Problems with "Liberal Democracy".

[apathy maybe]

Apart from the obvious contradictions inherent in the concept of liberal democracy (rights vs majority rule; rights vs capitalism; "democracy" vs capitalism), there are other problems. I will outline some of them here for supporters and opponents to discuss.


Representation is what democracy is all about in "liberal democracies". If you think about it however, how representative are your representatives? (Especially in places with first past the post, such as the UK where I think the present government only received about 30-40% of the actual votes cast of less then 50% (correct me if I am wrong) of those who were eligible to vote. How representative is that? Ignoring the other problems of representation.)

Recall is a feature only found in some places, but it is very important. Take the current situation in Hungry as an example. The government lied to get re-elected, and there is no process to recall them or make them face the consequences for their actions.

This leads onto a third problem, a government can do virtually what ever it wants while in government, and does not have to face the consequences until the next election. They cannot be held accountable for acts when they commit them. In cases (such as the US presidential system) where the number of terms are limited, people do not even have to worry about being re-elected.

Yet another problem is how legislators are divided along party lines (especially in Westminster systems) (not such a problem in multi-member systems such as the lower house in Tasmania (Hare-Clarke system) and the Senate federally in Tasmania). A geographical area elects a single member who is supposed to represent all of that electorate. However, because they are often in a party they generally have to follow the party line. If their party is not in government, they do not get a chance to get legislation passed to help their electorate.


I hear complaints about how the electoral cycle means that governments can only get stuff done in the first half of their term (year and a half federally here in Australia). After this they go into campaign mode and do not want to commit to long term or unpopular projects.


Anyway, surely if politicians had the threat of recall hanging over their heads they would be forced to do what people actually wanted, which is after all what 'democracy' is all about. Isn't it? And having multi-member proportional representation (such as the Hare-Clarke system) with a rotating ballet (Robson Rotation) would ensure better representation would also ensure a better representation.

[colonelguppy]

i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.

[D_Bokk]

Originally posted by RedZeppelin
Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.
That's a pretty damn optimistic statement. Have any evidence that the non-voters "feel differently"?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
really

i bet you had a voice in the decision of entering a war against iraq or in the enabling the patriot act, did you :rolleyes:

[ZX3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 09:57 PM
Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.
This is true throughout the western world. In many countries their high turnout is due to voting being required by law. Hardly "liberal" in action.

The original poster was indeed correct in diving that a "liberal democracy" can be a contradiction in turns. Democracy naturally leads to tyranny, so it is not surprising that socialism has resulted in tyranny, the very opposite of what so many socialists desire.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by D_Bokk+Sep 21 2006, 05:21 PM--> (D_Bokk @ Sep 21 2006, 05:21 PM)
RedZeppelin
Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.
That's a pretty damn optimistic statement. Have any evidence that the non-voters "feel differently"? [/b]
If they felt that their personal views/desires could be implemented, they would surely find the means to participate.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Originally posted by ZX3+Sep 23 2006, 07:14 PM--> (ZX3 @ Sep 23 2006, 07:14 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 09:57 PM
Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.
This is true throughout the western world. In many countries their high turnout is due to voting being required by law. Hardly "liberal" in action.

The original poster was indeed correct in diving that a "liberal democracy" can be a contradiction in turns. Democracy naturally leads to tyranny, so it is not surprising that socialism has resulted in tyranny, the very opposite of what so many socialists desire. [/b]
How is democracy tyrannical?

Democracy is actually what tyranny is not. I'm drunk and will not let you confuse me!

[Publius]

Apart from the obvious contradictions inherent in the concept of liberal democracy (rights vs majority rule;

I can't see how this is a 'contradiction in the system' at all.

A proper understanding of society's influence on rights solves this 'problem' very easily.


rights vs capitalism;

So 'rights' go against democracy AND the antithesis of democracy?

And it's capitalism with the contradictions, not you?


"democracy" vs capitalism),

But I thought 'democracy' went against rights...

I don't see how any of these are contradictions in capitalism; they seem just to be confused statements on your part. You aren't being coherent. I think I see why you think capitalism is contradictory: your understanding of it is incoherent and contradictory itself.



Representation is what democracy is all about in "liberal democracies". If you think about it however, how representative are your representatives? (Especially in places with first past the post, such as the UK where I think the present government only received about 30-40% of the actual votes cast of less then 50% (correct me if I am wrong) of those who were eligible to vote. How representative is that? Ignoring the other problems of representation.)

Not extremely.

But if people choose not to participate, they choose not to participate.

What's the problem?



Recall is a feature only found in some places, but it is very important. Take the current situation in Hungry as an example. The government lied to get re-elected, and there is no process to recall them or make them face the consequences for their actions.

