Democracy? Must The West Choose Between Democracy And Islam?

Must The West Now Choose Between Democracy And Islam?

We hear so much about Democracies all the time, but are they really what they’re cracked up to be?

China which is not a democracy has now replaced Japan as the number two economic power in the world and is set to become number one within about two years.

Whilst the US is facing possible bankruptcy before 2020!

According to Professor Alexander Fraser Tyler, a Scottish historian who in 1787, wrote about the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before.

"The average duration of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years".

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government".

"It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury".

"From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship".

The above would seem to fit the USA almost exactly in terms of its duration and the ongoing reasons for its collapse.

And its being taken over by a dictator!

And What About Democracy In Europe?

Europe also has major financial problems and the Euro is likely to collapse, but it already has other problems that the US will likely soon have to face.

Europe now has to choose between its democracies and Islam, because the countries that choose democracy will be Islamicized within 20-30 years.

And pretty much everything points to that.

But It seems that right now that Democracy is still the Golden Calf that must be bowed down to …

What Do You Think?

Must the West soon choose between democracy and Islam?

What other choices are there?

Comments are welcome and you don’t need to log in to post them.

This entry was posted in Misconceptions, Obama, Politics, The West, war and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

You can add images to your comment by clicking here.

[+] Zaazu Emoticons Zaazu.com

12 Responses to Democracy? Must The West Choose Between Democracy And Islam?

  1. MacTheKnife says:

    Most times when I tell people that Democracy has outlived its sell by date I get this ..

    “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried”.
    Sir Winston Churchill
    British politician (1874 – 1965)

    And it was perhaps true when Churchill said it.

    But now we have Islam which is using Democracy to defeat Democracy.

    I’m not really sure if anything else would be better except maybe a “benevolent dictator” but voting for a dictator might well turn out badly :|

    If Europe is to survive in its present form however i.e. not become Islamicized then clearly something needs to be done and fast.

    Maybe a modified democracy along the lines of, “If you want to overthrow Democracy then you won’t be allowed to vote!”.

  2. live-one says:

    A lot of things certainly suck about Democracy and the governmental system in place, but if I had a choice, I’ll take what exists now with all of the lobbying and special interests over a society of bread lines and worrying that the next thing that comes out of my mouth will get me hauled away by the secret police.

  3. peterson says:

    Democracy does not deserve the semi-sacred status accorded to it.

    In Europe, democratically elected politicians such as Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, Silvio Berlusconi, Umberto Bossi, Gianfranco Fini and Pim Fortuyn are a reminder of democracy’s defects.

    In a large ocean there are two neighbouring islands: faultless democracies with full civil and political rights. One island is extremely rich and prosperous, and has 10 million inhabitants. The other is extremely poor: it has 100 million inhabitants, who live by subsistence farming. After a bad harvest last year, there are no food stocks, and now the harvest has failed again: 90 million people are facing death by starvation.

    The democratically elected government of the poor island asks for help, and the democratically elected government of the rich island organises a referendum on the issue.

    There are three options:

    Option A is a sharp increase in taxes, to pay for large-scale permanent structural transfers to the poor island.

    Option B is some increase in taxes, to pay for immediate and sufficient humanitarian aid, so that famine will be averted.

    Option C is no extra taxes and no aid.

    When the votes are counted, 100% of the voters have chosen Option C.

    After all, who wants to pay more taxes?

    So 90 million people starve.

    Yet all electoral procedures on both islands are free and fair, the media are free, political campaigning is free, there is no political repression of any kind.

    According to democratic theory, any outcome of this democratic process must be respected.

    Two perfect democracies have functioned perfectly, and if you believe the supporters of democracy, that is morally admirable.

    But it clearly is not: there is something fundamentally wrong with democracy, if it allows this outcome.

  4. knopfman says:

    Very good stuff Peterson ;-)

    But many other problems exist with Democracy.

    Despite its quasi-sacred status, democracy has many ethical defects which are either evident in practice, or easily illustrated by hypothetical examples.

    The treatment of minorities is perhaps the most recognised defect of democracies.

    Between the mid-1930’s and the mid-1970’s, the Swedish government forcibly sterilised thousands of women, because of ‘mental defects’, or simply because they were of ‘mixed race’.

    Yet Sweden has been a model democracy for the entire period.

    The democracy worked but the problem is that democracy offers no protection to marginalised and despised minorities and the usual answer of democrats to that is that excesses can be prevented by constitutionally enforced individual rights.

    There are two major problems with that however:

    First, no constitutional rights are absolute:

    President Bush showed how easy it is to overturn fundamental constitutional protections, simply by redefining some American citizens as ‘illegal enemy combatants’, he was able to intern them.

    Some groups are in any case openly excluded from the usual democratic rights, most notably illegal immigrants.

    The Australian government detains asylum seekers in internment camps in the desert and its hard line accurately reflects the attitudes of a racist electorate.

