DISCUSSION ON THE DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM OF THE INDIVIDUAL
DEFINITIONS OF DEMOCRACY
DEFINITION OF INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM
What is democracy and what is totalitarianism? How can I know what is totalitarian and what is not? What is democratic and what is not?
There is no definition of democracy and no attempt at it.
AND WHAT IS CIVIL FREEDOM? The freedom to express one's opinion freely, the freedom to dispose of one's property freely without restriction, even from any institution. Freedom to dispose of your money freely!
Introduction
Today, there is still talk of democracy, in fact, as it was a long time ago in Greece.
But do we understand the word? We all understand him the same way.
And what exactly is democracy?
This is difficult to answer. There is no definition, or even a hint of a narrow one, which would at least roughly outline the rules "where" democracy is still and where it is not.
And so it happens that a would-be democratic country begins to imprison people without courts and claims to a lawyer, torturing prisoners without courts, while still claiming to be a democratic country. And who can say that not when no one really knows what a democratic country is. Perhaps Hitler's Germany was also a democratic country. And what were communist countries democratic as well? After all, Hitler won the election, at least in the first to bring him to the post of chancellor. Elections also took place in communist countries, but they were controlled by the ruling party, and in many cases it was not possible to elect a party other than the ruling communist party. Who did not vote was often declared an anti-state element.
AND so here we have Hitler and his election victory. The former were even apparently regular, with a number of parties participating in Germany. And how we should understand it further. So were the concentration camps the fruit of a democratic country with a democratically elected government? Or not?
1. DEMOCRACY CANNOT EXIST WITHOUT CIVIL FREEDOM!
Some may say that there is a right to vote for democracy and more parties in the country. However, if Kim Jong Un in North Korea introduces more parties then he will say we are a democracy we have more parties. The people of North Korea will have to vote for the parties, Kim will still be in power and nothing will really change! And Kim can also say that there is freedom of speech in North Korea, people can say what they want if it is in accordance with the doctrine and ideas of Kim and his regime. Does this North Korean establishment seem democratic to you? Probably not? Isn't it? Or yes?
Another example is the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. That is, the countries of the then Eastern Bloc under the leadership of the Soviet Union. In this communist country, there was not only the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, the Communist Party of Slovakia, but also the Czechoslovak People's Party and the Czechoslovak Socialist Party. People had to go to the polls, who did not go had to reckon with the fact that he would have problems. Despite the fact that there were formally more parties, it was clearly a totalitarian regime that did not allow other views than those that it proclaimed. Moreover, it was a country under the rule of the USSR, and if for a moment it thought not, then the USSR troops that occupied and occupied the country in August 1968 reminded the country's leadership and its citizens that no independence was taking place.
In this dissertation on DEMOCRACY, the above concludes or another part of the definition:
2. To assess whether it is DEMOCRACY
it is therefore essential to look at the FACTUAL STATE OF THINGS and not at THEIR FORMAL IMPLEMENTATION.
EQUALITY OF LAW - courts - police - tax office - bank - citizen
MONEY - is it really mine? And when?
Property - Is it really mine? And when?
3. FREEDOM OF WORD, OPINION, CHOICE, BUSINESS, UNLIMITED NUMBER OF POLITICAL PARTIES Laws restricting freedom of speech, whether under the guise of any noble purpose, are a grave for DEMOCRACY.
Crucial to DEMOCRACY is FREEDOM OF WORDS, OPINIONS, ELECTIONS, ENTREPRENEURSHIP, UNLIMITED NUMBER OF POLITICAL PARTIES and their ability to express their views and reach out to the electorate. At the beginning of DEMOCRACY, ie in the Greek city-states, everyone could express their views in the square. If people were interested, he could change something, if not the one to not. People decided for themselves. However, the Greek city-states were not multimillion-dollar agglomerations. From today's point of view, these were small towns with tens of thousands of inhabitants rather than hundreds of thousands. The large square could fit almost all the adult inhabitants of such a state. Today's squares for communication and exchange of views are the media in general. And not everyone can get into them. It is a question of money and possibly the approach of the owners of individual media. This in itself is a great limitation for DEMOCRACY.
