Theories of the World

[Jebus]

AHHHHHH!!! Belgium, France, Italy, America, or any country on the world, for that matter, is not a fucking democracy!!! REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC!

Nopeh.

France, Italy and America are indeed Republics, that's true. Belgium, en contraire, like the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. etc.; essentially countries who keep a king as a... figurehead without any real power; in reality come much closer to what democracy really is. Well, representative democracy, that is.

There's a reason there where 5 Republics.

... Wh0t?

That has nothing to do with the 'frailness' that you attribute to the modern day republic.
See, the French revolution erupted as a natural reaction to a political system that was so backward revolution was, historically speaking, impossible to avoid. Yet, as we all know, not all countries in Europe supported the changes in the French state system. In that way, the first two republics clearly fell because of outside pressure and subversity. Robespierre and Napoleon wouldn't have come to power if France wouldn't have been treatend by counter-revolutionary forces abroad, remember.

And since the third republic fell in 1940, I think it's pretty darn obvious that was because of outside influences too.
The only republic that more or less 'fell' was the fourth one, because of the civil war in Algeria.

Keep in mind though that you do not misinterpret the 'five republics' thing. It's not like monarchies, you know. They didn't really 'fall'. (well, 'cept for Bonaparte then) The third and fourth republic didn't fall because of non-democratic forces, but they fell over things that every damn European government would, and has fallen. European governments aren't like the American one, you know, where a government can go on even when it has lost all credibility and support.

The fact that there were five republics doesn't mean that France has a frail democratic tradition. Heck no. It only shows that when government bodies become aged and archaic, neccesairy changes are made. And if there is one line in history, it is this: government bodies are always, by their very nature, conservative; and reforms in these government bodies have never happened out of 'free will', or out of some automatism, but by quarrel and with a lot of unwill from those political bodies. Exceptions to this rule are so rare, that I've never heard of one.

So if there are, as you imply, 'unrests' in the French, Belgian or whatever European democracy, then that is not because of counter-democratic evolutions, but the contrary. It means that the current European governemt bodies to not reflect the times, and that reforms must be made. And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

France is a Dictatorship broken by riots. No, I did'nt coin it. France is the one with the 2 party rule, we just have it as the way it goes.

... What? I don't even get what the hell you mean by that.

Read Tocqueville. The nature of American democracy is agreement, centrism and overall conservativism to the Constitution.

Read Tocqueville again. The nature of American democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

So....you'd be okay with Objectivists taking 1/4th of the Congress, as well as Falangists? Tsk tsk, stabilitiy for the most powerful nation in history is ESSENTIAL. Last thing we need is another Wiemar.

Democracy is democracy, wether you like it or not. It goes two ways. If currents different from the mainstream or majority gain enough votes to seat in the congress, then they SHOULD. Because THAT IS DEMOCRACY. It's not right for any country to claim they are a democracy of they do not let parties that have collected the votes into the government bodies.

Heck, I'm not pointing the blame-finger at the USA only, for that matter. Flanders does the same thing, by not letting the Vlaams Blok into the government after they've got the support of a quarter of the Flemish population.

You know, you're entirely right, I could'nt agree with you more, but then again, we/you cannot allow it to happen.

Who are you to be the judge of the beliefs of those millions of people?

The what-what? I'm even pro-gay-marrige now.

Wasn't directed at you, you egocentic maniac you.

 

[Jebus]

AHHHHHH!!! Belgium, France, Italy, America, or any country on the world, for that matter, is not a fucking democracy!!! REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC! REPUBLIC!

Nopeh.

France, Italy and America are indeed Republics, that's true. Belgium, en contraire, like the Netherlands, Denmark, etc. etc.; essentially countries who keep a king as a... figurehead without any real power; in reality come much closer to what democracy really is. Well, representative democracy, that is.

There's a reason there where 5 Republics.

... Wh0t?

That has nothing to do with the 'frailness' that you attribute to the modern day republic.
See, the French revolution erupted as a natural reaction to a political system that was so backward revolution was, historically speaking, impossible to avoid. Yet, as we all know, not all countries in Europe supported the changes in the French state system. In that way, the first two republics clearly fell because of outside pressure and subversity. Robespierre and Napoleon wouldn't have come to power if France wouldn't have been treatend by counter-revolutionary forces abroad, remember.

And since the third republic fell in 1940, I think it's pretty darn obvious that was because of outside influences too.
The only republic that more or less 'fell' was the fourth one, because of the civil war in Algeria.

