Cyprus-Forum.com

[Viewpoint]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

The USA voters are noway similar to the GCs, big difference.

[Kifeas]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

The USA voters are noway similar to the GCs, big difference.

Surely, we are far better! Which other Western and EU member country has ever allowed a leftist with a communist background to become its president?

[Viewpoint]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

The USA voters are noway similar to the GCs, big difference.

Surely, we are far better! Which other Western and EU member country has ever allowed a leftist with a communist background to become its president?

Noway your racists tendandenices cripple your electorates vision, they are sheep like in their voting patterns and heavily influenced by the men in black.

[Kifeas]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

The USA voters are noway similar to the GCs, big difference.

Surely, we are far better! Which other Western and EU member country has ever allowed a leftist with a communist background to become its president?

Noway your racists tendandenices cripple your electorates vision, they are sheep like in their voting patterns and heavily influenced by the men in black.

The men in black were dead against Christofias becoming the president of the country, yet he did become the president in a rather easy win compared to past elections.

[Viewpoint]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

The USA voters are noway similar to the GCs, big difference.

Surely, we are far better! Which other Western and EU member country has ever allowed a leftist with a communist background to become its president?

Noway your racists tendandenices cripple your electorates vision, they are sheep like in their voting patterns and heavily influenced by the men in black.

The men in black were dead against Christofias becoming the president of the country, yet he did become the president in a rather easy win compared to past elections.

The sheep fell into line and voted.

[YFred]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch"

Erolz, just out of curiosity, did you vote in the recent elections in the north, or yet still, have you ever voted in any democratic elections.??

If your assumption or implication is that someone who says such a quote or uses it must not beleive in democray at all, then I suggest that you look at WHO the quote is from. Do you think that Benjamin Franklin was 'anti' democracy because he said such ?

I suggest you consider why such a champion of democracy as Benjamin Franklin would say such a thing. What was he getting at in sayiong such ? That democracy is bad ? Or perhaps he was trying to highlight the limits and weaknesses of democracy in its purest form of one person one vote exactly because he was such a believer in it ?

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

Kifeas, he is as black as Mrs Thatcher was a woman. Obama is black because he told us he was black. He has not involved himself in any way with any black issues in America or with any black civil rights people. To somehow champion democracy in US because of his election is being a little false. He is the grand son of a diplomat and was raised by him. He probably hadn’t met a black person before he got elected to congress.

Now that he is elected, whose interest is he serving? Is it the ordinary folk in the street or big business?

He has just discovered that there are people in the CIA who have been torturing people and chose to do nothing. Does that answer the question?

[erolz3]

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

You are so totaly missing the point of the quote. It says nothing about who should have a right to vote, which as you have correctly pointed out, has changed over time. It highlights one of the 'problems' of democracy purely in terms of those who DO have a right to vote. As such your waffle about the changing groups that have the right since the quote was made has no bearing on the point the quote is highlighting.

Anyway let me try and explain what I think the quote highlights. In order to do that we need to establish some basics.

For me the point of democracy, what it seeks to achieve, is the notion that people should have an effective voice in the making of decision that control and shape their lives. This is the objective even when the group that is deemed to have such rights to such a say is small and limited to a male white elite or as it is today all indivdual humans. That to me is what democracy seeks to achieve.

The most straight forward MEANS to achieving this, when you have a group with disperate wants and desires is one person one vote.

However there are times when such a simplistic means actually undermines the objective of people having an effective say in the decsions that shape their lives rather than achieves it.

If one looks at the question of 'under what conditions does one person one vote end up undermining the objective of people having an effective voice in the decsions that shape thier lives' then one ends up realising it is all to do with the unity of the total group and how much an indivduals decision is not based on indivdual opinion choice and conviction, but actualy solely based on an unchanging and unchangable characteristic that places the indivdual within a subgroup.

So in the case of two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, wolves and lambs are in this case not part of some other unitary whole, where what to have for dinner is a matter of indivdual preferances with differences of opinion amongst both sub groups of wolf and lamb. How you decide to vote in such a senario is not down to you as an indivdual but down to if you are a wolf or lamb. All wolves will vote one way BECAUSE they are wolves and all lambs the other BECAUSE they are lambs.

Clearly in a senario like this, one person one vote is not an effective means of achieving the objective that people should have an effective voice in the decisions that shape their lives.

This is what I think Bernjamin Franklin recognised and was pointing out with his quote.

In short if the reason why you vote as you do in some 'unitary' group is related not to a matter of personal choice and conviction but is actually defined entirely by your unchanging membership of some sub group, then those are exactly the conditions under which the means of one person one vote fail to achieve the democratic aim that people should have an effective voice in the decisions that shape their lives.

No one realises more than me that for many GC the above arguments are an anathema, but my personal views is that they are such for them not because of the merits of the argument but simply because as the numericaly dominant group it is to their advantage as indivduals and as a gropup to believe that one person one vote is what democracy means and demands and that if they were not in such a position they would be much more able and willing to look at the argument on its mertis.

In summary when the reason why you vote as you do is a matter of personal indivdual choice regardless of any sub group you may be part of, with all sub groups showing a range of support or not, then one person one vote is a very effective means of achieving the aims of democracy. However when the reason why you vote as you do is entirely defined by your membership of a (unchanging) sub group and sub group shows a total support or not for whaterver it is , then this is exactly the condition in whihc one person one vote not only becomes in effective at achieving the aim of democracy, but actualy just a means of imposing one sub groups will on the other - the antithesis of democracy as far as it means people having and effective say in the decisions that shape their lives.

