标题: 偶也说民主！俺说，侬说，大家说！！！ [打印本页] 作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-1-10 11:28 标题: 偶也说民主！俺说，侬说，大家说！！！ 偶也说民主\r<br>民主的实现不是一天的事情，在一个封建遗毒颇重的十几亿人口的大国更是如此。这首先有赖于经济的发展，如果一国人都饿得吃不上饭，即或只有五分之一人口温饱难保吧，你给他个东西叫民主，他想民主就是得先让我吃饱饭，截几尺布来遮遮羞，他除此之外还知道其他的吗？从某种程度上说，民主是种奢侈品，为什么西方国家民主化程度较高？这是基于高度发达的资本主义经济的，只有在人民普遍较富裕安康时，受教育水平较高，民主才会快速展。
<br>
<br>中国的封建残留观念也是制约民主的很大力量，人民习惯了你指挥我行动，而几乎从来没想过我可以指挥政府，可以监督政府，让政府为我做事。所以，中国的政治一直以来就很依赖于个人，而不是大众，如果这个个人英明，中国就能发展，如果这个个人昏庸，中国就要倒退！所以，人们的观念必须转变，而这也不是一代人两代人就能实现的。\r<br>
<br>就象是看到一个美女赤身裸体的画在画（或照片）上，私处暴露无遗时，一个70岁的中国人可能会“捂眼”以对，觉得难以入目；一个40岁的中国人可能会略带羞意地看她，他（她）能接受上面那两点的暴露，至于下面那一小片黑觉得还是过分了；而一个20岁的中国人可能会真正地去欣赏它，认为世界上最美的东西其实就是人的身体。民主也是这样，乌呀呀的一大国人，给他们一个民主，很多人可能还会觉得这样成何体统？！这还象个国家吗？更多的人可能还不知道怎么才叫民主，怎么行使民主，如果作为长远利益的民主能和作为眼前利益的实惠相交换的话，我想可能他们大多会选择后者，这也就是基层民主选举中买卖选票现象频仍的原因罢。\r<br>
<br>但是我们应该认识到的是，我们国家的民主是在不断发展着的，我们可以对国家领导人评头论足，说到他们的不足，没人说我们反革命。再说，后退二三十年，我们敢在这里公开得讨论这个问题吗？作者: wsydznn 时间: 2004-2-11 11:19
4d 在当前中国 只有通过开明君主慢慢向真正的民主化过渡
<br>才不会引起大的动荡～～～作者: NO.1 时间: 2004-2-12 18:26
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-17 17:11
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-17 18:42
中国有民主吗？\r<br>如果给个机会让你说句话就算是民主的话，那你还真是容易满足
<br>一党专政是不可能有真正意义上的民主，这你都不明白吗
<br>而最恶心的就是粉饰出来的一派太平\r<br>抓上一两个典型到处宣传，中国农村有多大，中国农民有多少，你看见的又是哪一部分？作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-2-17 18:49
楼上的：）老师怎么没透彻的教育你一下啊！\r<br> 呵呵！其实中国的民主确实十分的有限，要实现真正的民主要走的路还很长很长！！\r<br> 经济基础发生了变化，上层建筑也一定会变的，中国迟早会变的，等着吧！！
<br> 真正意义上的来说：：楼上的说的也不无道理，但是民主的进程必定是需要一定的时间的！要让中国马上实现西方的那种多党轮流执政，共同监督的民主，那是不大可能的，毕竟有中国自身的国情摆在那！！所以说：我们期待民主，我们期待政治民主化，期待更大更好的民主。。。。。。但是那需要时间。作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-17 18:53
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-2-17 18:56
：）
<br> 提出与实践是两个截然不同的概念！
<br> 这里要走的路不是一天两天！但是我相信会有那天的！作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-17 19:04
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-18 14:37
在现有的政治体制下期待民主是不可能的事情
<br>所以我们期待时间来改变
<br>改变人们的观念\r<br>改变这样的政治架构\r<br>
<br>也许我反党，但我决不反国作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-2-18 15:48
：）
<br> 反党你还入党！中国现有的制度要实现真正的民主确实有难度\r<br> 但是民主的进程却真实的在进行着，虽然很小，但是毕竟是能看到的！作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-18 18:42
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 有事您说话 时间: 2004-2-18 18:46
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-18 18:51
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 12345678 时间: 2004-2-18 18:53
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-18 18:55
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 12345678 时间: 2004-2-18 18:59
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-18 19:35
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-18 22:00
首先申明，我并没有入党，甚至也没有交过申请书
<br>因为我没有共产主义信仰\r<br>楼上的有多少是党员？你们又信仰它吗？在我看来，你们很多应该是政治投机吧？
<br>我觉得悲哀
<br>
<br>存在即是合理？\r<br>解释起来心安理得，呵呵作者: vieri 时间: 2004-2-19 10:17
民主是相对于专政而言的。作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-19 18:41
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-19 20:30
只是为了个人的前途\r<br>而伪装自己的信仰
<br>不是投机，又是什么\r<br>
