Pretend you are a middle class citizen.\n\nYou have two choices:\n\nFirst choice- A democracy with a weak and unstable government. Different groups have conflicts (read bombings, firefights, etc) daily, and innocent lives are lost. Basic life necessities like the utilities are frequently broken. Your safety is not guarenteed, but you are free to say and do pretty much anything you want. You are also free to participate in politics. \n\nSecond choice- An oppressive dictatorship government which monitors virtually every move of its citizens. The country is safe and in order. Basic life necessities are not a problem for people in your class. However, you do not have much civil liberties. Anything that you say or do that the dictator doesn't like will get you into big trouble (imprisonment, torture, or execution). You have no political freedoms.\n\nChoose one and explain why you choose the answer.
125089
I suspected Greasy was trying to line up statements justifying the invasion of Iraq, but he claims he's not and added a negative for the chaotic democracy, that if you speak out you're more likely to be assassinated.  I'm still pointing out that the analogy to Iraq--intended or not--is not accurate.  The forces of democracy also face a military occupation that is widely detested, and infiltration by violent radical foreigners, and you're in danger of sliding into poverty because the economy is falling apart.\n\nIf I pretend this isn't a question about Iraq but a generic country, I'd take the chaotic democracy because most countries aren't as dysfunctional as Iraq is now, and in a fluid situation there is more hope for improvement than in a static situation such as a powerful dictator in total control.  Russia had chaotic democracy for a while and regressed to something like a Latin American pseudo-democracy, but I'd rather have lived through that than Stalin's or Brezhnev's regimes.\n\nI will still point out that the US has a shameful record of trading freedom for supposed security after 9/11.  The authors of the Bill of Rights would be disturbed to see a president repeal large chunks of it by fiat.  Anyone who voted for Bush in 2004 and now dares to lecture the Iraqis about how they should value freedom over security is profoundly hypocritical or uninformed.
471200
I would argue it is neither of the last two choices you gave. \n\nEqual rights... far from true. Sure better than a lot of countries but take equal rights for women as an example, the USA is ranked 23 in the world concerning that.\n\nFreedom of Expression... the Republican party has converted our country into a country that now punished you for having a political opinion. IE, the Dixie Chics\n\nFreedom to make money... only if you are born into money or if you get lucky enough to have buddies or family loan you large amounts of money then can you become a grand success. IE, Gates and Michael Dell were both backed by rich uncles. A person that starts with nothing very RARELY makes it out of poverty. At most, they might get lucky enough to be on the bottom spectrum of middle class.
121547
There are always sacrafices needed and made so that we can enjoy our freedoms. You can't force anyone to live together in peace. No matter how hard you try, it doesn't work. That is the big ideal that socialist/communist societies try to portray. History has shown them to be failures.
331210
Firstly, you would not have a car.\nNo one would have a car.\nInstead there would be excellent public transport.\nIt would be supremely reliable.\n\nA calculator would be made available to you for your test.\n\nYour community hall would also have a place where you could go and study.  It would be fully equipped with calculators, computers and other equipment.\n\nFinally you would not eat alone or in your tiny family unit but would share a communal meal with your neighbours.\nYou would all eat together.\n\nYour effort would actually be reduced because\n1. you would not need to worry about servicing or looking after a car, there would be no need.\n2. you would not need to worry about finding/buying equipment for your course. It would all be made available to you.\n3. you would not have to cook for yourself.  Instead those neighbours who were talented home managers would prepare meals for you.\n\nThe question is, how can a society possibly function where the rich keep getting richer, the poor poorer.  Where each day a billion cars clog the roads, where at any moment one of the growing army of the poor might decide to just seize your posessions because they are so desperate/unhappy/discontented.\n\nHow long can our society last?\n\n(PS you are right, human nature does lead to a greedy capitalist democracy which of course is another name for mob rule.)