Recall exists in many democracies. And you and I both know 'Hungary' is piss poor example of a 'liberal democracy'.

The idea of recall is contentious in liberal democratic thought, you're correct there, but its efficacy is really a different argument.

Should there be consequences for electing a leader, by popular vote? Should you be 'stuck with him' as it were, until you learn your lesson? Perhaps.



This leads onto a third problem, a government can do virtually what ever it wants while in government, and does not have to face the consequences until the next election. They cannot be held accountable for acts when they commit them. In cases (such as the US presidential system) where the number of terms are limited, people do not even have to worry about being re-elected.

This is actually a fairly significant problem.

I believe the Parliamentary system works much more effectively. I think you can see that now, the way America and Britain are dealing with their dislike of their leaders in totally different manners.



Yet another problem is how legislators are divided along party lines (especially in Westminster systems) (not such a problem in multi-member systems such as the lower house in Tasmania (Hare-Clarke system) and the Senate federally in Tasmania). A geographical area elects a single member who is supposed to represent all of that electorate. However, because they are often in a party they generally have to follow the party line. If their party is not in government, they do not get a chance to get legislation passed to help their electorate.

Run-off voting is an option many on the Green Party-ish left support.

It's an interesting idea. This isn't a 'liberal democratic' problem but a 'majority' problem that wont' go away in any system with voting.



I hear complaints about how the electoral cycle means that governments can only get stuff done in the first half of their term (year and a half federally here in Australia). After this they go into campaign mode and do not want to commit to long term or unpopular projects.

I've always thought it would be interesting to ban 'campaigning' entirely and instead vote not based on candidates but on specific party platforms.

I know it's rather idealisitc and unworkable, but I think it would solve a lot of problems, at least superficially.



Anyway, surely if politicians had the threat of recall hanging over their heads they would be forced to do what people actually wanted, which is after all what 'democracy' is all about. Isn't it?

Not necessarily.

Some people think the role of government is to maintain individual rights.


And having multi-member proportional representation (such as the Hare-Clarke system) with a rotating ballet (Robson Rotation) would ensure better representation would also ensure a better representation.

It probably would.

Why then, do we need 'communism'?

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Marmot+Sep 21 2006, 05:32 PM--> (Marmot @ Sep 21 2006, 05:32 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
really

i bet you had a voice in the decision of entering a war against iraq or in the enabling the patriot act, did you :rolleyes: [/b]
no i'm saying that i wouldn't have much of a voice in either

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Sep 24 2006, 06:59 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Sep 24 2006, 06:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 05:32 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
really

i bet you had a voice in the decision of entering a war against iraq or in the enabling the patriot act, did you :rolleyes:
no i'm saying that i wouldn't have much of a voice in either [/b]
Then not only are you full of shit, but you're an idiot too. Of COURSE you would have more of a fucking voice in a directly democratic system - because you don't have a 'representative' who can do whatever the shit they feel like. I really tire of you, you silly ****. When are you going to get bored of this forum or do something stupid and get banned?

[colonelguppy]

Then not only are you full of shit, but you're an idiot too. Of COURSE you would have more of a fucking voice in a directly democratic system - because you don't have a 'representative' who can do whatever the shit they feel like.

no my views aren't moderate enough to gain popular support in either system, i made no such claim that my chances of representation would be equal in both systems, stop putting words in my mouth. effeictively though i wouldn't have a voice.


I really tire of you, you silly ****. When are you going to get bored of this forum or do something stupid and get banned?

stupid like flaming someone and calling them a


silly ****

?

oh thats right you guys will only ban someone if they disagree with you.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 07:40 PM

Then not only are you full of shit, but you're an idiot too. Of COURSE you would have more of a fucking voice in a directly democratic system - because you don't have a 'representative' who can do whatever the shit they feel like.

no my views aren't moderate enough to gain popular support in either system, i made no such claim that my chances of representation would be equal in both systems, stop putting words in my mouth. effeictively though i wouldn't have a voice.
That's neither here nor there, your 'voice' is the amount of control you have and that is significantly higher in a direct democratic state. Also your views won't be popular because you're a mouth breathing cretin.




I really tire of you, you silly ****. When are you going to get bored of this forum or do something stupid and get banned?

stupid like flaming someone We (thankfully) don't ban for flaming, usually it's for seixsm, racism, homophobia, facism or being a tosser. Well I made up the last one, I do wish it was true.


and calling them a


silly ****

?

oh thats right you guys will only ban someone if they disagree with you. Oh don't start on that tired old argument. This place is for revolutionary leftists, your lucky we even bother with an OI. Now fuck off.