<br>如果不是一党专政，会有那么多“同志”积极向党组织靠拢么？\r<br>呵呵作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-2-19 20:39
呵呵！：） 大婶，这也未必了！\r<br> 台湾不是好多党派啊！不照样有人年年向他们的党组织靠拢
<br> 这个和一党专政没关系！！至于有没有私心，这个因人而异，不能一概而论！作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-19 21:49
呵\r<br>我说的是一种普遍的现状，并不是针对某一个人
<br>要不是与前途有关，为什么每年那么多人要死要活的去入党呢，尤其是考公务员作者: 有事您说话 时间: 2004-2-20 17:10
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-20 17:44
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-20 23:12
如果我想入党
<br>高中的时候就入了
<br>但是，我说过，我没有共产主义信仰，而且我不愿意伪装
<br>
<br>要说黑暗和光明\r<br>呵呵
<br>夜空中的星星是比较惹人注意\r<br>这就是光明吗作者: kevin 时间: 2004-2-21 15:45
夜空中星星的光明是指引人们找寻第二天的光明的！！
<br> 既然黑夜已经到来，黎明还会远吗？作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-21 18:25
所以你在黑暗里还是感觉很幸福的，呵呵作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-2-21 18:43
那是因为有希望！！！
<br> 如果大婶你连希望都没了！那不是更痛苦的事情！
<br> ：）作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-21 21:39
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 第二世 时间: 2004-2-21 21:49
中国不需要也不应该有绝对的民主，国情决定的作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-21 22:03
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-21 22:35
哪来的绝对民主？
<br>不要那么极端好不好作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-22 21:04
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-23 20:48
看来愚民政策还是很有市场的\r<br>自愚愚人，赫赫作者: 祝枝山 时间: 2004-2-23 21:36
！不说什么！！\r<br> 每个人心中的民主是不同的！作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-24 19:23
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-24 19:23
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-24 22:31
人的自由是与天而来的\r<br>不是谁给的\r<br>我说话的小小自由不是谁恩赐的，是我作为人可以思考的权利
<br>如果社会发展到了“道路以目”的境地
<br>那么，它基本上就要崩溃了作者: bluecandle 时间: 2004-2-25 16:40
以民为主……\r<br>多么遥远那……\r<br>中国由于人多素质低，所以民无法作主……\r<br>这不是体制的问题，而是不知道该去怪谁的问题……作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-25 19:34
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-26 13:20
你们说这些话的时候当然可以很轻松
<br>因为这无关乎你们的利益，而你们也不曾体验到痛苦\r<br>温室里的花朵有什么资格在这里无病呻吟
<br>还是天真
<br>教科书上说什么就是什么\r<br>你们有过自己独立深入的思考问题吗，或者有认真研究过一本书，关心过一件时政吗
<br>纵然克格勃无法无天，也无法挡住人们对真理的追求\r<br>苏联为什么会解体
<br>呵呵作者: 第二世 时间: 2004-2-26 17:09
楼上心中的民主到底是什么样的状态？作者: 难忘的蓝天 时间: 2004-2-26 18:27
估计这个ＭＭ心中的民主是天堂一样的生活！！
<br>：）
<br> 民主民主 。。。人民做主！！作者: genie 时间: 2004-2-26 19:15
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 凌霄优游 时间: 2004-2-26 23:09
你能因为自己的满足就漠视别人的痛苦么？\r<br>如果是这样\r<br>那你没有资格发表关于他人的意见作者: Jason 时间: 2004-3-9 17:31
Timothy Wilken
<br>
<br>In today's world, it is assumed without question that majority rule democracy is the best way to organize humanity. To even offer a criticism of majority rule democracy is to invite an immediate and often emotionally charged attack on oneself. We are quickly asked to choose between majority rule democracy or the dictatorships of communism/fascism. We are quickly reminded that if we don’t like it here in a majority ruled democracy, we are free to leave.
<br>
<br>Majority rule democracy which is rule by the most, appears to offer a clear advance over dictatorships which is rule by the one, or oliarchy which is rule by the few.
