Ethnocentrism is indeed a problem, especially in America; do not, however, confuse ethnocentrism with principles of freedom. Freedom knows no race and sees no color; freedom is universal. Differing cultures and societies, based on the evolution of their history's philosophy, will, however, interpret freedom differently. What is philosophy but the study of ideas, and what is government but the mechanism that enforces those ideas? Philosophy and government are inseparably connected, whether people wish to admit this or not. Government laws and policies are based on philosophy! Every comment on this blog is nothing more than philosophy, as each person exchanges their beliefs and ideas that are based from their own paradigms. I can appreciate China and its culture, for example, for their beautiful landscapes, majestic splendor, history, art, architecture, and philosophy in contrast to what we find in America. I do not, however, agree with the basis of government China has established, because it violates the freedom of its people, and I would not accept any proposal for Chinese laws to be implemented in the United States. This does not make me ethnocentric! At the same time, I can accept and find rich pleasures in the diversity of the world and its cultures without being ethnocentric in my condemnation of the UN. The ideas (philosophy) and paradigm upon which this country was originally founded are what made it great. If we were to run our government the same as Mexico, we would have the same results as Mexico; if we were to establish the same laws and run our country like Iran, we'd have the same results as Iran. The foundational principles that made this country great are what I find lacking in the major International organizations. If I were a mechanic, who had the best running car in my neighborhood, and I told my neighbor that his car wasn't going to work because it didn't have any gasoline, a battery, or spark plugs, this wouldn't cause any debate. Freedom, just like the car, requires certain components to function properly. Why is it so controversial to stand back for a minute and critique the UN for what it is, and most importantly for what it is NOT? As I have said, I'm not so ignorant as to throw a blanket statement against a one-world government-- if a one world government were built on proven philosophies and ideas that protected liberty and freedom, I would support it completely; I am, however, not so ignorant as to blindly accept the UN and similar international organizations on face value.

I believe RobertSRQ is referring to the fact that Bush lost the popular vote but still won the presidency. Not exactly a "Democracy" now, is it? Should we consider the "paradox of voting"? I'm not sure who Waffler is speaking of concerning those that are for the "disunion" of the United States... I whole-heartedly support the federal union and the Constitution upon which unified and made these states the greatest power ever known. Today, however, we are not living, acting, or teachings the principles upon which our government was originally built. We maintain the facade of our originality and "goodness", but we have progressed down the road towards an evolved state that the founder's wouldn't have agreed with. Why? This is not a moral issue, it's merely a matter of choice and of what works. History is a conglomerate of pressures and choices-- a type of butterfly effect of the ages. Leaders of nations have always been presented with new obstacles wherein they seek to find new answers. The problem with the leaders of today is that through their epochcentrist beliefs, they reject the lessons of history. This is not new. The history of government has seen these times before, and they will see them again; however, history has never seen these times on such a grandiose scale. Today we're faced with literal globalization, not just the perceived world (as in the days of the Romans). The idea of a "unified" world is not new. The Romans, Greeks, Christians, Arabs, etc. all worked towards a unified world under a political and religious center. If the unified political center actually worked, why not move towards a one-world government? I'm not so ethnocentric as to throw a blanket statement against a one-world government; I am, however, not so ignorant as to blindly accept the UN on face value. Freedom works. It always has, it always will. Our country is living proof. Call it principles, virtues, morals, or whatever you want-- liberty and freedom works. History has proven this time, and time, and time, and time again. The UN, however, is not built upon the "principles" of freedom that our country was built on. A house not built on a solid foundation will fall.

I'd support a president that obeyed the rule of law as put forth by the Constitution, and not arbitrary self-given privileges.

Whether or not you believe you "give up" your freedom is largely based on what philosophy you adhere to: Hobbes or Locke. Personally, I adhere to Locke. Waffler's right in that freedom is a big word, and words should always be defined as to what they are referring to-- especially to the time and place in which they were spoken. Archer, well said.