Keep in mind though that you do not misinterpret the 'five republics' thing. It's not like monarchies, you know. They didn't really 'fall'. (well, 'cept for Bonaparte then) The third and fourth republic didn't fall because of non-democratic forces, but they fell over things that every damn European government would, and has fallen. European governments aren't like the American one, you know, where a government can go on even when it has lost all credibility and support.

The fact that there were five republics doesn't mean that France has a frail democratic tradition. Heck no. It only shows that when government bodies become aged and archaic, neccesairy changes are made. And if there is one line in history, it is this: government bodies are always, by their very nature, conservative; and reforms in these government bodies have never happened out of 'free will', or out of some automatism, but by quarrel and with a lot of unwill from those political bodies. Exceptions to this rule are so rare, that I've never heard of one.

So if there are, as you imply, 'unrests' in the French, Belgian or whatever European democracy, then that is not because of counter-democratic evolutions, but the contrary. It means that the current European governemt bodies to not reflect the times, and that reforms must be made. And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

France is a Dictatorship broken by riots. No, I did'nt coin it. France is the one with the 2 party rule, we just have it as the way it goes.

... What? I don't even get what the hell you mean by that.

Read Tocqueville. The nature of American democracy is agreement, centrism and overall conservativism to the Constitution.

Read Tocqueville again. The nature of American democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

So....you'd be okay with Objectivists taking 1/4th of the Congress, as well as Falangists? Tsk tsk, stabilitiy for the most powerful nation in history is ESSENTIAL. Last thing we need is another Wiemar.

Democracy is democracy, wether you like it or not. It goes two ways. If currents different from the mainstream or majority gain enough votes to seat in the congress, then they SHOULD. Because THAT IS DEMOCRACY. It's not right for any country to claim they are a democracy of they do not let parties that have collected the votes into the government bodies.

Heck, I'm not pointing the blame-finger at the USA only, for that matter. Flanders does the same thing, by not letting the Vlaams Blok into the government after they've got the support of a quarter of the Flemish population.

You know, you're entirely right, I could'nt agree with you more, but then again, we/you cannot allow it to happen.

Who are you to be the judge of the beliefs of those millions of people?

The what-what? I'm even pro-gay-marrige now.

Wasn't directed at you, you egocentic maniac you.

 

[Jebus]

GODDAMNED THIS FORUM JUST ATE A ONE PAGE REPLY


No way in HELL I'm going to retype all that. I'll just give you the brief summary:

Don't talk history if you don't know it.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

Jebus, I like you, I respect you, and I agree with you entirely, but if you ever use a term such as "international information highway" again, I WILL FUCKING BURY YOU!!!

 

[Sander]

Or if you use the term "perfect information" in conjunction with "these times of" I will kill you.

And why the bloody hell did you TRIPLE post?

 

[Big T]

I'm even pro-gay-marrige now.

they want to improperly use reproductive and waste managment organs, it's they're perogative

That's real big of you there man.

 

[John Uskglass]

That's real big of you there man.

It's called Sarcasm, you should try it sometime.

See, the French revolution erupted as a natural reaction to a political system that was so backward revolution was, historically speaking, impossible to avoid.

Don't disagree

In that way, the first two republics clearly fell because of outside pressure and subversity.

Louis Napoleon took power not on the shoulders of anybody but Frenchmen. He did'nt have widespread support, but he took power.

And since the third republic fell in 1940, I think it's pretty darn obvious that was because of outside influences too.

Vichy still took power in 1940 without much resistance. Only later when we started kicking Natzi ass did the Free French start rising up (and the people who did rise up where largely anti-democratic Stalinists). Winter Velodrome was NOT carried out by Germans. There where sympathyzers everywhere, but the Vichy ones where the worst- the last Natzi division in Berlin to give up was Vichy SS.

Keep in mind though that you do not misinterpret the 'five republics' thing. It's not like monarchies, you know. They didn't really 'fall'. (well, 'cept for Bonaparte then)

I spinned, you're right, but so are you, the First, Second and Fourth
fell for largely internal reasons.

The fact that there were five republics doesn't mean that France has a frail democratic tradition. Heck no.

Not as strong as UK, US or the Netherlands. If it where, there would be no National Front, no L'Internationale screamed in the streets of Paris in the postwar period.

So if there are, as you imply, 'unrests' in the French, Belgian or whatever European democracy, then that is not because of counter-democratic evolutions, but the contrary.