In DEMOCRACY, it is not possible for an editor, proofreader, editor-in-chief, media owner (s) (television, radio, social networks, internet or any other medium that is or will be created in the future) to determine and decide what who can say and what cannot ! And they can no longer interfere at all, or the speeches of important personalities or statesmen, no matter how they agree with the presented opinions!
(If there is a violation of the law, it is up to the court to decide on it, not some editor.)
Laws restricting freedom of speech, no matter how noble intentions are, are a grave for DEMOCRACY.
If a law of type is approved somewhere - this cannot be published without the consent of the security forces (Under the guise of protecting citizens and democracy!) Under the threat of sanctions and imprisonment, then it is already clear totalitarianism.
If a law of the type is approved somewhere - a citizen may not express such and such an opinion (Under the guise of protection of citizens' rights) under the threat of sanctions and imprisonment, then citizens of such a state falling asleep for one day in a free country they wake up the next day in totalitarianism without even realizing it.
Analysis of why:
If you want to have a real discussion, whether professional, with friends, partners, political - you will almost always get into a conflict of opinion. And if you start a conflict of opinion and tell your truth or opinion uncompromisingly, there is a good chance that you will touch someone else. The fact that you say - you express an unpopular, controversial opinion that goes against the flow, for example, opens a real discussion on a given topic. (If everyone says or parrots generally accepted or "allowed! Dogmas do not participate in the discussion, mostly out of fear of saying something. If society is afraid to say their opinion out loud, then of course it is a totalitarian system - perhaps no one doubts it)
Many laws against DEMOCRACY are protected by examples - there and this and that have happened! It must not! Repeat! But this is not the case - things will happen again. We live in a human imperfect society.
4. The pursuit of excessive perfection, even with good intentions, leads us to hell.
A typical example: look at your country how many people die on the roads in car accidents. It is about 1,250,000 people a year worldwide. Compare that with the numbers of victims of wars, with the numbers of victims of terrorist attacks per year. You can also look at the statistics of fired firearms and, if you succeed, try to get data on how many legally held firearms were killed and how many illegally held firearms were killed.
So we ban cars? We will ride horses well. Some will make statistics on how many people were killed or injured while riding a horse. Well, if we all ride them, it probably won't be a very small number. Well, let's ban the horses. We will walk well. And someone will make statistics on how many people broke their leg or got injured while walking. And so we forbid walking on foot! Perhaps the absurdity of the pursuit of absolute perfection is clear. In every human activity there will always be certain losses, accidents, problems, but this does not give anyone the right, under the guise of these tragic events, to restrain the peacock of others and make everyone a criminal.
5. The right to be considered an innocent document does not prove the opposite of the "presumption of innocence" is the Pillar of DEMOCRACY!
It is not possible to make laws under the slogan - especially if we catch that one thug, even if it deprives 1,000 other people of their rights.
EVEN IF SOMEONE DON'T LIKE IT.
Retribution for opinionwhich does not fit through tax authorities, secret police services, court institutions, which no longer or not at all have to respect basic human rights, or even no longer observe their own laws - let alone observe the moral laws that create an atmosphere of fear:
Friends it really is, it's not DEMOCRACY either
There is already a clear connection between official power (police, judicial ..., which should be separate from the state) and the state, or rather with power that is not visible behind the state.
For totalitarians such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim, ie National Socialism, Communism, it was clear who and what is the essence and representative of the totalitarian establishment. It was clear who was the representative of totalitarianism, who was not, and therefore who was on which side.
Today's creeping totalitarianism, which someone creates very sophisticatedly under the guise of DEMOCRACY of its protection and the protection of citizens, is much more dangerous because it is not possible to see who is behind it, where he is going, what he wants! You don't know who is on which side.
The greater the powers given to repressive institutions (whatever the justification for these powers - the laws), the harder and brutal the totalitarianism will be!
It is necessary to create a definition of DEMOCRACY and when democracy is involved and when it is not. So that citizens, but also deputies know where there are limits, where they can go and where they can no longer. Otherwise, DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM will be just an empty concept that will not save citizens.
The same fundamental rights for all.
Do not confuse law and authority
THE BASIC PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
6. inviolability of personal property
INTEGRITY OF PERSONAL OWNERSHIP
MONEY - is it really mine? And when?
Well, when there were times when there were banking secrets, banks valued their clients and did not ask anything when there were no restrictions on cash payments, so the money was probably really yours. Today, however, is different.