As with the Greek philosophers, so as to our own founders. What, exactly, did our founders give us? Philosophy is so readily dismissed as a beauty had to the men of leisure, wasted time, and debauchery! Such is the sad course of our nation. We have transformed our society from a generation who knew HOW to think to a people who can only argue WHAT they think (as based on no substance. You cannot properly discuss "real or actual life and events" without discussing the reasons of why. It's the differentiation between qualitative and quantitative data. People can sit around all day and find a correlation between the actions of one man against another (quantitative), but you can never find causation until you know "how the knower knows." The establishment of the UN in 1946 is an empty and basically worthless historical fact-- as are all perceived "real or actual life and events," unless there is legitimate understanding of what philosophies (life experience, understandings, perceptions of the world, etc.) brought men to make the decisions they have.

What are "real things"? Current news concerning economic conditions, political actions, or the latest prostitution scandal in New York? To simply talk about the actions of the world around us is rot, unless there is a basic and fundamental understanding to the perceived foundations and origins whereon the structures discussed are built. This fundamental understanding of the structures discussed is not simply measured by institutions, groups, and organizations, but on thoughts, ideas, beliefs, and creeds. The Greeks called the daily commotion of life's actions the "flux." They were smart enough to realize that the day-to-day mundane activities of politicians and government, businessmen, average citizens, etc. are largely irrelevant. Why? Because the "flux" of one arbitrary economic conditions will lend way to another arbitrary economic condition; the "flux" of one arbitrary political action will give way to another arbitrary political action... They did, however, see that discussion of the fundamental principles upon which everything is governed is the most sure way of finding a static and concrete understanding to how everything interacted with each other. They sought to find universal constants by which they could measure the mundane day-to-day life cycles accurately. Now the Greeks weren't perfect in their quest, but they left a foundation that we, if we are wise, can use to determine the world around us. Our founders built upon these ideas to find uniformity and a concrete resolution towards a foundation of government-- they called this natural law. Why then do I argue against Democracy? Because the premise of Democracy (as a form of government) violates natural law and unalienable rights. If we are going to talk about "real" things, then lets talk! = ) But current events is the last "real" thing out there to discuss.

These "morons" are the very bankers and influential men that control our economic conditions. Sure, the Fed can cut interest rates, but it was JPMorgan/Chase that bought out Bear Stearns for pennies of what it was worth even two weeks ago. Rockefeller is over Chase -- as well as the founder of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Trilateral Commission. It was Rockefeller (David), who, in his own book "Memoirs," that stated, "For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American Political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global, political, and economic structure--one world, if you will. If that is the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Remember, it was David Rockefeller's grandfather (mother's father) who was the Senator that pushed the Fed into existence, and it was his family that had a majority influence in creating and purporting the Fed. Now that the Fed has a life of its own (if it actually DOES have a life of its own), the Fed now pressures companies like Bear Stearns to be bought out by the Rockefeller owned Chase and JPMorgan (another of the small handful of men that created the Fed)? These wealthy bankers only stand to gain through the economic degradation of America and the world! The known historical facts that support this are too numerous to name! This quote is absolutely true!

Amen, and Amen!

..laughs.. Of all the people who promote democracy and praise the UN!! Waffler?! Mr. Democracy himself?! Mr. "Democracy all of the time without exception"--- praising the UN?! Am I reading this correctly? Waffler?! You once criticized me for supporting a system of government where the states (government) appointed delegates to a higher government (federal) without the consent of the people directly! Now you stand here to defend the largest non-Democratic international organization on the earth-- where not even one person is elected by the voice of the people?! Waffler? Tell me this isn't so! ..laughs.. This really seems too good to be true-- you're not being hypocritical now, are you?! Of all the people on this blog, I thought for sure that you would be the one person to condem the UN right out of existence, because of its non-Democratic structure!!