[colonelguppy]

no i'll stick around as long as i can continue to make all of you guys look stupid in debate. its really not that hard so look like i'm in for the long haul.

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 08:53 PM
no i'll stick around as long as i can continue to make all of you guys look stupid in debate. its really not that hard so look like i'm in for the long haul.
Getting the last word in is not making somone looks stupid in debate. Fuckstick.

[colonelguppy]

what and calling me a fuckstick is?

[Jazzratt]

No calling you a fuckstick is a satisfying way to end a post you stupid lump of shite.

[colonelguppy]

ok i'll just assume i did, otherwise you'd be actually responding to my points instead of insulting me.

[Alexander Hamilton]

This leads onto a third problem, a government can do virtually what ever it wants while in government, and does not have to face the consequences until the next election. They cannot be held accountable for acts when they commit them. In cases (such as the US presidential system) where the number of terms are limited, people do not even have to worry about being re-elected.

In the first instance, one has to remember that when "judging the state", one must base such a judgment upon comparative examination.

Most "liberal democracies" have a list of things for which the government cannot make law. While the Bill of Rights in my country is the most liberal, there are many other examples.

But, let's to my original comment: In comparison to past political systems, the minority viewpoint in liberal democracy is protected by the majority's inability to upset the minority on many levels. Speech, press, organization and movement, the right to enjoy common life experience though one is x in a world of y.

The government can,, possibly, do as it pleases, but with an independent judiciary te government can be challenged, as illustrated by the Bush Admin's recent loss in the courts, and the district judge ruling, "we have no monarchs" in the ruling.

These liberal democracies have many people immigrating to their shores. The United States, Sweden, Canada, the UK and France to mention only a few.

Can the reverse be said of the non-liberal democracies. How many people wish to live there?

The movement of people is probably the best endorcement of liberal democracy.

A. Hamilton

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)I can't see how this [rights vs majority rule] is a 'contradiction in the system' at all.

A proper understanding of society's influence on rights solves this 'problem' very easily.[/b]
Um... look at it this way, you claim to have a 'right' to do something (freedom of speech for example), yet the majority have just voted to outlaw all speech that supports (etc.) the NAZIs (such as in France). Surely there is a contradiction between your 'right' to say (and print etc.) what you want and the majorities will? Another example is libel and defamation.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)[Discussing rights vs capitalism, s]o 'rights' go against democracy AND the antithesis of democracy?

And it's capitalism with the contradictions, not you?[/b]Again freedom of speech, you have the 'right' to say what you want, yet capitalism limits that right to those who actually "own a press" as it were. Your ability to say whatever you want is completely limited by whom you can say it to.

Another example is the 'right' to equality of opportunity, yet in capitalism there is not any equality of opportunity between different sections of the community. By enabling inheritance and the ability of parents to send their children to the best school (if they have the money), equality of opportunity just disappeared.


Originally posted by Publius
[On "democracy" vs capitalism.] But I thought 'democracy' went against rights...

I don't see how any of these are contradictions in capitalism; they seem just to be confused statements on your part. You aren't being coherent. I think I see why you think capitalism is contradictory: your understanding of it is incoherent and contradictory itself.
Democracy is about rule by the people yes? Or at least rule by the people's representative. Yet everyday people go to work, and they are ruled by an unelected (by them) hierarchy of managers and bosses. We have a supposed democratic political system, yet a feudalistic economic one.

However, that is not the end of it. Capitalism enables the ones with the money to basically 'elect' the people they want. Your vote simply being the way. Take Murdoch and News Limited for example. By being able to dictate the editorial position and the bias of the various articles, the bosses of News Limited can influence voters to vote against (for example) the Greens. They lie, slander and make up stuff, yet because the Greens do not have sufficient funding to buy advertisements, they can not respond. (See also the Buy Nothing ads by Adbusters, only one TV network in the USA ran with them (CNN I think).)

Thus I stand by my statement that they are all contradictions in the "liberal democratic" system. And I feel that they should be obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence and a basic understanding of politics and history.



Originally posted by Publius
Not extremely.

But if people choose not to participate, they choose not to participate.

What's the problem?So you admit that the system which is meant to be representative is not, yet do not see a problem? Even if you are simply trying to get a representative sample from those who did vote, the British system still fails. (Even the Australian system which is much better produces outcomes like this sometimes, see the 1998 federal election.)

However, the system still has problems, because it does not have an option for "none of the above", so people who want that option do not have an option. Many of them simply do not vote. The system fails because it cannot take into account the reasons for people not voting. (Leading to crap about "moral majorities" who are satisfied with the status quo.)