<br>
<br>Majority rule democracy in its purest form was found in the ancient Greek city-states and early Roman Republic, these were direct democracies in which all citizens could speak and vote in assemblies. This was possible because of the small size of the city-states almost never more than 10,000 citizens. However, even these ancient democracies did not presuppose equality of all individuals; the majority of the populace, notably slaves and women, had no political rights at all. So even here the majority really did not rule.
<br>
<br>In modern representative democracies we find the majority rule mechanism used to select our representatives, to make decisions within committees and to make decisions within the legislative bodies. In the United States, we elect one president, 100 Senators and 435 Congressman. This is one President for ~276 million Americans. There are two Senators for each state. Senatorial representation would vary from one Senator for ~16 million Californians down to one Senator for ~350,000 Delawarians. The members of the first House of Representatives were elected on the basis of 1 representative for every 30,000 inhabitants, but at least 1 for each state. At present the size of the House is fixed at 435 members, elected on the basis of 1 representative for about 500,000 inhabitants.
<br>
<br>Our representatives do not even know us. If any Congressman met with 10 of his constituents every day for 365 days a year, it would take over 137 years for him just to meet all of them. And Congressmen are only elected for two year terms. If our Congressman don’t even know us how can they represent us?
<br>
<br>So if we carefully examine modern representative democracy scientifically, we discover it is an oliarchy. In other words, we are ruled by the few. When we go to the poles to elect a President, we are simply electing the leader of the few who rule. Majority rule democracy ends for we the people the moment we exit the voting booth. And, our elected leader will have no need of our opinion for four years.
<br>
<br>Its even less representative than it appears!
<br>Both houses of Congress facilitate business by the committee system, and each has a fixed number of permanent committees, called standing committees, the chief function of which is considering and preparing legislation.
<br>As the United States grew in population and in influence in world affairs, the volume and complexity of the matters arising in Congress also increased. Due consideration to all matters submitted to the Congress could not be given in open debate on the floor of the Senate and House. As a result, the standing committees of the Congress became the arbiters of the fate of practically all legislation. There are 22 standing committees in the House and 16 standing committees in the Senate. Even though majority rule is used to make decisions in these committees once the decision is made the results are imposed on ~276,000,000 Americans.
<br>
<br>In recent years, the American people have attempted to exert their will by making use of ballot initiatives. Almost always if these initiatives are not popular with the few that rule, they are quickly dismantled. In November of 1996, the majority of Californians voted for Proposition 209, which banned affirmative action, Proposition 215, which legalized medical use of marijuana, and Proposition 187, which denied legal benefits to illegal immigrants. By January of 1997, all three were hung up in the courts or in a jurisdictional squabble with the federal government. None was close to being enforced.
<br>
<br>By May of 1998, Proposition 215, the Marijuana for Medical Use Initiative which passed by a 56% majority throughout the state and by an 80% majority in San Francisco has all but been dismantled by the Few who Rule. They had succeeded in closing the majority of the medical marijuana clinics which had opened throughout the state, and were pressing criminal charges against many of those involved in the clinics. Obviously, the majority does not rule in California.
<br>
<br>This fact is being increasingly realized by citizens across the nation. Voting in our representative democracy does not make a difference. And we the people appear less and less interested in pretending that our voting has any effect whatever. Voter turnout has been declining steadily since 1960. And as reported in the Wall Street Journal for November 9, 2000:
<br>
<br>"Overall voter turnout for this week's election barely budged despite nearly $1 billion of campaign television advertisements and the closest presidential contest in decades
<br>"About 50.7% of the nation's 200 million eligible voters cast ballots this week, marginally greater than the rock-bottom level seen in 1996, but significantly lower than the 1992 level, said Curtis Gans, director of the Committee for the Study of the American Electorate. Four years ago, only 49% of those qualified to vote actually did so, the lowest turnout since 1924. By contrast, some 55% of the electorate went to the polls in 1992's close race between Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush."
<br>
<br>Seeking synergic government
<br>However, even if we had direct democracies using majority rule, it would not be a synergic form of government.
<br>Adversary relationships require loss.
<br>Neutral relationships prohibit loss, but do not require winning.
<br>Synergic relationships prohibit loss and require winning.
<br>
<br>So in fact, if we use the Neutral criteria of prohibition of loss, majority rule democracy is not even a neutral form of government. In majority rule democracy, the minority often loses. As Andrew J. Galambos wrote:
<br>
<br>"The word Democracy comes from the Greek words which mean "rule of the people." However, the practice of Democracy can be no better than the understanding of the concept of "rule of the people." Over the past 2,000 years, most people have come to accept without question or reservation the idea that Democracy means the ability of the people to choose their mode of social organization by means of majority vote.