Oh bollhoye. The rise of the Natzi Party was not an example of the Weimar Republic's succes, quite the opposite. Neither was the failure of the Febuary Revolution. Stop telling me you're shit tastes like truffles.

It means that the current European governemt bodies to not reflect the times, and that reforms must be made. And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

I did'nt even understand that at all.

... What? I don't even get what the hell you mean by that.

The French President has arguably more power then ours, the French Electoral System is like ours mixed with Russia's in that it has an n forced rather then de facto two party system, and the only real changes happen with riots.

Read Tocqueville again. The nature of American democracy is the dictatorship of the majority.

Tocuevillie wrote in 1830. .That was before the Free Soil party, for Chrissake.

Democracy is democracy, wether you like it or not. It goes two ways. If currents different from the mainstream or majority gain enough votes to seat in the congress, then they SHOULD. Because THAT IS DEMOCRACY. It's not right for any country to claim they are a democracy of they do not let parties that have collected the votes into the government bodies.

Cutting off a toe to save the foot is worth it. Giving the Welfare Party the old heave ho saved Turkish democracy. Getting rid of Vlaams Block and LFN if they expand at they're current rate in a little while would prevent......alot.

Who are you to be the judge of the beliefs of those millions of people?

I've mellowed out a bit, I usually find myself defending Islam online and in the real world, I no longer support the Republican position because it's the republican position, but I can't stand relitivism. There's a reason bigger then immigrants and bigger then the EU, and that's a reaction to relitivism.

I also don't have much time these days, try to not make a post that much bigger then mine.

 

[Jebus]

Errr... I have no idea what happened there. I pressed the 'submit' button after I finished typing, and nothing happened. And I don't mean it loaded to long: absolutely nothing happened. So I pressed it again: and then I got a 'server not found' error. When I refreshed, and went back to the thread, I saw my post didn't show up. But now it see it has... Two times. There is something wrong with this forum...

And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

Jebus, I like you, I respect you, and I agree with you entirely, but if you ever use a term such as "international information highway" again, I WILL FUCKING BURY YOU!!!

Ehehe... I know, I try to avoid using that cliché term too as much as possible, yet I couldn't think of another word right then. And, in the heat of the moment, that's what I typed. I hope you can one day forgive me... After all, such hostility is not necessairy on this international forum highway, where people from all nations come together!

Or if you use the term "perfect information" in conjunction with "these times of" I will kill you.

Why?

In that way, the first two republics clearly fell because of outside pressure and subversity.

Louis Napoleon took power not on the shoulders of anybody but Frenchmen. He did'nt have widespread support, but he took power.

Of course he took power on the shoulders of the Frenchmen. He wàs elected, after all. Not like his uncle, who took power the old-fashioned way.
Yet, the reason Napoleon II was elected was because of foreign threats. The Napoleonic wars and the subsequent rebellion against the Bourbons had left the country half in ruin, and very vulnerable to outside influences and militairy threats. So the French looked for a strong leader who could protect them from these powers. Heck, even the Duke of Wellington wrote that France 'needed another Napoleon'. It seems the French took it too literally, though . And of course, it didn't take long for Louis to proclaim himself emperor too. That probably wasn't the wish of the French people, though. And that was probably why he was overthrown, in the end, and the third republic was installed. By losing the French-Prussian war, he had shown that even a strong head of state could not properly defend France's foreign interests. So yet again you see a striving for democracy in the rebellion of the French, and the fall of the 2nd 'republic'; although it is mostly referred to as the 2nd Empire.

And since the third republic fell in 1940, I think it's pretty darn obvious that was because of outside influences too.

Vichy still took power in 1940 without much resistance. Only later when we started kicking Natzi ass did the Free French start rising up (and the people who did rise up where largely anti-democratic Stalinists). Winter Velodrome was NOT carried out by Germans. There where sympathyzers everywhere, but the Vichy ones where the worst- the last Natzi division in Berlin to give up was Vichy SS.

You know, this is an entire discussion in itself. And this discussion in itself could take up pages and pages of discussion. And I don't really feel like that, since I've grown a bit tired of WWII.

But you seem to be dancing around the core of the discussion here: why did Vichy fall, and did the French rise up to it in the end? Right, because it wasn't democratic. That's the reason why in the fourth republic, you had the most decentralised government France ever had.

