into a long rant, confusion ensues. so i didn't really ignore it-- i postponed the discussion of the many issues until we solved the basic question i was inquiring about.

now it seems to me you are reluctant to communicate, and prefer to hide behind a haze of unfocused anger rather than have your beliefs confronted? i don't know why it's so hard to stick to a simple discussion instead of making drama.

and about the stereotyping you mention, please discuss it with your mirror because i have nothing to do with it.

(i guess i got cranky and this last line above is a put down? but really, stop ascribing to me the circles of you own mind. stop making assumptions, they are totally off the mark.)

i do have better things to do with my time than fight over the internet. if you're not up to having a discussion, let me know, and i'll drop the matter.