<br>"The political concept of Democracy arose as a consequence of counting yeas and nays on particular issues and than selecting the men who would decide how issues were to be resolved. Whichever man could muster the choice of more persons than his opposition could muster became the dominant person for the society. This was and is nothing more than an application of the old dictum, might makes right.
<br>
<br>"This concept of Democracy (which prevails to this day) relies upon the ability of the winning political leaders to count upon the support of more people than their losing opponents. However, this concept does nothing to ensure the protection of the property, hence, the freedom of those who may disagree. Furthermore, those who may be in the majority with respect to a given issue or political candidate will eventually find themselves in the minority with respect to other issues or candidates. In the long run, therefore, everyone loses. This concept of Democracy eventually breaks down and leads to a destruction of freedom."
<br>
<br>Source: Andrew J.Galambos, What is True Democracy, Free Enterprise Institute, 1963
<br>
<br>In today's "FREE" world all political decisions are made using majority rule democracy. The the group deciding may be small, a committee faced with solving some particular problem, or large, the entire voting electorate of a nation choosing a President. Regardless of the size of the group deciding, decision is made when one faction within the group achieves a simple majority. That faction wins, the minority faction loses. Majority rule consensus requires only a simple majority to force the minority, the losing voters to accept the position of the majority, the winning voters. There is no need to gain the agreement of all of the members. There is no need to prevent the minority from losing.
<br>Majority rule democracy of which the committee is the most common example is filled with political intrigue and back room deals to obtain majority consensus and defeat the minority. This often results in the dark art of politics which makes strange bedfellows. Even when the majority wins they are not assured of the cooperation of the minority. Often the minority may only support the elected plan half-heartedly, or even seek to sabotage the plan they didn’t vote for since they feel they are losing anyway.
<br>
<br>Compared to the rule by the one of dictatorship, the rule by the most of majority rule democracy, appears to be a much fairer way. And fairness is perhaps the greatest value of our American nation. However, it should now be clear to the reader that while Neutral political-economic systems are better for humanity than Adversary political-economic systems. Majority rule democracy is really an Adversary political-economic system pretending to be a Neutral political-economic system. In reality only lip service is given to rule by the most.
<br>
<br>What we really have in America, the "freest nation on Earth", is rule by the few. And, while rule by the few holds some advantage over rule by the one, its advantage does not imply there is nothing better for Humanity.
<br>
<br>
<br>“So if we carefully examine modern representative democracy scientifically, we discover it is an oliarchy. In other words, we are ruled by the few. ”作者: 第二世 时间: 2004-3-10 16:51
我还得用金山翻……作者: genie 时间: 2004-3-19 23:10
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-5-11 20:04
民主民主，人民做主！：）作者: dream 时间: 2004-5-14 10:24
提示: 作者被禁止或删除 内容自动屏蔽作者: happylittlelion 时间: 2004-5-15 10:42
民主是必要的，但是中国的问题还是很多的，如果仅仅把解决民主问题放在第一位，那这本身就是不民主的作者: 白鹤 时间: 2004-5-15 15:57
解决温饱是谈民主的必要条件吗？\r<br> 也许人民生活水平达到了一定的阶段，自然就能更深刻的体会到这个程度！·\r<br> 民主确实是很重要滴！利国利民！作者: happylittlelion 时间: 2004-5-19 14:25
只有吃饱了饭的人才会去争取民主，挨饿的人是不知道什么民主的，他们关心的只是怎么去吃饱饭作者: 瓜子 时间: 2004-5-20 11:33
清谈误国!作者: happylittlelion 时间: 2004-5-20 21:02
仅仅是个人观点，欢迎批评指正作者: yshelly 时间: 2004-5-29 00:21
民主？呵呵~
<br>这不是普通人要操心的问题
<br>无论是饥饿还是吃饱\r<br>是营养过剩的那些人叫嚷的谈资吧......作者: happylittlelion 时间: 2004-5-29 15:42
不能说营养过剩吧作者: 第二世 时间: 2004-6-6 16:15
民主不一定是好事，在不成熟的环境下实行民主容易造成混乱和腐败。人民的一直有时候并不是正确的，苏格拉底就是被民主投票处死的。作者: 第二世 时间: 2004-6-6 16:15
说民主不一定是好事，在不成熟的环境下实行民主容易造成混乱和腐败。人民的一直有时候并不是正确的，苏格拉底就是被民主投票处死的。作者: Jason 时间: 2004-6-9 16:09
苏格拉底对信念的执著终于成为一种狂热，足以融化金子的反动的烈焰烧毁了他的身躯，但是，他的思想，却像舍利子一般地留了下来，并却焕发出夺目的光彩