TED Community » Marco Franco

Comments

• TEDCred score: +0.20 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.

• A reply on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Mar 22 2013: Thank You Leo,
  But don't you think democracy is a human right?
  What if people vote for a dictator, should that even be acceptable? Should we exclude automatically that kind of politics, or is it reasonable to elect him.

• A reply on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Mar 21 2013: Well, yes, but we can actually be talking of a much subtle ways of imposing democracy.
  
  Thank you Casey

• A reply on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Mar 21 2013: Can we afford the time that it will take for some countries to do that?

• A reply on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Mar 21 2013: Well I do think like that to, but what if those countries do not "grow" democracy by there own.
  Are we, the "free west", morally capable of imposing democracy. Even if citizens of those countries do not want democracy?
  
  Thank you Lewis

• A comment on Conversation: Should we force democracy?

  Mar 21 2013: Thank you everyone for the amazing comments.
  And I would like to ask: what would you think if a population elected a non-democratic party? Should we ever allow that type of parties to run for a election?

• A comment on Conversation: The idea I'm proposing is a unified global community; The people we've globally accepted as "The smartest" all proposed it, why not us.

  Jul 4 2012: Excellent points of views. And Brian, yes, I do think collaboration is much better than competition, I am a European citizen and EU is all about collaboration. And like Durão Barroso said recently in the European Parliament, it was Europe's division and the sense of superiority that led to both World Wars, Napoleon Invasion and so on. Those were Europe's darkest times.
  
  It was due to a serious planing, working, commitment and the idea of a united Europe that we as a society made huge progress. But that came at a big cost, and now we are seeing a lot of people realizing them. Lost o sovereignty, yes a country can do it's law, but they can't go against the union programs, and we are getting more and more involved.
  
  A world government would lead to two options:
  - A big assembly, like a Parliament, were decision are made at a small pace, and most time do not coincide to the world necessity or,
  - A dictatorship, were the power is concentrated in a small group of individuals, who can rule at their own pleasure.
  
  Thank you.

• A comment on Conversation: Can religion be a science?

  Jul 4 2012: I would question you the other way around: "Can science be a religion?"
  
  Religion and science are completely opposite way of looking to the world. One says, what you see is what you get, cause and consequence, logic, empirical studies and proofing. While the other today, pretty much looks like a fairy tale.
  
  Yes, there is a huge amount of questions for with science has and will possibly never have a reasonable explanation. And religion appears here, an explanation for the unknown, comfort for men, eternal life and so on.

• A comment on Conversation: The idea I'm proposing is a unified global community; The people we've globally accepted as "The smartest" all proposed it, why not us.

  Jun 14 2012: At first your idea looks like a really good one. But what about that thing that made us what we are today. COMPETITION.
  Your talking about a world with no competition. And that leads to no innovation, no scientific discoveries.Is that a world were you want to live?
  Secondly, a single government is highly corruptible (dictatorship), and again it lacks competition:
  - think about Soviet Union, what lead it to the end was not the communist way of thinking, it was because it was alone, for the good or bad decisions, there was no competition. And it ended when it started competing with the US.
  - the raise of the west during Industrial Revolution was due to the competing environment of European countries.

• A comment on Conversation: How do we lessen the gap between the rich and the poor?

  May 11 2012: Thank you for this interesting question, First I would like to state a few things:
  a) Social and Economic disparities are correlated with cultures. In general, European countries tend to have more income redistribution, and South American, and South African countries tend to have a bigger gap.
  b) Those gaps come from lack of social mobility and from weak social governments.
  c) In general, as richer a country is, as fare it distributes it income to the population. (the bigger exception are the USA)
  
  Education, like you sad, it's highly important do decrease that gap, but education is not everything. People need to be able to climb to higher social levels, and there is were social mobility enters. In the past, America was considered the best country to get wealthy. But nowadays it only happens to a group smart or lucky people, a really small group, while the rest of the population remains poor.
  Countries like Denmark and Norway have high levels of social mobility, due to their investment is higher education, so if you want to live the American Dream, go to Denmark.