Originally posted by Publius
Recall exists in many democracies. And you and I both know 'Hungary' is piss poor example of a 'liberal democracy'.

The idea of recall is contentious in liberal democratic thought, you're correct there, but its efficacy is really a different argument.

Should there be consequences for electing a leader, by popular vote? Should you be 'stuck with him' as it were, until you learn your lesson? Perhaps.(Hungry was just an example, the Tasmanian government lied (or at least mislead the public) before the last state election as well.)
If your aim is representation, then I do not think that you should be stuck with an unpopular leader. After all, it seems that the Hungarians did learn their lesson, but they are still stuck with a (millionaire!) socialist leader that they do not like.


Originally posted by Publius
This is actually a fairly significant problem.

I believe the Parliamentary system works much more effectively. I think you can see that now, the way America and Britain are dealing with their dislike of their leaders in totally different manners.Glad you agree it is a problem. I disagree that the parliamentary system works better. After all, in the parliamentary system you vote for a, well party. You do not vote for a leader, and the average elector has no choice about the PM (or the leader of the opposition).


Originally posted by Publius
Run-off voting is an option many on the Green Party-ish left support.

It's an interesting idea. This isn't a 'liberal democratic' problem but a 'majority' problem that wont' go away in any system with voting.We have what you Yanks call "instant run-off" here (in Australia) (much better then the non instant run off).

Yes it is a "liberal democratic" problem, because while it might affect other systems with voting, it also affects "liberal democracies". It still needs to be solved. Do you have a solution?


Originally posted by Publius
I've always thought it would be interesting to ban 'campaigning' entirely and instead vote not based on candidates but on specific party platforms.

I know it's rather idealisitc and unworkable, but I think it would solve a lot of problems, at least superficially.It would solve some of the problems associated with "democracy" vs capitalism that I mentioned above. And yes it would be unworkable, after all when does bias in a newspaper become campaigning for a candidate? A local paper around here is giving a lot of press to the ex-member (who is also a candidate in the next election) for this area. Is that campaigning?


Originally posted by Publius
Not necessarily.

Some people think the role of government is to maintain individual rights.I did say 'democracy', not government. (See also democracy vs rights above.) But anyway, why bother having elections at all? After all, a non-elected intellectual elite can govern and protect rights much better then can a constantly changing elected government, where the quality of the people in power can not be guaranteed. But it would stop being a democracy then wouldn't it... Anyway, as an anarchist I do not see any role for the government, this is just a discussion though.


Originally posted by Publius
It [a better system of representation] probably would [ensure a better system of representation].

Why then, do we need 'communism'?Because no matter how "representative" the system is, it is still oppressive, hierarchical and dictatorial. No matter how "kind" you make capitalism, it is still flawed and problematic.

This discussion was on one area of the problems of "liberal democracy", but even if you fix them, it still has plenty of other problems (see the start of this post).



Originally posted by colonelguppy
no i'll stick around as long as i can continue to make all of you guys look stupid in debate. its really not that hard so look like i'm in for the long haul.Ha ha. Publius is a much better debater then you. At least he actually debates, looks at the arguments and answer direct questions. If you think that you are making anybody look stupid in a debate (besides yourself) you are sadly mistaken.

I never mentioned direct democracy; yes it would be more representative then the present system, so do you think that it would be better then the present system?


Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
In the first instance, one has to remember that when "judging the state", one must base such a judgment upon comparative examination.

Most "liberal democracies" have a list of things for which the government cannot make law. While the Bill of Rights in my country is the most liberal, there are many other examples.Even with in limits that you mention, a government could still royally screw up a country. Declare war on a foreign nation? OK. Increase income tax to 98.3% and increase salaries of politicions by 300%? OK. Etc.


Originally posted by Alexander Hamilton
But, let's to my original comment: In comparison to past political systems, the minority viewpoint in liberal democracy is protected by the majority's inability to upset the minority on many levels. Speech, press, organization and movement, the right to enjoy common life experience though one is x in a world of y.I don't quite understand what you mean by that last sentence. Yes some minority viewpoints (and lifestyles what have you) are protected. After all, if you have the cash, you can do so many things, and only a minority have the cash. But other minority positions are not protected. Were African-Americans protected by the bill of rights? Were they prevented from being lynched, given unequal treatment at the hands of every aspect of the government? Shit, they are still given unequal treatment at the hands of the government, the police, the courts, legislature (passing laws discriminatory towards poor people) and so on.


Alexander [email protected]
The government can,, possibly, do as it pleases, but with an independent judiciary te government can be challenged, as illustrated by the Bush Admin's recent loss in the courts, and the district judge ruling, "we have no monarchs" in the ruling.Hardly democratic is it ...