The above are my personal beliefs. To a large degree they are born out of being in the potential position of the 'lamb' in the quote given but I believe them to be consistent and valid none the less. I fully accept that others may and do hold different views about the whole thing but these are mine, no more and no less.

[Kifeas]

VP, I have two suggestions to make to you.

1. Better find those worst than you to criticize, rather than throwing stones while being inside your glass home.

2. Search and find the international country rankings regarding democracy, freedom of speech, press, human rights protection, etc, to see where Cyprus is standing. They are among the most enviable, even by western standards.

[erolz3]

Democracy is what has allowed Obama -a member of a less than 15% Afro-American minority that not too long ago used to be the slaves of the majority, to become the president of the US.

Again this pretty much underlines the point I am trying to make about democracy.

As far as US citizens decided to vote based on color, with all whites voting only for a white president and blacks for a black one, then one person one vote was not a means of ensuring that all US citizens black and white had an effective voce in the decisions that shaped their lives, but actually a means for whites to impose their will on blacks and do so 'democraticaly' as some would have it.

That the US has shown that this is NOT the basis (any longer) on which they decide to vote is testament to how far they have come since the days of slavery and indicative that one person one vote is not problematic in achieving the aims of ensurring all US citizens today have an effective voice in the decision that shape their lives, at least as far as those sub groups (black and white) go.

[YFred]

Well, lets step back into Benjamin Franklin's time and look what he meant by the above quote and see if it really relates to today, but you are using the quote all the same, despite I assume, you also take part in a democratic voting system today.

For one thing, the so called Democracy at the time of the formation of the USA by it's founding fathers, which Franklin was one of the four, blacks were still slaves and had no voting rights, some of the founding fathers were in fact slave owners, women could not vote, in fact most men could not vote either no matter what the colour of their skin were. So, who were these so called supporters of Democracy at Franklin's time? Well, non other than white men who were land and property owners, and since slaves were treated as property, their owners also were the voting privileged. So yes, I accept the quote in what Benjamin Franklin said, because it was very fitting at that time, where Democracy was only exercised by white men with land and property. Do you really believe that those same conditions apply today.? You are little bit out of date, aren't you, Erolz.?

You are so totaly missing the point of the quote. It says nothing about who should have a right to vote, which as you have correctly pointed out, has changed over time. It highlights one of the 'problems' of democracy purely in terms of those who DO have a right to vote. As such your waffle about the changing groups that have the right since the quote was made has no bearing on the point the quote is highlighting.

Anyway let me try and explain what I think the quote highlights. In order to do that we need to establish some basics.

For me the point of democracy, what it seeks to achieve, is the notion that people should have an effective voice in the making of decision that control and shape their lives. This is the objective even when the group that is deemed to have such rights to such a say is small and limited to a male white elite or as it is today all indivdual humans. That to me is what democracy seeks to achieve.

The most straight forward MEANS to achieving this, when you have a group with disperate wants and desires is one person one vote.

However there are times when such a simplistic means actually undermines the objective of people having an effective say in the decsions that shape their lives rather than achieves it.

If one looks at the question of 'under what conditions does one person one vote end up undermining the objective of people having an effective voice in the decsions that shape thier lives' then one ends up realising it is all to do with the unity of the total group and how much an indivduals decision is not based on indivdual opinion choice and conviction, but actualy solely based on an unchanging and unchangable characteristic that places the indivdual within a subgroup.

So in the case of two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner, wolves and lambs are in this case not part of some other unitary whole, where what to have for dinner is a matter of indivdual preferances with differences of opinion amongst both sub groups of wolf and lamb. How you decide to vote in such a senario is not down to you as an indivdual but down to if you are a wolf or lamb. All wolves will vote one way BECAUSE they are wolves and all lambs the other BECAUSE they are lambs.

Clearly in a senario like this, one person one vote is not an effective means of achieving the objective that people should have an effective voice in the decisions that shape their lives.

This is what I think Bernjamin Franklin recognised and was pointing out with his quote.

In short if the reason why you vote as you do in some 'unitary' group is related not to a matter of personal choice and conviction but is actually defined entirely by your unchanging membership of some sub group, then those are exactly the conditions under which the means of one person one vote fail to achieve the democratic aim that people should have an effective voice in the decisions that shape their lives.

No one realises more than me that for many GC the above arguments are an anathema, but my personal views is that they are such for them not because of the merits of the argument but simply because as the numericaly dominant group it is to their advantage as indivduals and as a gropup to believe that one person one vote is what democracy means and demands and that if they were not in such a position they would be much more able and willing to look at the argument on its mertis.

In summary when the reason why you vote as you do is a matter of personal indivdual choice regardless of any sub group you may be part of, with all sub groups showing a range of support or not, then one person one vote is a very effective means of achieving the aims of democracy. However when the reason why you vote as you do is entirely defined by your membership of a (unchanging) sub group and sub group shows a total support or not for whaterver it is , then this is exactly the condition in whihc one person one vote not only becomes in effective at achieving the aim of democracy, but actualy just a means of imposing one sub groups will on the other - the antithesis of democracy as far as it means people having and effective say in the decisions that shape their lives.

The above are my personal beliefs. To a large degree they are born out of being in the potential position of the 'lamb' in the quote given but I believe them to be consistent and valid none the less. I fully accept that others may and do hold different views about the whole thing but these are mine, no more and no less.

Erol, the quote is perfect to explain the dangers of what Kiks calls true democracy, if only Kiks baby could understand it I shall do a kurban and I am not even religious.
Is this relevant enough for you Kiks baby?