Plus, Vichy never was a French republic. It was a puppet regime. It's not even counted amongst the timelines of the French Republics, so why the hell are you bringing this up?

Keep in mind though that you do not misinterpret the 'five republics' thing. It's not like monarchies, you know. They didn't really 'fall'. (well, 'cept for Bonaparte then)

I spinned, you're right, but so are you, the First, Second and Fourth
fell for largely internal reasons.

I really didn't get that phrase, but anyway:

The first one fell after the defeat of Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars.
The second one fell after the French loss in the French-Prussian war.
The third one fell when the Germans invaded France.
The fourth one fell after the defeat and loss to the colonies of Vietnam and Algeria.

Now, I'm going to say this one more time, please try to fully understand it this time:

OF COURSE did all the republics fall because of internal reasons. Because except for the third, they all fell because of rebellion. BUT the REASON these rebellions flared up were FOREING HAPPENINGS.

And anyway, this has abolutely nothing to do with the bloody point of this discussion. The point is that, even in the fifth republic where more power has been granted to the seating president, Le Pen, as an extremist, was able to participate in the elections and even go through to the 2nd round of the presidential election. Now THAT is democracy. Democracy is where even anti-democratic forces can rise through power through democray. Break your head on that, sweet cheaks.

So if there are, as you imply, 'unrests' in the French, Belgian or whatever European democracy, then that is not because of counter-democratic evolutions, but the contrary.

Oh bollhoye. The rise of the Natzi Party was not an example of the Weimar Republic's succes, quite the opposite. Neither was the failure of the Febuary Revolution. Stop telling me you're shit tastes like truffles.

You took that phase out of context like you wouldn't believe, but I'm going to reply to it anyway. Isn't that noble of me? Even replying to retorts that had nothing to do with what I wrote?
You know, you remind me of Kerry in the presidential debates. Always changing the subject to the tax cuts for the rich Bush gave; up to the point it's not even funny anymore. But heck.

Please don't drag the Germans into this. Never did I object the fact that the German democratic tradition, in fact, is a weak one. YET: the Nazi's did gain the power they had, and got the point where they could influence Hindenberg and in the end get Hitler appointed as Chancellor under Hindenberg by democratic means. They got 37% in the 1932 elections, remember.

It means that the current European governemt bodies to not reflect the times, and that reforms must be made. And I think that everyone sees that in these times of globalisation, European unification, perfect information and the international information highway the current worldwide system of representative national democrary is indeed becoming a bit aged.

I did'nt even understand that at all.

Not my fault. It's clear to me, and other people too, it seems.

Democracy is democracy, wether you like it or not. It goes two ways. If currents different from the mainstream or majority gain enough votes to seat in the congress, then they SHOULD. Because THAT IS DEMOCRACY. It's not right for any country to claim they are a democracy of they do not let parties that have collected the votes into the government bodies.

Cutting off a toe to save the foot is worth it. Giving the Welfare Party the old heave ho saved Turkish democracy. Getting rid of Vlaams Block and LFN if they expand at they're current rate in a little while would prevent......alot.

I'm not saying that. I'm not saying I support their views, not by any means. Yet, the fact that they are allowed to participate in elections is democracy. The fact that the VB isn't allowed to participate in the government is another story, of course.

And cutting of a toe to save a foot is never worth it. Cutting off that first toe will make it easier to cut of that second toe in the future, untill you're exactly there where you didn't want to go: a dictatorship.

 

[Sander]

Why?

Because perfect information is in no way applicable to "these times". Perfect information is probably completely impossible, but if it isn't, the future will have to show.

 

[Jebus]

Why?

Because perfect information is in no way applicable to "these times". Perfect information is probably completely impossible, but if it isn't, the future will have to show.

I meant 'perfect information' in the sense of direct acces to information about events, wether they would happen here or in Kamchatca.

That's actually simply the general meaning of 'perfect information'...

Semantics, semantics... This entire thread has WAY too much semantics...

 

[Sander]

I meant 'perfect information' in the sense of direct acces to information about events, wether they would happen here or in Kamchatca.

That's actually simply the general meaning of 'perfect information'...

Semantics, semantics... This entire thread has WAY too much semantics...

I'd say that that would be 'perfect access to information' while 'perfect information' would be correct information....

 

[Jebus]

Hey, I didn't invent the term.

 

[Sander]

Then who did.
Dictionary.com at least doesn't know it.

 

[Jebus]

My professor Historical Criticism, evidentally.