Alexander Hamilton
These liberal democracies have many people immigrating to their shores. The United States, Sweden, Canada, the UK and France to mention only a few.

Can the reverse be said of the non-liberal democracies. How many people wish to live there?

The movement of people is probably the best endorcement of liberal democracy.Yes people are migrating towards the richer countries, those which exploit the resources of other countries more effectively. Funny that. Of course people do not want to live in the exploited country, but that is not an endorsement of anything. It is a reaction against the living conditions where they come from.

The same effect can be seen in history books, Indians (what was India, including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) and West "Indians" (from the Carriabien) moving to Britain, Chinese moving south into South East Asia and so on.

[colonelguppy]

Ha ha. Publius is a much better debater then you. At least he actually debates, looks at the arguments and answer direct questions. If you think that you are making anybody look stupid in a debate (besides yourself) you are sadly mistaken.

wait when have i ever done that?


I never mentioned direct democracy; yes it would be more representative then the present system, so do you think that it would be better then the present system?

for me? no, as i said my views aren't moderate enough.

[t_wolves_fan]

Your post suggests that you think every group can and should have its views enacted into law, which is physically impossible. If you can't sell your message, it's not the fault of people who aren't buying it.

[Publius]

Um... look at it this way, you claim to have a 'right' to do something (freedom of speech for example), yet the majority have just voted to outlaw all speech that supports (etc.) the NAZIs (such as in France). Surely there is a contradiction between your 'right' to say (and print etc.) what you want and the majorities will? Another example is libel and defamation.

First of all, I don't see how this is contradictory at all.

Your 'right to free speech' isn't absolute, and never has been. The 'right to free speech' doesn't mean 'you have the right to say absolutely anything regardless of the consequences.'

In fact, you are limited by the constraints of responsible behavior, as you are with anything.

It's not a 'contradiction', it's actually very obvious that things work this way. 'Free speech' is something granted to you by society, because its deemed, by society, that its utterly important that you have the ability to speak your mind. Society does not deem it important that you say things that demonstrably hurt people.

It's not a contradiction any more than it's a 'contradiction' that a hammer can be used to drive a nail, or to kill someone.

Free speech is analogous to the tool. Just because there are limits regarding its use does not mean 'society's stance on hammers is contradictory'.

You're looking for contradictions where none exist. There are simple, rational explanations for why things are the way they are, and always will be.

All that being said, I can't see how communism could free itself from this 'contradiction'. When you think about it, if you ban any speech or allow any speech, this will happen, so the only actual solution is to allow all things, period, or allow none.

I dont think either of those are realistic options.



Again freedom of speech, you have the 'right' to say what you want, yet capitalism limits that right to those who actually "own a press" as it were. Your ability to say whatever you want is completely limited by whom you can say it to.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

YOu're completely obfuscating the two issues. Free speech means you can say you want. It does mean you are guranteed an audience, which, if you think about it, is absurd.

And with the advent of the internet and computer access at public libraries, I don't even think this is an issue anymore.

Anyone with access to a computer can get information out there without the slighest difficulty. So now the problem isn't distribution, it's simply none wants to read it, which is no fault of the institution of free speach.



Another example is the 'right' to equality of opportunity, yet in capitalism there is not any equality of opportunity between different sections of the community. By enabling inheritance and the ability of parents to send their children to the best school (if they have the money), equality of opportunity just disappeared.

I don't think I've ever heard of this 'right to equality of oppurtunity' ever as literally existing. I believe it's more of an ideal, something to shoot for.

Simple genetics insures that all people will never have equal oppurtunities.

You're again confusing something here, this time a goal, 'equality of oppurtunity', and the reality. It's not a contradiction, it's simple fact. And realize, again, that under communism there would still exist inequalities, just different ones.

It's unavoidable that all people will be somehow unequal, however minute. The only way to be equal is to literally, from the term, be the same.



Democracy is about rule by the people yes? Or at least rule by the people's representative. Yet everyday people go to work, and they are ruled by an unelected (by them) hierarchy of managers and bosses. We have a supposed democratic political system, yet a feudalistic economic one.

You mean they have no option of working under certain managers and bosses? They don't have the ability to leave and go somewhere else? You mean their terms of service aren't actually quite good?

You think 'feudalism' is 'a system where you are paid handsomely, putting you safely into the top percentage point of overall wealth and self-actualization, in which you are free to work in unnemerable places, often with very good working conditions, a safe work environment, etc.'

I think you're mistaken.



