|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 6, 2008 7:59:13 GMT -5
“Democracy is only as good as the conscience of its citizens.”
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Jun 6, 2008 16:56:58 GMT -5
This is to Deep
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jun 9, 2008 8:34:23 GMT -5
“Democracy is only as good as the conscience of its citizens.” Perhaps that is why we are in a Republic.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 9, 2008 8:48:36 GMT -5
Perhaps what? Im confused as to what you mean.............
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Jun 9, 2008 8:51:55 GMT -5
He's saying (and he's right) that our political structure is not a pure democracy.
However, goods, what if you interpret her quote in a philosophical context rather than a political one?
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jun 9, 2008 9:05:25 GMT -5
People en mas tend to do what is in their own best interest.... that is not always a bad thing, but as the Founders realized it could really screw a minority group. So they created a Representative Republic to keep a majority from driving over the rights of a minority.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 9, 2008 9:43:06 GMT -5
Okay, thanks for the clarification. I was looking at it as far as a philisophical standpoint hence the confusion.
|
|
|
Post by goods on Jun 9, 2008 10:07:46 GMT -5
Hmmm ok... well then.
I would have to agree with that statement. You could also say people get the governement they deserve.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 9, 2008 10:29:10 GMT -5
Well you do have a point there goods. So how do you educate them to make better choices? After all, you can lead a horse to water...................
|
|
|
Post by JimB on Jun 9, 2008 10:40:49 GMT -5
So how do you educate them to make better choices? Better than what, and by whose definition?
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 9, 2008 10:44:30 GMT -5
LOL, ahhhhh you got me there. I guess what I mean is.........how do we teach people to listen and educate themselves rather than follow the masses? To think for themselves, popular opinion or not, rather than be lead?
|
|
|
Post by sheyd on Jun 9, 2008 10:53:30 GMT -5
My take on the quote is different than just voting... To me, it is stating that we all have to contribute, and not just to the things that benefit us or ours directly in obvious ways. For instance, if you have no relatives with special needs, you may not want to contribute your funds or time to programs that assist people with special needs- especially since it won't necessarily provide you with a better life at any time. (You can claim education funding helps you, even without children, because you will have to deal with the results in doctors, etc., but how does safe affordable care for a severely retarded person ever personally help you if you aren't directly related to the issue.) If we aren't concerned with the good of the nation and all its peoples, democracy would end up with a place of no caring/no conscience.
I think, too, I see a rise in "me first" attitudes amongst MANY people in the US. JFK was right - "ask not what your country can do for you..." perhaps if we all thought beyond ourselves a bit more, ACTED beyond ourselves a bit more, there would be less need for all the programs, gov't control, gov't involvement there is.
The old "Republican" version, with landholders responsible for their tenants had some ideas better than our current system (at least in theory) - because those who were "haves" were expected to ensure the care of the "have nots" but now it seems to be every person for themselves, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and our middle class is disappearing to the point we WILL be extreme classes with little middle ground, soon enough. Plus, those in the lower classes looked out for each other, family or not. Few seem willing to do that, these days.
|
|
|
Post by freckles on Jun 9, 2008 11:15:53 GMT -5
My take on the quote is different than just voting... To me, it is stating that we all have to contribute, and not just to the things that benefit us or ours directly in obvious ways. For instance, if you have no relatives with special needs, you may not want to contribute your funds or time to programs that assist people with special needs- especially since it won't necessarily provide you with a better life at any time. (You can claim education funding helps you, even without children, because you will have to deal with the results in doctors, etc., but how does safe affordable care for a severely retarded person ever personally help you if you aren't directly related to the issue.) If we aren't concerned with the good of the nation and all its peoples, democracy would end up with a place of no caring/no conscience. I think, too, I see a rise in "me first" attitudes amongst MANY people in the US. JFK was right - "ask not what your country can do for you..." perhaps if we all thought beyond ourselves a bit more, ACTED beyond ourselves a bit more, there would be less need for all the programs, gov't control, gov't involvement there is. The old "Republican" version, with landholders responsible for their tenants had some ideas better than our current system (at least in theory) - because those who were "haves" were expected to ensure the care of the "have nots" but now it seems to be every person for themselves, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, and our middle class is disappearing to the point we WILL be extreme classes with little middle ground, soon enough. Plus, those in the lower classes looked out for each other, family or not. Few seem willing to do that, these days. On the news this man got hit by a Car and cars would just keep going around that man and people walking were just looking, most just kept walking Also there was one where a Woman was getting Raped on the street and people would just walk on by, because it had nothing to do with them. I guess if She screamed to Loud they would get upset with Her for bothering them with Her screaming Or the Murdered Lady that called 911 and the 911 Operator hanged up on her and on and on
|
|
|
Post by Phyxius on Jun 9, 2008 11:24:58 GMT -5
The old "Republican" version, with landholders responsible for their tenants had some ideas better than our current system (at least in theory) - because those who were "haves" were expected to ensure the care of the "have nots" Shhhhhh... Ronnie's rolling over in his grave.
|
|
|
Post by Mel (cherry) on Jun 9, 2008 11:27:27 GMT -5
I have to disagree with that statement because that happened back in a time when entitlement was a way of life. I reckon that they didn't have good life being looked out for really........... of course not ALL Im sure there were many good "Lords" but Id rather deal with the have not this day and age than then.
The problem is........these "magical" theories dont hold true and are made by those who most often have never wanted a day in their lives.
|
|