    The detainees can’t vote, can’t engage in political activities, and have no free press, but Australia is still considered a democracy.

    The second problem is that basic rights allow wide limits. Treatment of minorities may be harsh and humiliating, without infringing their rights.

    A recent example in the Netherlands is a proposal to impose compulsory genital inspections for ethnic minorities. The aim is to combat female genital mutilation, but every ethnic Somali parent, regardless of their own circumstances, would be obliged to present their daughters for annual genital inspection. Eritreans, Egyptian and Sudanese might be included under the legal obligation, even if they were naturalised Dutch citizens. The proposal has majority support in Parliament. It is not law yet, but since Somali’s are a marginalised and often despised minority in the Netherlands, there is nothing they can do to prevent its implementation.

    So long as they avoid certain types of policy, and outright violence, democracy allows a democratic majority to impose its will on a minority. They can impose their language and a culture, and both impositions are normal practice in nation states. They can also impose their values, which may be unacceptable to the minority: the best example is democratic prohibitions of alcohol or drugs.

    Alcohol prohibition in the United States, enforced through a constitutional amendment, was a direct result of democracy but sSince there was (and is) no ‘right to drink’, the Christian anti-alcohol majority could simply use the democratic process, to make their values the national values.

    ‘Prohibition’ was repealed in 1933, but the ‘War on Drugs’ of the last 20 years is at least as comprehensive in terms of policy and effects.

    Successful prohibition movements are a special case of the inherent anti-minority bias in democracies.

  5. pasifism-wins says:

    The Greek democracies were not representative governments!

    They were governments run by the free, male citizens of the city-state and all major government decisions and legislation were made by the Assembly.

    The closest we’ve come to such a system is “initiative and referendum,” in which legislation is popularly petitioned and then voted on directly by the electorate.

    The Greek democratic states ran their entire government on such a system and no members of a city-state were involved in the government.

    Slaves, foreigners, and women were all disbarred from the democracy, so in reality, the democratic city-states more closely resembled oligarchies for a minority ruled the state.

    It was a very large minority, to be sure, but still a minority!

  6. eagerwatcher says:

    Perhaps we should first consider what is a democracy?

    And we should not identify democracy with majority rule!

    Democracy has complex demands, which certainly include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment.

    Even elections can be deeply defective if they occur without the different sides getting an adequate opportunity to present their respective cases, or without the electorate enjoying the freedom to obtain news and to consider the views of the competing protagonists.

    Democracy is a demanding system, and not just a mechanical condition (like majority rule) taken in isolation.

  7. MacTheKnife says:

    The vast majority of the population (around 6,000 total) of King NC are Christians and they were happy to have the Christian flag flying over the Veteran’s Memorial, but two groups complained; two groups that don’t even live in King.

    KING, N.C. (WGHP) – A catering business located across the street from the Veterans Memorial in King where city officials recently removed the Christian flag has erected a 35-foot flag pole to fly the flag.

    The 35-foot flag pole was erected Monday night in front of Divine Catering on Main Street after city officials voted 3-to-1 to remove the flag from the Veterans Memorial last week following complaints and threats of lawsuits against the city.

    “We just thought it would be a good way to show people what we think about the whole thing. I know its not city hall, but its as close as we could get,” said Mike Marshall, owner of Divine Catering.

    Marshall said he hates that it took the city removing the flag to remind the company they should have been flying the flag this whole time.

    “My wife runs the catering house. She said 4-5 people came in here today that said they have never been in here before. They came in and felt compelled to buy something and show their support,” said Marshall.

    King City Attorney Walter Pitt said the city received a letter from the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State on August 11 and a letter from the ACLU on August 16 threatening lawsuits if the flag was not taken down. The decision to remove the flag stems from estimates that it could cost the city as much as $300,000 to fight a possible lawsuit from the ACLU.

    Several people in King are now protesting the decision by flying the Christian flag on personal property.

    “I am not afraid to take a stand cause he took a stand for me. The Lord did,” said Donna Moorefield, a King resident.

    Moorefield is using her salon to spearhead the effort to encourage others to fly the Christian flag. The flags have been appearing at several locations around King since late last week.

    “Ever since the city council ruling, people have been calling left and right. We sold out already and had a major shipment come in this morning with 300 more on the way tomorrow,” said a worker at Guillions Christian Store in King.

    Some groups have started raising money to help encourage the city to fight the ACLU. On Monday night, an informal gathering of people who support the flying of the Christian flag will met at the Veterans Memorial.

    “We as a city… as a country… need to take our country back as Christians,” said Jim Walton.

    ——-

    So where’s the democracy here?

  8. eagerwatcher says:

    It is perhaps a truism that what’s most important is not a country’s first election, but rather its second and third.

    And what matters is not simply that people have the right to vote, but that they are offered a real choice, under conditions that are truly free and fair.