501310
There are a few flaws with your question and premises... so it is difficult to answer your question when you have made a choice or want ppl to make a choice of which party being better than the other based on falsities... lies.... untruths...\n\n1. Democrats don't want ppl to not own guns. No clue where you came up with that... I am not just a democrat, I am also far left and very liberal. With that said, I believe in the constitution which I believe pretty much guarantees our right to own a gun... I think you might be confusing gun control with no gun ownership. Gun control is basically, not allowing just anybody to own a gun... like ex-felons, ppl that have been convicted of violent crimes, the mentally ill, etc... It would also include restrictions on the type of weapons we can own... like I don't see why anyone needs to own a machine gun. \n\n2. It appears to me that you are not clear on the definition of communism...\n\n3. My guess would be, from your statement, that you think Planned Parenthood offers abortion as an alternative. Just to let you know, they don't. If a woman tells them they want an abortion, they won't even tell them where they can get one. \n\n4. The ACLU is similar to many law firms in that it simply targets a certain base... in this case, more civil rights. In the end, the courts make the final decisions so I really don't see where your anti-ACLU statement came from except that you are just prejudiced in that area... one of those that get annoyed when you see a minority, etc.. fighting back against discrimination, etc...\n\nTo answer the question, which party is best comes down to where you stand on issues... for me, the democratic party matches more with my belief and value system.
121814
What you need to do, is educate yourself. Once youve dont that to a satisfactory level, vote, protest, speak your views.  Keep going, it seems to me like youre just about to delve into the world of political knowledge, keep going.  Youre right, governments have always fed off the ignorant and apathetic, and those who werent usually didnt have the voice, bravery, or backing to do anything about.  The greatest friend of an opressor is the bear that doesnt see the trap.  Bottom line, people need to grow out and strive to make a difference themselvs, including you, the pen is mightier than the sword.  Now if you want to learn it depends on what in government, however before anything.  WWW.wikipedia.org, is the portal to infinite nonbiased information on EVERYTING. I have a book I'm reading now by John Lewis Gaddis, The Cold War, great book, if youre interested in that, and the true happenings of, look into it. Also Encyclopedia Idiotica: The 50 Greatest Blunders of Man and the People Who Made Them. Great book for general historical and economical knowledge, and its not really an ecyclopedia, so dont let that put ya down.  And that all i got to say.
130187
We still vote in the USA we are not a dictatorship. We also have a president that is willing (no matter what kind of crap is thrown his way) to stand up for our democracy and others. Think about not being able to leave the country, have any control over who you work for, or be able to vote.
112644
The person asking this question apparently has little familiarity with America's deeply revered democratic tradition.  It is this tradition, moreso than any particular laws or constitutional rights, which is the ultimate guarantor of freedom in America.  \n\nIn fact, the scenario the writer describes is similar to the "Pentagon Papers" or "Watergate" scandals, in which individuals did in fact release "information against America's government which every body should know them," knowing full well the risks they were taking.  \n\nIf the scenario the writer describes were to happen in America, a conscientious American would take comfort in several aspects of our democracy: (1) the freedom of the press, (2) the devolution of powers to state and local authorities, and, most importantly (3) the power of popular opinion, specifically the popular support of democratic traditions.  \n\nTo take a concrete scenario: \n\n(1) Freedom of the press -- I place a discrete call to a major television network.  I arrange to meet a reporter with cameras in a public place.  Because of our tradition of a free press, the reporter will be excited to break a major story and will not fear reprisals.  He might be wrong or naive about this, (as demonstrated by several recent examples of reporters going to jail), but Americans in general and reporters in particular feel so strongly about the freedom of the press that journalists are willing, even eager, to risk going to jail or worse in order to defend the principle of a free press.\n\n(2) Devolution of Powers -- I ask the reporter to call the local police to provide protection during the interview.  Or I call the local police myself.  The local police don't know and don't care what the CIA says.  They answer to the mayor of the city, who answers to the people of the city -- not to the government of the United States.  The local police will not allow CIA officers or anyone else to kill people in my city.  If they believe that I really might be in danger, they will come to protect me.  \n(3) popular support of democratic traditions -- the moment I announce my "secret" on television, the CIA would never dare to hurt me, no matter what the "government" says.  If any harm came to me, there would be a national outcry.  The opposition members of the Congress would ensure that there was a public inquiry into what happened.  