So a corrupt government means that democracy failed? Can they not elect new leaders that won't be corrupt? Is no one willing to stand up and run for office with the hope of changing the corruption?
.
In theory, you are correct. The situation hasn't changed all that much since the 80s, so there must be something people aren't willing to do...
Um, no. I was just using the example of going to school to be an architect as an example of how I can up and change jobs whenever I want, which you seem to be saying is not possible in a democracy.
I'm not saying it is impossible. I had to think of a profession where it would've been difficult.
If you are that poor you can get loans for school. But how can they afford to pay it back? Well, if you are trying to improve your current standing in life then it should be self-explanatory. I got through school on loans and I am now paying them back, something that I couldn't have done with just a high school degree.
Are you comparing the American infrastructure with people who don't own wallets? People haven't seen a bank in their lives, make a few dollars a day, which isn't even enough to feed themselves properly, don't have a school 50km near their house, nevermind one where they could the appropriate schooling, and you're expecting them to get a loan for university? Brazil's education system goes up to 4th grade, I belive. That's where the current generation is going, but what about people who have spent their lives on their farms? They're 65 years old.
Nobody will buy a farm? There is always someone who wants to buy land, maybe not to use as a farm, but they will buy land. Land especially sells easily in farming communities where it is cheap compared to the prices in cities. I know people who went out and bought huge farms just to get away from the city and have a quiet country life. They grow nothing, but they love sitting on their back porch and enjoying the quiet. I even have some friends that did this and now watch Amish carriages go up and down their road.
Would people buy a farm in the middle of the desert, especially if they know the land won't turn any profit? This is the kind of thing you'd vbe trying to sell if you were a farmer. What if you did something else, like a miner? Almost all mines pay the same, and it still isn't enough. You don't have anything to sell in that case.
Again it looks like you are taking this as if America was to turn from dictatorship to deomcracy. Other places, in the middle of the forest, or desert or mountains, things aren't quite as easy to move.
I didn't know there was a fishing season. I can fish locally year round if I chose to. I know certain types of fish are limited based on their breeding habits, but these are mostly ocean fish and there are always more than one type of fish in the ocean. Besides, any law like this would benefit him in the long run as it protects the fish population and keeps him from killing off entire populations.
Some places, there is a fishing season. If the citizens around the rivers do get subsidies from the government, which isn't always the case, it still isn't enough to cover the essentials of living.
It seems that the city is a very dangerous place to live, which is not true of most cities. If the society has moved along enough to where his country fishing/boat making business is struggling then the cities would be becoming large prosperous places with a lot of businesses. It might even have a fish market where his skills are highly valuable.
Reading
this write-up by your government, the cities don't appear to be very safe at all.
According to your ideology, poverty wouldn't exist for billions of people hunger wouldn't be an issue at all.
And what if Karlis Ulmanis had made bad decisions? How could they have changed things? Could they have voted him out?
The question was to show an example where the people were better off with a dictatorship. I provided one where it is clear that the democracy was not working, was overthrown without violence (only one shot was fired, and that was by a parliament member who shot the ceiling of his bathroom just to say a shot was indeed fired), and the replacing dictatorship reigned over a prosperous and happy people. I also provided an example of another country who's democracy hasn't been doing too well for the time being.
Latvia's current situation has a lot to do with the fact that they have only been independent of the Soviet Union for 15 years (Russian troops were only completely out 12 years ago), until recently their economy was still strongly tied to the Russian economy and they suffered with Russia when they had a financial crisis in 1998, and it is suspected that the banks are facilitating illicit activity.
This has nothing to do with political decisions in the 30s. It is what you would expect of a country who's ruler tried to assimilate the county. Of course it will take some time to regain independant economic stability.
They are also dealing with treatment issues with ethnic Russians (30% of the population) and so it seems they haven't gotten the equality thing down yet.
The equality portion is something that they are trying to avoid, not improve. The proximity to Russia (and it's fleeing workers) is somewhat invasive to the language and culture, especially in Riga and closer cities like Ogre and Daugavpils. Avoiding such fading of the country's basis, Vaira's been taking what she saw in Quebec and the English/French debate, and applying similar language laws to Latvian law.
Again, she's bringing the country up in recognition and putting the name on the map. The people all love her, the only ones who don't are the Russians for obvious reasons.
Once again I will ask, if the system is currently struggling or corrupt does it mean it failed?
If the democracy which was meant to replace the dictatorship for the benefit of the people is corrupt and struggling, is it still better? If living conditions have gotten poorer and poorer by the week with no looking up, then it's still better for the people?
I'm sure many millions of people would disagree with that.
I'm not arguing tha dictatorship is better, I know it isn't, but the comment came up that no dictatorship ever has been good for the people, which is untrue. I provided a solid case, which you didn't bother contesting, where the dictatorship helped the country. I appreciate my freedom, but I think that if I was out of money and food because of my democracy, I wouldn't slap a smile on and say "At least I can vote every four years!"
