I was posting in the thread "national defense authroiztaion act" and it occured to me that this measure is a means for the US government to at least maintain its country's freedom from radical islamic terrorists. Im not saying that this paranoia is the right way to do this at all, but maybe the US government thinks it is the lesser of two evils. But thats not the whole picture.
The problem starts with the US being a democratic nation - represtants to the government are democartically elected. This creates a problem that they have to please the people, or else they wont get elected. When it doesnt interfere in foreign matters, the US governements gets blamed for letting cruel despots take "democracy" and capitalism out from the hands of innocent citizens. When it does interfere, it arms people who then become a threat to their own country - and to the rest of the world. Case in point: the US government armed Afghanistan to reistst against Russian communism and the armed Afghans became the Taliban. Other examples would include Egyptian Presidant Ossni Mubarack, Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, and Libyan dictator Muammar Khaddafi being thrown over in favor of democartically elected governments. And when democratic elections in these countries are organized who wins the elections? Islamic parties. This is the heart of the problem. The middle east is just filled with Islamists who are just waiting to take over and impose their ideals through politics. They relish the throwing over of Islamic moderates like Khaddaffi, because this allows them to seize power where a stable governement originally created and put in place by the US was taking their place.
Democracy is supposed to be the great liberator of mankind. But what is it doing in the wolrd now? Democratically elected governements are ruining everything because it allows the rule of the fool(the fool = the greatest majority) to have power, not the wise, the few, the intelligent.
What do you think? Has democracy reached the end of its rope? Is its tip now burning away to ashes? Is it time for some new form of government to be favored over democracies? What about a meritocracy a group of people who select who gets to rule and make decisions, such as the anceint Roman senate during the Roman empire did, rather than (though I beleive they were democratically elected too, not everyone in Rome was allowed citizenship. In fact, most werent) everyone being able to make a "difference" by voting? Or is complaining about the government that your right to vote grants you worth too much? Do we just want a society comprised of upset complainers, rather than contributors? What power does democracy allow the average person to have in the end, and is the average really worth being given the final say?