Each CIA agent is aware that Congress might review what happened, and the CIA agent who killed me, as well as his boss who ordered me killed, would go to jail for murder.  If the president ordered me killed, he would be impeached and go to jail for murder.  \n\nIn case you think this couldn't happen, look at what happened when the "popular opinion" found out that Richard Nixon authorized a "two-bit burglary" at the Watergate Hotel.  He was forced to resign.  The truth is, no one actually "forced" him to resign -- he chose to resign, because he knew what would happen to him if he didn't resign.\n\nTo take another example, look at what happened when Bill Clinton said he "never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky."  You can argue about whether or not he actually lied, but it was enough that the Congress impeached him.  He was tried for perjury in the Senate, which determined that he probably didn't lie.  \n\nBut if that's what happens to presidents who authorize a break-in to an apartment, or who stretch or bend the truth, you can imagine what would happen to a president who ordered the execution of an American citizen for releasing damaging information.  \n\nAll this happens, not because the law requires it to happen (although the law does require it), not because the local police enforce the laws (although the local police do enforce the laws), but primarily because the vast majority of American people feel so strongly about our democratic traditions, that we DEMAND tha
349033
It isn't a question, but three.\n\n-  What if people were (misspelling) so completely controlled by a powerful government (I can't understand the rest WHAT is like everyone else)?  Maybe you mean that everyone would be like everyone else?\n\nThe simple answer is Communism, a failed political and economic system.  The system fails because it doesn't encourage competition or development.  With complete government control all resources would be divided by the government or used for their projects.  There is always a limit on resources, not everyone in the US can get a cell phone, a big screen TV, and HDTV service.  Some people just can’t afford it all.  So some people have to do without.  Who determines how much of a resources is needed for a task.  If a building required all the available wood in the region then it would be sent there, but since the boss likes to make birdhouses he takes some for himself.  So what happens to you when you can’t get the wood to build your doghouse, or to repair your own house?\n\nAnother big problem is that since there are always shortages in a non-perfect supply system it encourages corruption.  In the above situation the boss might save some wood for you in return for sexual favors, is that fair?  There are only so many doctors available, so who would decide which one gets treatment?  The people in power would get the best health care and those who were not in power would have to make do with the rest.  All the best equipment and medicines would be transferred to those hospitals with the result of people dieing, when they could have been saved.  Is this fair, well if you are a family member of one of the rulers then it would seem fair to you?  Who would decide?\n\nIt is impossible to make everyone just like everyone else.  If you do that then the smart people would have to acts less intelligent, while the less intelligent would be responsible for more than they can handle.  How do you change everyone’s looks, say goodbye to beauty; everyone would look just the same.  If a government had this power then they would make all redheads and all blondes dye their hair black or brunette.  What happens to those with perfect vision?  Most people don’t have perfect vision, it deteriorates with time and eventually some people won’t be able to get it corrected to 20/20.  So what do you plan on doing?  Do you make everyone wear glasses so their vision will all be downgraded or upgraded to the norm?  What about the blind, or do you just kill them all off?\n\n-  What if all competition was removed from society?\n\nAgain communism is the simple answer.\nAnother good answer is illustrated by the TV Show (PBS) Guns, Germs and Steel.  The reason why most primitive societies haven't advanced as far as others is because they didn't need to.  The pressures of their environment are less so they don't need to improve things.  When all you have to do for breakfast is go outside and chuck a spear then why invent a supermarket, and all that is required to build it?  Why bother to invent a brass spear or even a rock knife if you didn’t need it?\n\nCompetition forces advancements and development (as per Darwin's theory of Evolution).  Without competition the species stagnates and eventually dies.  Why run the race when you can’t win, why bother to enter the race at all?  The points on Yahoo Answers don’t mean very much, but most people like to gather points for bragging rights.  If there wasn’t a point system then why bother to answer any questions, or ask them?  Competition is basic to what we do and how we live.  Viruses compete against the body’s immune system.  When your body defeats a virus then it keeps immunity to that virus for a very long time.  Once you get Chicken Pox then you are immune to them.  Without that competition you could get infected every single time you are exposed.  The same is true in our society competition is needed to improve.\n\n-  What if technolo
446168
Relax pal. I come from the X-Soviet Union. You are not loosing any liberties. When it does become too "secure" people usually vote it out in this country. And that is why I prefer to live here, and not there.