    Elections, moreover, are but one note in the democratic symphony but a full orchestra is required, including markets that reward initiative; police that respect due process; legal structures that provide justice; and a press corps that is free to pursue the facts and publish the truth.

    Acorn immediately springs to mind, plus Obama’s second attack on Fox News a couple of days ago when he said that, “Fox is dangerous to America” which even astounded the left wing media.

    It’s increasingly obvious that Obama’s idea of democracy is closer to what Chavez believes in, than that of most Americans.

  9. big-thoughts says:

    Some form of social inequality is inherent in democracy, and it’s a fact that is neglected by most democratic theory.

    In a theoretical democracy of 100 voters, a party of 51 voters can confiscate the property of the other 49 and then divide it among themselves.

    However, if one voter is sick on election day, then they lose their majority.

    A party of 52 has even more chance to divide the property of the minority, but now that the minority is 48 there is slightly less to divide.

    A party of 99 will have guaranteed success against a minority of one, but the shares after division will be small.

    In practice, a coalition of two-thirds, or three-quarters, can successfully disadvantage a minority.

    For instance, the majority might exclude the minority from the main labour market, and thus force this excluded underclass into workfare.

    The emergence of an underclass is usually seen as a structural change within a society, but it might be simply a side-effect of democracy.

    Every democracy tempts the majority to disadvantage minorities and in practice every existing liberal democracy is in fact a dual society, with a politically marginalised minority that is typically the urban underclass.

  10. yellowstone says:

    One needs to perhaps ask if it’s necessary to slaughter the “sacred cow” given that democracies are so short lived anyway.

    Knofman quoted:

    “Professor Alexander Fraser Tytler, a Scottish historian who in 1787, writing about the decline and fall of the Athenian Republic over two thousand years before, said:

    ‘A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.

    The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years”‘.

    The following is generally added to the quote:

    These nations have progressed through this sequence:

    From bondage to spiritual faith
    From spiritual faith to great courage
    From courage to liberty
    From liberty to abundance
    From abundance to complacency
    From complacency to apathy
    From apathy to dependence
    From dependence back again into bondage”.

    It seems likely that the above were written by two different people, but they blend well and the latter one certainly begs the question, “Which of today’s democracies have reached the last three stages?

    http://www.lorencollins.net/tytler.html

  11. divka says:

    For starters, lets look at some things that are wrong with democracy.

    Firstly, democracy is often associated with capitalism and Capitalism causes lots of economic distortion in the classes, and it can quickly and easily become unfair to the lower classes.

    And Capitalism almost certainly causes violence because by its very essence it pits one person against another.

    Secondly, democracies are easy to manipulate by those with power.

    For example, lobbyists in America have manipulated the American system to give themselves unfair advantages that may not be necessary to the people; look at seatbelt laws for example, because they’re something that the government shouldn’t have been allowed to enforce because the government didn’t provide health insurance.

    Often times, and as a result of a capitalist system, politicians become accustomed to lying and cheating to get ahead.

    Now, suppose someone is installed in office who has a hidden agenda.

    We’re can’t really be sure what that person is doing or why they are there: are they funded by lobbyists?

    Are they a communist or Muslim representative trying to take over the democratic government?

    Communism however might be better than democracy for several reasons.

    Firstly, Communist leaders have no reason to hide their agendas from the public because there is nothing that the public can do about them.

    Secondly, Communism is perhaps better because it treats all its lesser citizens as equals.

    Everyone is offered the same health care, the same everything and citizens don’t have to worry about fighting to get ahead economically, because that concept doesn’t even exist.

    Communism might also be good, because according to Plato’s Republic the vast majority of the population isn’t smart enough to make political decisions anyway.

    While it may seem cruel to deny people the chance to decide, its really just lifting an extra burden off of people’s minds, and, to be honest, looking at voter turnout in America, how many citizens really want to participate in government any way?

    Lastly, communism is powerful!

    In democracy/capitalism everything is going in totally different and crazy directions at the same time so there is really very slow progress, at best.

    However, with Communism the government can dictate that the entire country put all its resources in one direction and extreme amounts of progress can be made in a very short time.

  12. RegSpragg says:

    Most people seem to think that being ‘Democratic’ is the final stage in our intellectual evolution but it’s far from it.

    Democracy a very simplistic tool, that, like everything else in the world will eventually be replaced with a much better idea.

    And democracy has nothing to do with being ‘right either’, it is merely a way for people to make up their minds to action, hopefully without resorting to violence.

    If five people go into a bar and decide to beat up the only person sitting in the bar, their action might be democratic, but it would be hard to argue that it was a correct or right action.

    So what system would be better than democracy?

    A system that is based on moral action, which is possible, but sadly still far away.

    It would have to be based on people in a country deciding what was right and moral and then making decisions based on those answers.