Ads on sites
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
American's put up with it only because there are no other options,
Other way around.
Both are probably correct. either way you write it.
Well... either America isn't a Republic and has no freedom, or the people control these things. You can't have both. In either case, it's not the best answer. But it is what it is. If you believe in the American process, then the answer has to be that the people have been more or less happy to put up with it. Not happy, but happy enough. Complacent goes a long way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Americans are more accepting of business practices such as monopolies that lead to these things. It's not that Americans like bad ISPs, is that they tolerate them more through business practices.
You're saying what - that Europeans aren't willing to put up with that - and what? there is an option for them to change to?
Yes and yes. They have far stricter laws about these things.
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better. I seriously doubt the citizen actually put more influence into their government than we do (though I could be mistaken), Their laws and their leaders just more closely resemble the benevolent dictator that you would like to see in power.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
-
@Dashrender said:
Their laws and their leaders just more closely resemble the benevolent dictator that you would like to see in power.
Because they are less tolerant of the things that Americans tolerate (and moreso of other things.)
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
Which kind of goes back to the original point, right? The only people we vote for are corrupt. ... when people perceived as not corrupt run for office they are rarely voted in.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
You just stated what I said the issue is..... the people dont care.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
So it's really less on the citizens (of course you'll argue that we voted these ass hats in who give away our freedom of choice) and more on the city officials and their BS agreements.
Exactly. If people were unhappy with corruption in municipal government, they could do something about it.
I'm not sure I truly believe this - in principal it's true - we can vote in new leadership. The problem is getting someone who the people will follow that isn't already corrupt, yet has the people behind them enough to get elected.
Which kind of goes back to the original point right? The only people we vote for are corrupt. ... when people perceived as not corrupt run for office they are rarely voted in.
Exactly, because at the end of the day, Americans are accepting of corruption.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
Maybe, but they don't really have that in most countries. If anything, most of Europe is far more democratic. Far more.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
according to Scott, yes.
-
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
That's what history generally shows. Yes. Not all, certainly. But over the long look at history, democracies are the most war prone, unhappy societies and dictators are the happiest and most peaceful. That's the long average, of course.
-
@Dashrender said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
according to Scott, yes.
According to lots of studies too. That was required stuff from grad work at RIT in IT, as well. Dictators have the most risk in all directions, but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
-
John Green teaches a good class on that too when he looks at the Greeks vs. Persia and how society lost, big time, when Greece beat Persia and the best culture of the time took a back seat to the mob rule of Greek culture.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
I'm not sure I think the citizens of Europe tolerate it less - if anything, their leaders are just better.
How do you think that they get better leaders?
Frankly I think it comes from the closer ties to the dictators you've mentioned...
So dictators are better leaders?
That's what history generally shows. Yes. Not all, certainly. But over the long look at history, democracies are the most war prone, unhappy societies and dictators are the happiest and most peaceful. That's the long average, of course.
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, and instead of just being at piece and keeping their people safe. A dictator doesn't generally have to answer to anyone, and being the ultimate decider, decides when lessers are being corrupt and should want to shut them down.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
This is the part that I don't understand. What forces them to be good?
-
@Dashrender said:
On one hand this makes sense, as long as the dictator in question isn't out for world domination, ...
And also assuming that the democracy is not. Most of the world would say that the US doesn't qualify here and has, for a long time, been a democratic war machine, much like Rome and Greece were when they were Republics. Remember, Roman expansion was under the republic, the contraction was under the Emperors.
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
but on the average, have the most forces (ethics, social pressure, nobles oblige, self serving history, etc.) to make them good.
This is the part that I don't understand. What forces them to be good?
Nothing FORCES them, it is that there are more pressures. Democracies have essentially nothing pressuring them to be good, dictators have many things.
-
It's not that dictators are good, but that the results are that they are better. Better doesn't imply good.