However, that is not the end of it. Capitalism enables the ones with the money to basically 'elect' the people they want. Your vote simply being the way. Take Murdoch and News Limited for example. By being able to dictate the editorial position and the bias of the various articles, the bosses of News Limited can influence voters to vote against (for example) the Greens. They lie, slander and make up stuff, yet because the Greens do not have sufficient funding to buy advertisements, they can not respond. (See also the Buy Nothing ads by Adbusters, only one TV network in the USA ran with them (CNN I think).)

Well, back to freedom of speech, I'm reading a book (bought from Borders) by Matt Taibbi that, in addition to being very funny, is a harsh condemnation of electoral politics in America.

It's called Spanking the Donkey, I highly reccommend it.

Anyway, a simple trip to Borders affords you hundreds of books on any topic under the sun, even Marx.

Even on Television there are programs such as Frontline.

It all depends on where you look.



Thus I stand by my statement that they are all contradictions in the "liberal democratic" system. And I feel that they should be obvious to anyone with a grain of intelligence and a basic understanding of politics and history.


Well I'm glad that you 'feel' that way, but I'm just trying to inform you that those of whose criteria for belief are a little more rigorous than 'it's leftist doctrine' are not swayed in the least.

You haven't pointed out a single contradiction yet (do you even know what the term means?)

I know why you don't understand capitalism: your ideology is completely confused and obfuscatory. You don't understand anything, so it's all very hazy in your mind. I can understand why you would think the problem lies in the system, not in your understanding of it.



So you admit that the system which is meant to be representative is not, yet do not see a problem?

The problem is that people choose not to vote.


Even if you are simply trying to get a representative sample from those who did vote, the British system still fails. (Even the Australian system which is much better produces outcomes like this sometimes, see the 1998 federal election.)

However, the system still has problems, because it does not have an option for "none of the above", so people who want that option do not have an option. Many of them simply do not vote. The system fails because it cannot take into account the reasons for people not voting. (Leading to crap about "moral majorities" who are satisfied with the status quo.)

But it could.

You could have a 'none of the above' option on a ballot with a 'fill in the reason here' box.

It could be very easily done.

So then the problem isn't systematic but is instead pragmatic.


(Hungry was just an example, the Tasmanian government lied (or at least mislead the public) before the last state election as well.)
If your aim is representation, then I do not think that you should be stuck with an unpopular leader. After all, it seems that the Hungarians did learn their lesson, but they are still stuck with a (millionaire!) socialist leader that they do not like.


And we have Bush.

I know the feeling, and it does make me wish we had recall.

The Constitution could be ammended, though.


Glad you agree it is a problem. I disagree that the parliamentary system works better. After all, in the parliamentary system you vote for a, well party. You do not vote for a leader, and the average elector has no choice about the PM (or the leader of the opposition).

Parliaments work better with many betters because then they require compromise and centrism.


We have what you Yanks call "instant run-off" here (in Australia) (much better then the non instant run off).

Yes it is a "liberal democratic" problem, because while it might affect other systems with voting, it also affects "liberal democracies". It still needs to be solved. Do you have a solution?

Vote for better candidates.

That's really the only solution to any problem in a liberal democracy.



It would solve some of the problems associated with "democracy" vs capitalism that I mentioned above. And yes it would be unworkable, after all when does bias in a newspaper become campaigning for a candidate? A local paper around here is giving a lot of press to the ex-member (who is also a candidate in the next election) for this area. Is that campaigning?


Sure, we'd toss them in the gulags for that, no doubt.


I did say 'democracy', not government. (See also democracy vs rights above.) But anyway, why bother having elections at all? After all, a non-elected intellectual elite can govern and protect rights much better then can a constantly changing elected government, where the quality of the people in power can not be guaranteed. But it would stop being a democracy then wouldn't it... Anyway, as an anarchist I do not see any role for the government, this is just a discussion though.


Perhaps then the more pointed question would be 'what role does goverance have'?


Because no matter how "representative" the system is, it is still oppressive, hierarchical and dictatorial.

NOt if you made the system sufficiently un-oppressive, non-hierarachical, and non-dictorial.

Use your imagination here.

Vote for committees. Use short terms of office. Split roles.

Try to think through the problem of 'liberal democracy' for 5 minutes instead of just abandoning it.


No matter how "kind" you make capitalism, it is still flawed and problematic.

"Flawed" and "problematic" are perhaps the best two terms for desribing human social relations.

That's the story of society.



This discussion was on one area of the problems of "liberal democracy", but even if you fix them, it still has plenty of other problems (see the start of this post).

Yes, and everything has problems, and its completely foolish to think we'll ever fix them all.

[ZX3]

Originally posted by Dr. Rosenpenis+Sep 24 2006, 04:37 AM--> (Dr. Rosenpenis @ Sep 24 2006, 04:37 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 07:14 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 09:57 PM
Most Americans feel differently... which explains why they don't partake in the electoral system.
This is true throughout the western world. In many countries their high turnout is due to voting being required by law. Hardly "liberal" in action.

