Thread: This is year 2514, not 2007

democracy isnt that great...its just better than the others.

^^^To paraphrase Churchill.

Whoops, a little late; disregard.

When begin to look back on the 90's/2000-201o, I think we will see it as the worst era for (popular) music. Too much shitty music containing shittier lyrics.

PJ, it's easy to knock democracy when you're living confortably in one. To follow Moonbeam's train of though, it's the least worst system we have right now. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Originally Posted by three and four

PJ, it's easy to knock democracy when you're living confortably in one. To follow Moonbeam's train of though, it's the least worst system we have right now. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Common misconception there, friend. We most certainly do NOT live in a democracy. The U.S. is a Constitutionally Limited Republic. As originally conceived, democratic selection was limited to delegates, the House of Representitives (and NOT the Senate), local and state politics.

The slide into a 'representative democracy' is a tragedy that would have this nation's founders rolling over in their graves.

"A republic, if you can keep it."
--Benjamin Franklin

I'm a bit of an ametuer astronomer, why not revert to Julian time?

Besides, I think the humanists have tried to pry the calandar away from Christianity with their designation of Before Current Era (B.C.E.)

Birth of democracy? Has anyone a firm date on when this occurred?

Originally Posted by Seeker

I'm a bit of an ametuer astronomer, why not revert to Julian time?

Besides, I think the humanists have tried to pry the calandar away from Christianity with their designation of Before Current Era (B.C.E.)

Birth of democracy? Has anyone a firm date on when this occurred?

Hi Seeker, what's Julian time?

About the birth of democracy, the link in the original post (above) dates it back to some reforms in Athens in about 508/507 BC. (But I'm sure others have put in prior claims!).

PJ:

Oh, I didn't know that! Thanks. I live in Switzerland where things are even a bit too democratic (we are asked to vote about everything all the time, even things like "should the airforce buy more F/A18s... (actual case a few years ago)). So in fact you DO like democracy, right? :-)

Originally Posted by three and four

PJ:

Oh, I didn't know that! Thanks. I live in Switzerland where things are even a bit too democratic (we are asked to vote about everything all the time, even things like "should the airforce buy more F/A18s... (actual case a few years ago)). So in fact you DO like democracy, right? :-)

No... not really. Democracy is nice in certain areas, but handing the entire rule of law over to the majority is a formula for self-destruction. The best sales pitch would always rule the day.

Which, of course, is what is increasingly happening here.

I like democracy in choosing representatives, not in settling public policy.

Originally Posted by pj

Common misconception there, friend. We most certainly do NOT live in a democracy. The U.S. is a Constitutionally Limited Republic. As originally conceived, democratic selection was limited to delegates, the House of Representitives (and NOT the Senate), local and state politics.

The slide into a 'representative democracy' is a tragedy that would have this nation's founders rolling over in their graves.

Oh no. I'm having flashbacks to Extended Discussion.

We live in a democratic republic. It's not a total democracy. Pure democracy would be a cluster#$%@ because there are so many laws we need to leave it up to our "expert" elected representatives to make and repeal.

Then again, that strict definition is only in the "esp." part of some definitions ("majority rule"). Democracy is more loosely defined as any government where the people have the ultimate control. One run by elected representatives is genearlly considered to be a form of that. In that sense, the U.S. is a democracy because we could undo the entire government right away if enough of us wanted to.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

Indeed, PJ, we are not yet ready for anarchy! (But having no need for rules because nobody would even think of harming / abusing / threatening / exploiting others would be Paradise for sure. Maybe in some distant future we could reach that stage...).

I can’t comment much on the specifics of the US that you both (PJ and UM) have mentioned – I don’t know your system well enough. Few people know that Switzerland is also a Federal State: this country is actually composed of 23 (small!) States with their own Parliaments, etc, and a lot of freedom in terms of education, construction, taxation, etc. So I certainly agree with the principle of limiting the powers of the Central (Federal) government, and letting local entities do things their way as much as possible.

But bottom line, as UM said, is that democracy boils down to people getting together to govern themselves. And that basic idea, at our current stage of development, surely is not such a bad thing (even if it means that not everybody can be happy all the time!).

And I still think that the official date of its birth (back in ancient Athens) would be worth remembering! (Because I don’t think any of us would want to be living in North Korea right now).