634567
Ban: cell phones, cars, cigarettes and television\n\nRequire: \n1. Every citizen, on their 18th birthday, has to live at least one year in another country-for example, every American must spend one year in a third world country.\n2.  All jobs, no matter whether a lawyer, an athlete, a bus driver, etc. would have the exact same salary. No work would be considered any more monetarily valuable than any other.\n3.  Every citizen would have full quality health care.
538355
Yes, I like living in a democracy.Its what hundreds of thousands of good men and women gave their lives for in the TWO world wars. Those people believed they were fighting for 'free speech' and the right to have a say in the running of this country.We have pseudo MPs here;they are dictators (most of them anyway)
133563
I disagree.  Try living in Afghanistan or some other country on the same level.  Just pack your bags and go live there for a while.  Go live in one of the villages and try to walk around like you do in the USA.  You'll see some terrorism, all right. You'll know what it's like to feel terror from some of the fanatical people there. You have no idea how very, very lucky you are to live in a free democracy.  The US is helping people get something like a decent life in other countries, and trying to make it safe for women and children.  How can you think of running down something that stands out as so wonderful when compared to the way others live?  No, I'm not American.  But I admire your Constitution and wish all Americans would value what they have.
202080
Your question is good and very interesting. What it shows is the many contradicitons in the law.\n\nIf goverment had it their way--I imagine they would outlaw many of the personal freedoms we have.\nWhy one law is set in place opposed to another depends on the lobby of folks in higher places that are willing to fight agaisnt it.\n\nIt is a fine line the goverment walks as they make laws on a public level without stepping on peoples personal rights.\n\nHowever--you are not without choice--you can choose not to wear seatbelts and pay the 10$ ticket if caught or you can organize folks to fight agaisnt an unjust law.\n\nLike I said above--it is these fights that explain why we have so many contradictions.
137780
Amen brother.\n\nDid you see the South Park episode where Saddam gets sent to heaven for punishment.\n\n\nIt gives me the shudders just thinking about it- no choices, no sex, no yogurt flavored pretzels...\nIf you ask me the best way to be a dictator is to convince everyone your the "good" guy. That's what Hitler did.\n"God" is no different.
461885
In most totalitarian regimes, the leader rules through intimidation and coercion.  That intimidation often takes the form of torture and killing.  It rarely, if ever results in economic prospertiy, so the masses are usually poor.  Modern examples of totalitarian regimes are Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Kim Jong Il in North Korea, and Fidel Castro in Cuba.\n\nFor the citizens, they are usually poor, and live in fear of their own government.  There is usually very limited freedom of speech, religion and press.
195778
Im from somewhere in 3rd world country.\n\nWell, for me.. I don't want to be a prisident but its ur question.. hehe\n\n1st.. more job opportunities.\n2rd.. lower the tax \n3rd.. housing projects \n4th.. more chruch to make all peoples be religious and knows God.\n5th.. more concern to nature.\n6th.. birth control (more peoples, more demand)\n7th.. free school for kids / lessen the tuition fees for college student.\n8th.. more free counciling/seminars for good parenthood.\n9th.. harder punishements for peoples who violate the rules/law.\n10th.. i want to make peoples respect other poeples not by their positions but because they deserve respect.\n\nhard job.. being responsible for country and peoples on it..\n\ncheers! (vote me) :P