Umm... do we realize that the United States is not classified as a "Nation-State"? A "nation" is defined as a group, culture, or society with a common language, religion, belief, etc. A "state" is defined as a specified geographic area with a centralized and sovereign political governing body that is recognized by other states. Now, some nations are also states; we call these "nation states." Germany, for instances, is a culture or society that can be defined by a distinct and strong central language that is different than all other languages outside its specified geographic boarder that has a sovereign and centralized political system. Germany is a nation state, as is France, Switzerland, Japan, and every other "state" that has a unique language and culture separate from all other states. The United States, however, is not specified as a "nation," because our central language is not unique to us, nor is it the only language our "state" uses (remember: Press "1" for English, and Press "2" for Spanish). Nation States can theoretically exist within a one world government -- it all depends on how they structure it. It's too ambiguous to know what Clinton is really saying. As a known globalist, we can pretty much guess, right? Such a statement, while sad, is not, by definition, describing America.

Public opinion, when broken down, is a conglomerate of individual opinions. Each individual arrived at their voting decisions based on their previous opinions, prejudices, traditions, delusions, and how they subjectively see the world based on their life experiences, education, social groupings, religion, etc. When you put two, and three, and four, and ten, and a hundred, and a thousand such individuals together--public opinion is nothing more than a reflection of the individual's bias. You still haven't answered my question Waffler. At what magic number in your grandiose delusions of Democracy can the majority justifiably rape a women or kill an innocent child? If "Democracy is the reality of public opinion" and public opinion says it's okay to rape (the Hutu/Tutsi conflict for example)-- and they pass laws saying it's okay to rape-- what is the justifiable ratio to make rape okay?

Waffler, the foundations of your ad hominem that "What can you expect from a twice Prime Minister in a monocracy?" are off base. Remember, the founders of your own Constitution hated and rejected Democracy. So, before you go rejecting philosophy because of the messenger, remember that your own founders hated the same philosophy and system of government.

Ah, Madison, where did men like you go? Where is the understanding of our founders in today's culture and society? Amen, and amen!

But that's not Democracy. Opinion, prejudice, tradition, delusion, and appearance are the very things the majority uses in deciding what freedoms they want one day over the next-- in other words, as Thoreau says, Democracy isn't reality! HA! Thoreau, you're a good man, I like your style! Apparently Colbert isn't the first person to discuss the "truthiness" of "wikiality" (Democracy of knowledge).

I can accept Democracy to where my nose begins; but then again, wouldn't that just be a Republic?

Mussolini was a fascist, which is much akin to socialism/communism. The main results of both are basically the same, except that fascism typically mandates and forces under penalty that the citizens be individually responsible for themselves, and socialism/communism mandates under penalty that everyone be responsible for everyone else. Each system seeks to establish responsibility-- one system through the individual and one through the community. The communal system will naturally be more Democratic, because it deals with social pressures that operate under a paradigm that can only be resolved through a majority consensus. While many countries have used our Constitution to frame their own, no other Constitution has been built on the premise that ours was built on. Every following Constitution after ours dictated to the people what their rights, duties, and privileges were; whereas our Constitution was a declaration from the people in telling the government what our unalienable rights, duties, and privileges were, as given to us by our "Creator," that could NEVER be encroached upon by the government. This foundation of government is unique and has not been established by any other government to-date. Why? Because they, like most Americans anymore, do not understand the principles of a Republic whereupon our government was built. From an international level of analysis, political scientists can measure the dichotomy of European Democracy and ill-called American Democracy. As I have mentioned before, as I recently talked with the EU ambassador to the United States, John Bruton, concerning European Democracy and the American Republic, he made it very obvious that America's system of federalism (a "Republic," he called it) cannot be defined as a Democracy-- especially under the auspice of European Democracy. Mussolini was a great fascist, as far as fascism goes, but a poor political scientist in comparative politics. Mussolini is comparing the American Republic to European Democracy. Whereas the people of Europe, who, even under their Constitutions, were given their rights from their government-- the American people, under their Constitution, TOLD the government what THEIR rights were! I would certainly agree with Mussolini if he were talking about European Democracy; however, in speaking of the American people, he is completely off base. Furthermore, there is evidence, as per the date of this quote that he is speaking to America concerning their involvement in WWI. If he were speaking of the idealism of European Democracy and irony of the United States involvement-- this would also make sense.