 

[John Uskglass]

Plus, Vichy never was a French republic. It was a puppet regime. It's not even counted amongst the timelines of the French Republics, so why the hell are you bringing this up?

Puppet regiems can have support, and the Vichy had more support then many other Puppet regiems or governments in WWII. You're right though, I was largely wrong to bring it up.

I really didn't get that phrase, but anyway:

The first one fell after the defeat of Napoleon in the Napoleonic wars.
The second one fell after the French loss in the French-Prussian war.
The third one fell when the Germans invaded France.
The fourth one fell after the defeat and loss to the colonies of Vietnam and Algeria.

Now, I'm going to say this one more time, please try to fully understand it this time:

OF COURSE did all the republics fall because of internal reasons. Because except for the third, they all fell because of rebellion. BUT the REASON these rebellions flared up were FOREING HAPPENINGS.

That's bullhoey. Of course FOREIGN HAPPENINGS have a hand in rebellions or other seizures of Democracy. That happens everywhere. The Pan-Slavics took power in Russia because of the rebellions of 1848, but it was still an interlal revolution because the Russians did it. I hate to tread so close to Godwin's Law, but the Natzis took power in Weimar because of foreign happenings-here the Russian revolution.

And anyway, this has abolutely nothing to do with the bloody point of this discussion. The point is that, even in the fifth republic where more power has been granted to the seating president, Le Pen, as an extremist, was able to participate in the elections and even go through to the 2nd round of the presidential election. Now THAT is democracy. Democracy is where even anti-democratic forces can rise through power through democray. Break your head on that, sweet cheaks.

Okay, my head's broken, thankyee.

I'm saying that it's a sign of a weak democratic tradition, not that it's not Democratic. Most nations with extremely long Democratic traditions have relitively little Far Right, or otherwise Anti-Democratic groups. The Dutch, for instance, have among the longest Democratic traditions in history, and they don't have a real equivilent to LePen or the rise of Fascism in Russia, neither do the Swiss. A rise of an anti-democratic party means a weakening of a democratic tradition, and getting rid of an antidemocratic, powerful party does help Democracy in the long run in some situations.

Please don't drag the Germans into this. Never did I object the fact that the German democratic tradition, in fact, is a weak one. YET: the Nazi's did gain the power they had, and got the point where they could influence Hindenberg and in the end get Hitler appointed as Chancellor under Hindenberg by democratic means. They got 37% in the 1932 elections, remember.

Actually, that is my point.

I know, Germany is usually a bad example due to Godwin's Law, but in this case it's a damn appropriate one.

Not my fault. It's clear to me, and other people too, it seems.

Well, I think you're saying it's natural for weird political groups to come close to power during times of change, and yes, times of adversity do challange democracies. But the EU is'nt suffering an economic downturn, the biggest reason for the rise of Fascism in EU is immigration...not a massive economic downturn or rise of USSR like power. Am I right?

And cutting of a toe to save a foot is never worth it. Cutting off that first toe will make it easier to cut of that second toe in the future, untill you're exactly there where you didn't want to go: a dictatorship.

For a moral relitivist, this is pretty absolutist.

It's sometimes nessicary to outlaw parties and such when they become too powerful and are shown to endanger the fabric of Democratic tradition, they should be dealt with in order to save Democracy for the future. If the Welfare Party had stayed in power, Islamafascism would be MUCH more powerful in Turkey then it is today, and Turkey would not be where it is today, possibly joining the EU in a matter of years.

 

[Jebus]

That's bullhoey. Of course FOREIGN HAPPENINGS have a hand in rebellions or other seizures of Democracy. That happens everywhere. The Pan-Slavics took power in Russia because of the rebellions of 1848, but it was still an interlal revolution because the Russians did it. I hate to tread so close to Godwin's Law, but the Natzis took power in Weimar because of foreign happenings-here the Russian revolution.

Yeah yeah... I'm wondering what this all has to do with the discussion at hand, really. The point of this little sidetrack was, IIRC, that the French rebelled against totaliaran regimes when France is on longer no in danger from foreign powers, and they looked for strong leadership when French territory was in danger. How the Pan-Slavics, the "Natzis", Weimar and Russia got dragged into this, I don't know.

I'm saying that it's a sign of a weak democratic tradition, not that it's not Democratic. Most nations with extremely long Democratic traditions have relitively little Far Right, or otherwise Anti-Democratic groups. The Dutch, for instance, have among the longest Democratic traditions in history, and they don't have a real equivilent to LePen or the rise of Fascism in Russia, neither do the Swiss.