The original poster was indeed correct in diving that a "liberal democracy" can be a contradiction in turns. Democracy naturally leads to tyranny, so it is not surprising that socialism has resulted in tyranny, the very opposite of what so many socialists desire.
How is democracy tyrannical?

Democracy is actually what tyranny is not. I'm drunk and will not let you confuse me! [/b]

Its the idea of the state (or community if you wish) without limits.

[Alexander Hamilton]

My Statement:

In the first instance, one has to remember that when "judging the state", one must base such a judgment upon comparative examination.
Most "liberal democracies" have a list of things for which the government cannot make law. While the Bill of Rights in my country is the most liberal, there are many other examples.

apathy maybe's response:

Even with in limits that you mention, a government could still royally screw up a country. Declare war on a foreign nation? OK. Increase income tax to 98.3% and increase salaries of politicions by 300%? OK. Etc.


My Response:

Democracy does not pretend that government will never "screw up". It's intent is that the government mirror's the intent of the citizen. Let us take your three examples: The last time the U.S. declared war was December 8, 1941, against Japan. This was not, by my point of view, a screw up. If the people wanted to increase the income tax to 98.3%, and both houses of Congress created such law, and the President signed it upon presentment, then it would be law. What is the "screw up"? The presumption is that such was the will of the majority. (I can't imagine ANY Congress doing so, but that's what you wrote. In the United States, salaries are increased occassionally by Congress. Yes, that is so. 300% sounds idiotic in one moment, and I can't imagine the motivation. There are currently 535 people serving in Congress. If their salaries went up 300%, they'd cost us about a million dollars a year. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money, but sometimes not so.




My Statement:

But, let's to my original comment: In comparison to past political systems, the minority viewpoint in liberal democracy is protected by the majority's inability to upset the minority on many levels. Speech, press, organization and movement, the right to enjoy common life experience though one is x in a world of y.

apathy maybe's response:

I don't quite understand what you mean by that last sentence. Yes some minority viewpoints (and lifestyles what have you) are protected. After all, if you have the cash, you can do so many things, and only a minority have the cash. But other minority positions are not protected. Were African-Americans protected by the bill of rights? Were they prevented from being lynched, given unequal treatment at the hands of every aspect of the government? Shit, they are still given unequal treatment at the hands of the government, the police, the courts, legislature (passing laws discriminatory towards poor people) and so on.

My Response:

Liberal democracies don't need to be racist. You are very correct about what you point out as part of U.S. history. We can have a great argument re: whether the courts discriminate against the poor. But let's not waste an entire day over it.

But I would like to point out to you a great mystery along the lines of your argument: In the 1970's and through the early '80's, an organization known as the All African People's Revolutionary Party (AAPRP) attempted to organize all black Americans to leave the United States, move to Africa, and create a new, pan-African society, based upon scientific socialism. They raised some money, but what they couldn't get was people to actually move to Africa. In fact, its former leaders ARE ALL STILL IN THE UNITED STATES. I know three people who have gone to Africa to visit their "roots". They each told me the trip was very emotional, and that they intended one day to return. Yet none of them moved there. My guess is that they are Americans, and see themselves as such. I don't know if this properly responds to the point you raise, other than to make the observation that, to many, a poor life in the United States beats a good life in other places.



My Statement:

The government can,, possibly, do as it pleases, but with an independent judiciary te government can be challenged, as illustrated by the Bush Admin's recent loss in the courts, and the district judge ruling, "we have no monarchs" in the ruling.


apathy maybe's response:

Hardly democratic is it ...


My Response:

Well, it's a pathway to challenge the actions of the government. What other systems allow you to to such? Everyone who writes in support of Marxism admits there would be NO instituted means to challenge the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the People's Army, or the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Their rule would be law, without any court to state, "we have no monarchs..."




My Statement:

These liberal democracies have many people immigrating to their shores. The United States, Sweden, Canada, the UK and France to mention only a few.
Can the reverse be said of the non-liberal democracies. How many people wish to live there?
The movement of people is probably the best endorcement of liberal democracy.


apathy maybe's response:

Yes people are migrating towards the richer countries, those which exploit the resources of other countries more effectively. Funny that. Of course people do not want to live in the exploited country, but that is not an endorsement of anything. It is a reaction against the living conditions where they come from.
The same effect can be seen in history books, Indians (what was India, including what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh) and West "Indians" (from the Carriabien) moving to Britain, Chinese moving south into South East Asia and so on.