My Name, I agree with you. If I chose to oppress myself, I should be allowed to; however, if I choose to oppress myself, I should not be allowed to do so if it violates the rights of and oppresses my neighbor. This is the fundamental difference between Democracy and the American Republic. The dichotomy is set. Democracies end in a manner of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict. Our Republic allows for a man to be his own oppressor; however, unlike Democracy, it stipulates that you cannot be your own oppressor at the expense of the rights of your neighbor.

Ah, Emerson was a very educated man who knew well his history and philosophy. This is merely a restatement of Aristotelian thought.

Well, you either agree that we are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights," or you don't. You either believe that your rights come from man, or from the Creator. If you believe that your rights come from man, then all rights are ALIENABLE and there is no firm foundation against usurpation, because what man has given man can take away. If the basis of government rests upon a Creator giving rights, then it presupposes that there are rights that cannot be taken away by man. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."

Archer is not talking about the Democratic Party, the ideas he expressed are in reference to Aristotle's Republic. There are two basic groups that Aristotle separated political systems by: (1) The self-interested systems and (2) the systems of the common good. Each system analyzed a differing form of government on an individual, group, and societal level. Self-interested groups included: dictatorships/tyrannies (rule of the individual), oligarchies (rule of few), Democracy (rule of the many). The systems of the common good included: Monarchies (rule of the individual), Aristocracies (rule of the few), and Constitutional Republics (rule of the many). Aristotle argued, for various reasons, that Constitutional Republics were the best systems of government. In pitting these Republics against Democracies he resolved the issue of economics. He argued for a large and strong middle class, because it would balance the dichotomy of rich and poor. The poor, he argued, wanted their rights to be secure at the expense of the rich man's property; the rich, he further argued, wanted their property to be secure and the expense of the poor man's rights. A large middle-class is the only way to balance the dichotomy equitably. Democracies, he argued, would either favor the rich or poor (depending on who was in the majority at the time) and perpetuate oppression of either side exponentially until everything fell apart. A government based presumed principles with a strong middle-class, he argued, in a Constitutional Republic is the only way to solve this paradox; otherwise, the poor would always vote against the property of the rich, and the rich would always vote against the rights of the poor.

First off, "Democracy" (Capital "D") is a type and form of government; whereas, "democracy" (Small "d") is a politically convoluted term that typically describes a process. In language, we commonly associate a name brand product (Q-tip, Kleenex, Coke, etc.) to define entire product lines. We often use "Q-tip" to define a cotton swab, whether or not we're actually talking about or buying Q-tips; we often use "Kleenex" to define tissues, whether or not we're actually talking about or buying Kleenexes; we often use "Coke" to define a cola soft drink, whether or not we're actually talking about or buying Coca-Cola. The use of "democracy" (as a process) is no different. We use "democracy" or "democratic method" as a playoff of the "Democracy" name brand on any political processes wherein the people elect their leaders through voting, even though it is not the only political system (product line) of government that allows for or produces voting and majority rule or rule of the people. I'll say it again, Democracy and "democracy" are two entirely different things. Secondly, no, Waffler, Socialism and Communism are political systems that effect economic systems (I can give you half a dozen collegiate sources to verify this, if you so desire). If you really want to stretch it, then you can say that they are both (the application of Communism being political, while the philosophical goal of Communism being economic). Although he had economic goals, Marx's revolution was purely political. Soviet Russia was not Marx's Communism (neither is China or N. Korea, for that matter), but was a convoluted mess of Leninism, Marxism/Engelism, and Stalinism, with a little Khrushchev and Brezhnev on the side. I'm guessing you don't know much about politics, political theory, or the evolution of philosophy in how a thought evolves from an original source (Marx: although he wasn't very original) to how it's actually implemented (Lenin, Stalin, etc.) within a codex of laws, cabinets, and enforcements -- so let me see if I can help explain. Marx both loved and hated Democracy (Big "D"), just as he both loved and hated capitalism... He applauded the steps that capitalism had made in bringing Europe out of the Dark Ages, but sought to establish the new evolutionary jump in politics, economics, and sociology. He couldn't establish political Communism without using capitalism, because Communism, he noted, will only work for people who have experienced the capitalistic paradigm. The same applies for "Democracy." Marx's entire revolution was to bring about societal Democracy, wherein the majority of the people would rise up and overthrow not only the government, but business, religion, economics, property, etc. by the power of mere majority rule, and then put everything within the power of one centralized government that would maintain absolute societal Democracy. China, N. Korea, and the U.S.S.R. took the philosophy of Marx's Communist idea of societal Democracy and applied the outcome of societal Democracy without including the process. While I wholeheartedly disagree with Marxist philosophy, Marx himself wouldn't agree with the Communism of China, N. Korea, or of the former U.S.S.R. So, your comparison and bringing up of Soviet Russia is a non-issue. Russia made up its own form of Communism that didn't include a "democratic process." Soviet Russia (China and N. Korea) merely looked Marx's process and went straight for the results, while ignoring the societal Democracy and Marx's method of how to get there. Oh, and Waffler, don't look now, but the Russian people are actually starting to revert back to their old Communist ways... Recent polls depict a Russian populace that wants the Soviet Empire back.