Let's start with an example: you rob a bank, take money that is not yours - but the police come, start investigating it, they will probably catch you, take the stolen money and lock you up. And let's just say it should be. But what if we reverse this situation. Can you tell me how? Well, simply by coming to the bank where you have an account, you have your honestly earned and hard-taxed money. You want to pick them up and a bank clerk tells you he won't give them to you. Will he come to the shelf, arrest him and give you your money? No! The police will tell you - well, we don't know about me, go to court!
Do a bank or payment institution (eg PAyPal) ask you where you took your money, what you will use it for and what? How is it possible. After all, a bank is a private company, although it must meet certain special standards, but it is still a private entity. It can be mine, it can be yours and what is it for where you took the money or what you use it for! The airline must also meet special requirements in order to operate and also not ask you where you got your tickets. And what about the bakery must also meet special hygiene standards. So when you come to the store and say I want 10 rolls, the saleswoman will tell you and where you got it from, where does your money come from!
Well, let's say openly in such a system, your money isn't really yours anymore. Or do you think so?
At the same time, the possibility of paying in cash is reduced.
In a normal country, only the tax office or the police would be able to ask you where you got the money from! Otherwise you no longer live in DEMOCRACY!
All the laws that allow this, created under the guise of the fight against money laundering or terrorism, are in fact only curtailing your freedom.
7. FREEDOM IN THE DISPOSAL OF OWN FINANCIAL ASSETS IS ONE OF THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY AND ANY CUTTING OF IT IS ABSOLUTELY ACCEPTABLE.
Let's give examples:
We do this because we are fighting against money laundering: large tax evasions are being made by large companies or people who trade illegally, such as drug cartels. Anyone who has seen the NARCOS series has learned that Crtel of Cali distributed in the early 1990s. $ 1,000,000,000 per year in bribes. It was also said there that he owned several banks. The really big ones have their banks, politicians, police officers, tax officials. According to anti-money laundering laws, no one can get to them. If a financial administration official tries something like that at all, he gets his fingers crossed and the others are already careful. Then a lot of officials start to discharge their frustration at small and medium-sized businesses and ordinary citizens. An ordinary citizen who has very limited access to justice (see the paragraph ACCESS TO LAW FOR EVERYONE) HAS ONLY A VERY LOW CHANCE TO DEFEND. AND THEREFORE, LAWS against money laundering will turn against those they were supposed to protect and serve to further destroy the DEMOCRATIC establishment.
Most people are decent, you can't say they're all crooks, so we'll treat them until the opposite is proven.
It is not possible to make laws under the motto - especially if we catch the one thug (which in the end we usually do not catch anyway, and if so, the court will free him), even if it deprives 1,000 other people of their rights.
8. IN DEMOCRACY, THIS MUST BE THAT SOMEONE PROVES TO YOU THAT THE MONEY YOU HAVE IS ILLEGAL AND THEN THERE CAN THEN PRESENT IT. IF IT IS DIFFERENTLY LIVING IN TOTALITY, WHEN IT IS CALLED OR FACE ANYWHERE!
Property - REAL ESTATE - Is it really mine? And when?
You make money. You chase from morning to evening. Every crown, every penny you earn, you tax! You are going to buy a property - you pay acquisition tax (?) When transferring. So you bought a house for your tax money and you want to live in it. And you think it's yours. But is?
You have a house and land. If you want to build a fence, demolish or add something, you have to ask the authorities if you can. You paid income tax and VAT on the house you bought for your taxable money and paid transfer tax and paid construction companies and contractors on every delivered thing during the construction of the house ?! Well, if I want it for you, as a state to take it, I can confiscate it, as the communists did - nationalize it. But it doesn't look good and it's UNEMOCRATIC !. Well, what if I say that the property tax is 5% from an official estimate! And what if it is 10%? How long will you last to pay?
Do you still think it's really yours?
What state do you live in?
And do you live in DEMOCRACY or where?
9. Another pillar of DEMOCRACY - If you live in real DEMOCRACY, the maximum total amount of all taxes that the state can impose on you will be determined by law and especially by the constitution!
Tax policy
It must be made clear who and what taxes can be ordered up to what amount, monitoring the total amount of taxes that can be imposed on citizens and the private sector. In the Middle Ages it was tithing. Today it is much more. You need to find a number, but it should definitely not be higher than 50%.