Belgium hasn't had anything remotely close to a dictatorship in it's entire excistance. Heck, Leopold III tried, and lost his trone over it. The Belgian/Flemish territories also had looong pseudo-democratic traditions (about as democratic as things could possibly get back then, actually) from even before America was discovered. Yet, Flanders has the Vlaams Blok, getting 25% of the votes last election. And Holland had Pim Fortuyn, who would probably get even higher results if he wouldn't have gotten shot.
What was your point again?

A rise of an anti-democratic party means a weakening of a democratic tradition, and getting rid of an antidemocratic, powerful party does help Democracy in the long run in some situations

A rise of forces that oppose the current government system doesn't mean that democracy itself is in danger, but that the current form of Democracy has not evolved with the time, and is thus being rebelled against. The major line of political events troughout the last three centuries, right there.
And if history teaches us any lesson, it's that forces like this can't be ignored. Conservatives always, always, always lose. The Romanov Tsar banished Lenin and tried to keep things as they were, and his regime was destroyed. The English wouldn't give the American colonies their political and economical reforms, and the English were thrown out. Louis XVI wanted to cling to absolutism, and he lost his head. Willem II wanted to keep the Low Countries united under one crown at all costs, and the Dutch were thrown out. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. Etc. at infinitum.

The answer to such forces is not to outlaw them. It has never been. Those forces are not the cause, but the symptoms of unrest and democratic decline. If you want to stop the rise of such forces, you have to tackle the reason those forces are gaining support. And the reason Far Right is gaining more and more power these days is not because people are racists. Heck, most of the persons I know who voted for the Vlaams Blok voted for them in a form of protest against the current political situation.

The reason is simple, probably. Representative democracy is through. It doesn't work anymore. Nowadays, when everybody who does a little effort can be just as much in the loop as professional politicians do, you don't need political representatives who make decisions for you anymore. People want, and can, take them for themselves now. And the means are there, you know. Internet, telecommunications, digital television,... The people should simply be given more say in what the government does. Albeit through regular referendae, veto's, replacing the second chamber by a referendum, or I don't know what, the current system should be changed to increase it's democratic value as far as is possible with current day techonoligical recourses.

But that won't happen, you know. Another lesson that history teaches us is that government systems, or government bodies never change spontanely to reflect the times. They cling conservatively to what they have known, and only give it up after great turmoil or rebellion. And it's always been that way. The French monarchs, the Chinese Mandarins, ... It's always been that way.

So what's going to happen? Forces who oppose the current democratic system are going to keep on rising. Wether it be far right, far left, or far threedimensional, it doesn't matter. People know, feel in their gut, that the system isn't right anymore and will rebel against it. And it's going to fall, someday. It must fall someday, because that's how it always been. Banning those parties will not solve anything. Quite the contrary, it will only hasten the process.

Well, I think you're saying it's natural for weird political groups to come close to power during times of change, and yes, times of adversity do challange democracies. But the EU is'nt suffering an economic downturn, the biggest reason for the rise of Fascism in EU is immigration...not a massive economic downturn or rise of USSR like power. Am I right?

No you're not. See above.

It's sometimes nessicary to outlaw parties and such when they become too powerful and are shown to endanger the fabric of Democratic tradition, they should be dealt with in order to save Democracy for the future. If the Welfare Party had stayed in power, Islamafascism would be MUCH more powerful in Turkey then it is today, and Turkey would not be where it is today, possibly joining the EU in a matter of years.

The Wellfare Party isn't in power anymore for a reason. And that reason is to be found above.

I thank you.

*bows*

 

[KillerJoe123]

Well, wasn't that just lovely. You guys are just so opinionated and friendly. Well, I have anther theory for you to consider.

Take Alaska in consideration when the United States of America is voting for the next president. When Nov 2nd comes around, everyone will vote (by everyone, I mean 33% of registered voters) for who they think should be the next president. Well, when all of the votes are being counted.... just wait and see if anyone gives a shit about what Alaska stands for. They will speculate that, oh, Bush will win because he has California and blah fuckin blah.... Do they give two shits and giggles about our two whole electoral vote.... fuck no!!!! This leads me to believe that they are trying to silence us Alaskans so that they can sneak in and suck ANWAR dry and make bank. Bastards want listen to us, but they certainly will take our oil if they damn well want to. Even if the people vote to keep them out they have ways of getting in. This shit pisses the hell out me. Well, some good will come out of this though. Alaska's gas price will sky rocket to a point where nobody will be able to drive a damn truck, so we will be forced to drive those gay little hybrid cars that look like somebody crapped on the design table and molded an even worse piece of shit then usual....... I'm not really sure where I was going with this but I'll get back to it.
Damn the bastards in power, damn them all too hell!!!