Originally Posted by three and four

To follow Moonbeam's train of though, it's the least worst system we have right now. What would you suggest as an alternative?

(finishing the prior post - got interrupted.)

As an alternative, I would recommend a return to a strictly limited federal government, as clearly outlined in the Constitution. What has gone wrong with the U.S. is the entrusting of the federal government with vast wealth and power and then allowing it to break free of its constitutional constraints.

The mayans had it right when they based the calendar on astronomy. No event should be the basis of the beginning of the new age aside from astronomical revolutions. What if we just decided the new year would start everytime we put a celebrity on trial?

June 18, 2003 would be a really good time to begin the calander.

Originally Posted by Seeker

June 18, 2003 would be a really good time to begin the calander.

That is the day I moved into my last apartment.

Let's change 1 minute to 100 seconds, an hour to 100 minutes, and a day to 10 hours while we're at it.

Originally Posted by Marvo

Let's change 1 minute to 100 seconds, an hour to 100 minutes, and a day to 10 hours while we're at it.

Actually, we could kill leap years by adding a month to our calendar.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Actually, we could kill leap years by adding a month to our calendar.

The point is to change all the factor to numbers like 1, 10 100 and so on.
This way, it is easier to calculate with, although it might be confusing. I don't need it myself, and it was more like a joke on the entire thread, about changing such a major thing.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I don't need it myself, and it was more like a joke on the entire thread, about changing such a major thing.

So if a thing is too big you don't change it, because it's big, right? (even if it's wrong?). Humm - a world in which only small things can be changed. Is that really the kind of world you want?

I have no problem with such a world. We have some great laws in Denmark, that require a lot of work to change, and we have it like that for a reason. If the core laws were changed all the time, the country would fuck up. That's why we don't change the way we count years either.
If the western world argues, that we should change the "start of time" to 507 "BC", then some other group of people would argue some other time. If we eventually manage to change it, maybe in 100 years, we'll find another signifiant date, and change to that instead. It will become stupid and useless. I have no idea why you want this, it will only cause problems. It's pointless anyway, democracy is but a human creation, just like Jesus is.

Originally Posted by Marvo

I have no problem with such a world.

You REALLY want to live in a world where nothing important ever changes?? Wow, I thought only my Grandmother (may she rest in peace) thought like that. She'd be really happy to hear you!

That's why we don't change the way we count years either.

Er, actually we DID change the way we count. It used to be like this: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII (or is it IIX?), IX, X. Weird, huh? (I guess the Romans never made it up as far as Denmark, right?). Also, for a long time there was no 0 (zero). Do some anthropology and you'll find that some jungle tribes even today don't have a numbers much beyond 2 (two).

Lucky you were not in charge of the Number Police when someone suggested we should change and use 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc...

Also lucky you weren't in charge of the Ministry of Maps when someone at last pointed out that the world was in fact not flat and that there was a very big piece of land where the previous end of the world was thought to have been... (Must have been a lot of work though, correcting all those dusty old scrolls).

I have no idea why you want this, it will only cause problems.

Humm, maybe we should have kept the old flat-world maps after all then. (I like the image of a cliff of water falling off a flat world into empty space (but then again... the US and Canada (and a few others) would probably prefer to be part of today's world maps, don't you think?)).

It's pointless anyway, democracy is but a human creation, just like Jesus is.

Denmark is also a human creation. Does that mean it's pointless?

Rather than decimalizing everything we should use a base-12 number system. 12 has many more factors than 10 which would make basic math alot easier.

Since our calendar is based on astronomical cycles in the first place we could maybe move the starting date back to the maximum or minimum of some astronomical cycle like one of the Milankovitch cycles.

Democracy sucks; but then, so does any system in a world so insolubly overpopulated.

Really... Why....


...... OK. You make this happen, and I'll join you.

The world is not overpopulated, distribution is just fucked up, and industrialization reliant on insustainable resources will cause a population to collapse to its original preindustrialized state once these resources are depleted. No population of any living creature in the plant or animal kingdom grows to a point where its environment cannot sustain itself. Of course, the invention of credit kind of made it so individuals no longer had any idea what could be sustained, hence the baby boom.

But that's another topic, I still say the new astrological age did begin around Jesus' birth, but that's mostly coincidence. It's just random that we hit another "great month" around the same time he was born, if he was born at all of course.