While I agree with this quote, I think any real discussion on it will end in a battle of semantics. As I addressed in one of the other quotes, Democracy's ultimate social manifestation is Socialism/Communism. While I'll argue that the sole basis of Socialism/Communism is envy (one man envying the property of another, and seeking to take it by force, because he does not have equal property), the retort will certainly be presented that Socialism/Communism is not envy, but compassion. After this I'd argue that compassion is only truly shown if done so by choice and not coercion. Ultimately, someone would respond with something about the big-bad-nasty-selfish-corporations and how they're destroying the little-guy, and the need for forceful government charity/intervention... etc. and so on and so forth... Suffice it to say, I agree with the quote.

I agree with Mike. If Democracies only returned the people back to zero, then there would be little problem with Democracies, because once it failed you could simply reform it and kick start it back into existence. The problem, however, comes at the cost of human lives that can never be replaced-- whenever a life is lost, the net result is always negative. The self-canceling business and suicidal process of Democracies have always come at the cost of many lost lives. Democracies always end in the negative.

Socialism/Communism is the ultimate expression of Democracy. Whereas most Democracies contain their legitimacy within the parameters of political governance (maintaining only a superficial level of Democracy), Socialism/Communism breaks down these parameters and establishes full societal Democracy. Corporate leaders are therefore at the scrutiny of their employees, simply because the employees are in the majority. All things become "common" as property rights are destroyed, because the majority of workers revolt against the minority of business owners. Company owners are promptly removed and board members and trustees are then voted out by the employees of the corporations, as the revolution of the social majority takes over from the elitist corporate sharks. "Workers of the world unite!" Sound familiar? If anyone has actually read the Communist Manifesto, they already know that Marx's greatest ally to communism was Democracy-- in fact, it was only through Democracy that Marx said he could establish Communism. Social Democracy WAS the means whereby the violent communist revolution would take place. It was the purest form of Democracy wherein the majority Hutu savagely massacred the minority Tutsi. None of the few proponents of Democracy on this blog have yet answered what their magic Democratic number is wherein the majority can justifiably rape a women or kill a child. Proponents of Democracy are hypocritical if they support "majority rule all of the time without exception," and disagree with the Hutu carnage--> the Hutu were in the majority by at least 3:1. If majority rule all of the time is the best foundation for government and is what America is based upon, then what is the magic ratio wherein the majority in America can justifiabley infringe upon individual rights and legalize the raping of women and the killing of children? 2:1? 100,000,000:1?

Waffler, your situation then was ideal-- not everyone has shared your same results. Diebold machines have been known to contain pre-voting information when delivered to the poling stations, bad paper feeding trays that prohibit a hard paper trail, and easy security breach bluetooth type wireless modems that can be easily hacked. There have also been sworn testimonies before Senate judiciary committees of programmers who have turned state's evidence against the programming companies that originated and wired the software in electronic voting machines to "throw" elections. These are just a few of the problems that have come up against Diebold and electronic voting machines. The are some states that are motioning to completely reject and throw out the electronic voting machines after state courts have found evidence of intentional voting fraud.