 

[Jebus]

Ehm... What?

 

[Sander]

Belgium hasn't had anything remotely close to a dictatorship in it's entire excistance. Heck, Leopold III tried, and lost his trone over it. The Belgian/Flemish territories also had looong pseudo-democratic traditions (about as democratic as things could possibly get back then, actually) from even before America was discovered. Yet, Flanders has the Vlaams Blok, getting 25% of the votes last election. And Holland had Pim Fortuyn, who would probably get even higher results if he wouldn't have gotten shot.
What was your point again?

A couple of things about this. For one, the democratic tradition in both the Netherlands and Belgium is largely shared, until the seperation of Belgium during, IIRC, the 1830s, when, IIRC, Belgium briefly became more democratic (considering the fact that our king had a lot of personal power until 1848).
Another thing is Pim Fortuyn, though his ideas were radical, they were nowhere near the form of ideas of LePen or Vlaams Blok, probably in part because he was a flamboyant gay.
And as you can see these days, his personality was what drew the votes, not his content, although the dissapointment of many in the way his party handled things after his death probably played a part, his charisma was the main thing that drew people towards him, as well as the fact that a lot of people were getting fed up with and were blaming things on immigrants.
And the fact that the economy was starting to do much worse wasn't helping either.

And another thing, Jebus:

The reason is simple, probably. Representative democracy is through. It doesn't work anymore. Nowadays, when everybody who does a little effort can be just as much in the loop as professional politicians do, you don't need political representatives who make decisions for you anymore. People want, and can, take them for themselves now. And the means are there, you know. Internet, telecommunications, digital television,... The people should simply be given more say in what the government does. Albeit through regular referendae, veto's, replacing the second chamber by a referendum, or I don't know what, the current system should be changed to increase it's democratic value as far as is possible with current day techonoligical recourses.

This, quite simply, isn't true. The major change in Dutch politics came willingly and without any form of revolution or violence in 1848, when the king relinquished all but symbolic powers in favor of the democratic system we have now. The women's vote didn't require a revolution, although it did require some violence and aggression. The equal rights movements also gained power without real revolution. There are several other examples for this which show that a change of form of government doesn't necessarily require revolution.

 

[Jebus]

Belgium hasn't had anything remotely close to a dictatorship in it's entire excistance. Heck, Leopold III tried, and lost his trone over it. The Belgian/Flemish territories also had looong pseudo-democratic traditions (about as democratic as things could possibly get back then, actually) from even before America was discovered. Yet, Flanders has the Vlaams Blok, getting 25% of the votes last election. And Holland had Pim Fortuyn, who would probably get even higher results if he wouldn't have gotten shot.
What was your point again?

A couple of things about this. For one, the democratic tradition in both the Netherlands and Belgium is largely shared, until the seperation of Belgium during, IIRC, the 1830s, when, IIRC, Belgium briefly became more democratic (considering the fact that our king had a lot of personal power until 1848).

And? Your point is?

Thank you for repeating me, though.

And another thing, Jebus:

The reason is simple, probably. Representative democracy is through. It doesn't work anymore. Nowadays, when everybody who does a little effort can be just as much in the loop as professional politicians do, you don't need political representatives who make decisions for you anymore. People want, and can, take them for themselves now. And the means are there, you know. Internet, telecommunications, digital television,... The people should simply be given more say in what the government does. Albeit through regular referendae, veto's, replacing the second chamber by a referendum, or I don't know what, the current system should be changed to increase it's democratic value as far as is possible with current day techonoligical recourses.

This, quite simply, isn't true. The major change in Dutch politics came willingly and without any form of revolution or violence in 1848, when the king relinquished all but symbolic powers in favor of the democratic system we have now. The women's vote didn't require a revolution, although it did require some violence and aggression. The equal rights movements also gained power without real revolution. There are several other examples for this which show that a change of form of government doesn't necessarily require revolution.

YOU should learn to read what I say. Plus, I think you quoted the wrong paragraph alltogether.