Our political system is based on liberal democracy, multiculturalism, and personal materialism (individualism).

Now, looking over the past 5000 or so years of history, please name:

(1) A democracy that did not go into decline following its adoption of democracy, and end up a third-world dictatorship.

(2) A multiculture that did not result in a hybrid ethnicity with less aptitute for cultural and intellectual pursuits than its ingredient ethnicities.

(3) A culture based on individualism that did not rapidly lose sight of reality and collapse.

I'd love to hear your answers (but I know you cannot answer this one).

Rome fell, and the USA is falling, because we have nothing we agree on and are dedicated to selfishness and illusion.

You either figure this out and counteract it, or lie back passively and try to enjoy the collapse.

http://forums.chron.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=339&webtag=hc-politics

U.S is - Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.

Our political system is based on liberal democracy, multiculturalism, and personal materialism (individualism)

that sounds perfect, just because Roman Empire fell doesnt mean all democracies will fail.

i think this system of govt is good because it takes into account peoples natural inclination of greed (recognition) and tries to nurture it into innovation.

i say this "at leasy you have a shot" :)

Rome fell, and the USA is falling, because we have nothing we agree on and are dedicated to selfishness and illusion.



Here we go again, comparing the USA to Rome. :bugeye: You guys really do think your smart dont you ? LOL

Anyways Einstein you say we are "are dedicated to selfishness" , dude this is where you are dead wrong and Im not going to try to even explain it to you. You live in a fantasy world. Just stay there.

Rome fell and got up again and fell again and got up again. If you want to liken us to rome, we should have hundreds and hundreds of years left. Even when we die, we would become a model for every other country to come... all trying to emulate us.

I will take that as a compliment.

And the Roman Empire stood for about 1500 years. If USA stands half that long we're in good shape wouldnt ya say? :bugeye:

The Roman Empire was not democratic for 1500 years... only the last few generations :)

Conclusion:

android: 1
You Losers: 0

Do you have any idea what your talking about ? :bugeye:
After the overthrow of the Tarquin monarchy by Junius Brutus in 509 BC, Rome did not revert back to a monarchy for the rest of its history.

(1) A democracy that did not go into decline following its adoption of democracy, and end up a third-world dictatorship.

For starters, there's the first-world countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_world

and then there's India, Brazil, Mexico, etc...


(2) A multiculture that did not result in a hybrid ethnicity with less aptitute for cultural and intellectual pursuits than its ingredient ethnicities.

I don't think "multiculture" has a well-defined track record, seeing as the idea has only existed for a couple of decades. But thanks for letting us know that you're a racist, anyway...


(3) A culture based on individualism that did not rapidly lose sight of reality and collapse.

Well, if you consider four centuries of exponential growth culminating in the wealthiest nation in history to be a "rapid collapse," then... yeah, I'd have to agree that America's been a real disaster.

It's like you're arguing that jogging isn't a good idea because you'll still die eventually.

Do you have any idea what your talking about ? :bugeye:
After the overthrow of the Tarquin monarchy by Junius Brutus in 509 BC, Rome did not revert back to a monarchy for the rest of its history.

The Roman Republic was mostly oligarchic, not democratic

The closest thing to democracy in the ancient world was Greece...close, but no cigar...

android...0
history...1

Look at every ancient civilization on earth and point out a single one. . . that didn't fall. . . oh wait.

I would say that the USA is a natral extention of Rome through its old English branch...

Name a system of government that has been shown to do better? Communism? Islamic? What?

I would say that the USA is a natral extention of Rome through its old English branch...

Interesting... wouldn't that apply to India as well then?


Name a system of government that has been shown to do better? Communism? Islamic? What?

My guess is that android is into social democracy, but he seems to have abandoned his own thread. We may never know...

I agree sadly that America seems headed toward decline. However, I think it is due to socialism and naive voters.

While the federal govnment was weak, our system worked well in spite of the vast majority of voters being naive. If we had never amended the constituion to allow a federl income tax, we might have a better chance of surviving for a long time. Those founding fathers were smart people.

I do not advocate an unrestricted democracy, which has never existed. Ancient Athens was run as a pure democracy for a while, but not many had voting rights. I am not sure this qualifies as a democracy.

BTW: What do you suggest as a better system than a constituitonal republic with democratic principles? A tyranny? A monarchy?

10 points For Dinosaur, he has it right, America is a Constitutional, Reprsenative Republic, with Democratic Principles, we are not a democracy never have been and never will be hopefilly.

U.S is - Constitution-based federal republic; strong democratic tradition.

The type of government is representative democracy, a common misconception is that of participatory democracy. There has been some popular indication that those representatives that do get voted in fall into disfavor with the public by the very act of misrepresenting or not at all representing their constituents, but rather turning to favor non-voting and even foreign constituents instead. Additionally, judges, some cabinet members and ordinary staff are not subject to being put into office by voting constituents. The individual vote in itself is in reality miniscule on the winning side or insignificant on the losing side. For the most part that is the extent of an individual citizen's power in the direction of representative democratic government. The problem is that the guy who shows the most attractive family among two or three other choices on television gets the vote, not the guy who is definitely the best for the job among a sizable body of qualified candidates to pick from. So, we have the common voter who is probably not meaningfully informed and a tiny pool of two or three candidates who can afford to get on camera for the beauty pageant.