Another scandal is paying tax. THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. Look at the fuel. It is the price of diesel or petrol from the supplier, then the excise tax is added to it by the owner of the gas station as his margin, and from all this you pay VAT. So you pay VAT and excise duty! This is completely unacceptable. If a private man behaved in this way, journalists and politicians would tear him apart and he would probably end up in prison.
10. EQUALITY OF LAW - office - courts - police - tax office - bank - citizen
In a DEMOCRATIC country, equality of rights and access to it should apply. Everyone will probably agree on that. But this is currently the case.
Let's look at different variants:
Office - citizen
The citizen violates something - the office can immediately fine and sanction the citizen
The office violates something, does not comply with the law and there is practically no sanction against it, let alone against the official who committed the violation. Theoretically, you can go to court, but:
Courts take a long time and cost a lot of money, officials don't mind, because they don't pay for it, the office pays for them, which is the state, so is the citizen who complains!
The citizen must pay for everything himself!
And when he goes to court, he has to pay a lawyer-attorney and still pay a 4% court fee on the amount he is being sued for (this is completely obscene and fundamentally violates equality of access to the law). A citizen who pays taxes on everything he can to have the courts police and other services from the state, why he has to pay the court, which has already paid. The court fee is limited to the maximum amount in the Czech Republic, I guess it is CZK 2,000,000. So if you judge banks and large companies, they don't care. Lawyers still pay either on their own or as a lump sum, and with billions in revenue, it's about 2 miles. he will no longer decide. But what about a citizen who was damaged by a hospital or an office and who suffered damage in the actions of such an office in the amount of 10 million CZK. Which doesn't even have those lawyers where he has to take hundreds of thousands, or a million or two for a court fee. Does it seem like equal access to justice?
11. Equal access to law, whether in financial terms or in terms of the speed and speed of sanctions of a citizen, office or official, which must be the same for all, ie for both the citizen and the state or official, IS ANOTHER PILLAR OF DEMOCRACY.
12. Right of assembly:
According to this right, it is necessary to report the assembly.
But what if an official thinks that reporting to his office is actually a permit he grants, What if a duly reported assembly decides to dissolve the police. Or when the police prevent people from entering the assembly place. The police then clearly violate one of the basic rules of democracy and thus immediately lose the status of a public official. The police, which are supposed to protect democratic rules and the law, paid from the taxes of people who want to meet-gather, are acting against them on the basis of someone's order or wish! Well, it is certainly no longer democracy.
If something like this happened in a democratic state, the other police and judicial-judicial bodies would take strong action against the commanders of such an intervention, and the perpetrators of such an intervention would be brought to justice. If this does not happen and the other police and judiciary hold the "bass" with the unit that has thus undemocratically intervened, then it is clearly an undemocratic state with totalitarian elements.
13. For democracy to work, it is essential that the police and the judiciary function well, understand the basic principles of democracy and defend them not only against those below, but also against those above!
17. Every integrity adult citizen has the right to defend himself and to possess a weapon
Everyone has the right to defend themselves against an attack on themselves, their family, their friend. Laws must not detract from the attacker. If you are attacked in peace, the legislators need to take into account the overwhelming superiority on the part of the attacker given the moment of surprise! Even a trained person has a big problem resisting such an attack. It's really very difficult for a decent untrained person. He has to decide in a split second! If his mind is burdened by being dragged through the courts and someone in the quiet of the courtroom there is someone for hours to discuss the situation he was told for a second or two, then the chances of the victim are practically slim. A clear rule must follow from this: Any defense is appropriate! The attacker must be responsible for all the consequences of his attack!
Today, there is a lot of struggle against the possibility of legally holding a weapon. Politicians are hiding behind many reasons to limit the possession of weapons. In reality, however, crime committed with legally held weapons is minimal and statistically close to zero. I believe that the efforts of some to disarm citizens are driven by the fear of their own people - disarmed people are much easier to govern and take away their rights than those who are armed.
What can the Chamber of Deputies vote and what cannot?
In other words, what does he get a mandate for in an election and what does he not?
What needs to be voted on in a referendum?
What can't be on the agenda at all?
What a state or a society must meet in order to be considered democratic.