My Response:

The same cannot be said of Italians coming to America 100 years ago. Nor the Irish 50 years before that. Nor jews, who's largest population is in the United States. Nor countless other examples of people who came here where the U.S. never robbed their country of origin of anything. What about former soviet republics. There was no way to rob them of anything. And we sent Russia plenty of wheat in the '60's and '70's. Germany, Spain, and France all have majorities which are self professed anti-American (currently). How has this view not translated itself into anti-Capitalism? Where is the great revolution in these places? Perhaps these liberal democracies are acting like one would expect a liberal democracy to act: Not subscribing to a particular war, while at the same time, not overthrowing the system they have established.

[Lenin's Law]

no i'll stick around as long as i can continue to make all of you guys look stupid in debate. its really not that hard so look like i'm in for the long haul.

Contradictory, like just about everything you say.

If it was "really not that hard" to make us look stupid in 'debate' (Is that what you call this? I call it appeasing some bourgeois philisitine) why would you need the "long haul" to be able to do it? Shouldn't you be able to do it in a much shorter time period?

And if we do ban people for disagreeing, then why are you still here?

Oh that's right, to show the absurdity of bourgeois philisitines.

If some other comrade has the patience to deal with you then let him, I have already wasted too much time with such empty-headed nonsense.

[colonelguppy]

lol bourgeios philistine.

i'll be here awhile because no one likes to change their views, and because of this i will continue making people look stupid in debate, and thus be here for the long haul, fullfilling my criteriam for staying. its really a basic syllogism....

[Patchd]

because of this i will continue making people look stupid in debate

Yeah, yourself.

[colonelguppy]

g00d 1

[Patchd]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:24 PM
g00d 1
Thanks, i thought it was too.

[apathy maybe]

Publius, sorry for the late reply, I hadn't forgotten about you.

Firstly, because this thread is meant to be about representation in liberal democracy (and I should be doing Uni work), I'll only briefly examine your other replies.

On Free Speech, obviously a semantical disagreement about what free speech is.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius) YOu're completely obfuscating the two issues. Free speech means you can say you want. It does mean you are guranteed an audience, which, if you think about it, is absurd.

And with the advent of the internet and computer access at public libraries, I don't even think this is an issue anymore.

Anyone with access to a computer can get information out there without the slighest difficulty. So now the problem isn't distribution, it's simply none wants to read it, which is no fault of the institution of free speach.[/b]
I know that free speech does not mean that you get an audience. That was not my point. It is about distribution, where as the capitalist can have a distribution in millions of households if they buy an ad on a TV network, my standing on a soup (or soap) box or even publishing stuff on the Internet will not give me that distribution. Yes I have a "potential" audience of billions, but the capitalist has a guaranteed audience.


Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius) Well, back to freedom of speech, I'm reading a book (bought from Borders) by Matt Taibbi that, in addition to being very funny, is a harsh condemnation of electoral politics in America.

It's called Spanking the Donkey, I highly reccommend it.

Anyway, a simple trip to Borders affords you hundreds of books on any topic under the sun, even Marx.

Even on Television there are programs such as Frontline.

It all depends on where you look.[/b]Yes, if you look you can find some stuff that is in opposition to the status quo. If you do not look, you find so much stuff that promotes [who ever paid for this spot]'s agenda.

On "equality of opportunity": I always thought that it was meant to be more then a "goal". But even if it is only a goal to aim for, why does it seem to be still as far away as ever? If there is a goal, then surely it should be worked towards?

The fact remains that this goal is not pursued by anyone with any great enthusiasm.



Originally posted by Publius
You mean they have no option of working under certain managers and bosses? They don't have the ability to leave and go somewhere else? You mean their terms of service aren't actually quite good?

You think 'feudalism' is 'a system where you are paid handsomely, putting you safely into the top percentage point of overall wealth and self-actualization, in which you are free to work in unnemerable places, often with very good working conditions, a safe work environment, etc.'

I think you're mistaken. That is like saying that because I do not have democracy in (for example) Australia, I can always get a different set of rulers if I move to the USA. Either way, I do not have a real say in who my rulers are going to be.

You can go on about how working conditions are great or whatever, but the fact remains that for the majority of people their working conditions are not set by them. The only choice they have in their working conditions is to go somewhere else if they do not like them. And for most people, that is unrealistic. I am sure you can find plenty of threads on this point if you look.


Originally posted by Publius
You haven't pointed out a single contradiction yet (do you even know what the term means?)

I know why you don't understand capitalism: your ideology is completely confused and obfuscatory. You don't understand anything, so it's all very hazy in your mind. I can understand why you would think the problem lies in the system, not in your understanding of it.Very funny... While my understanding of the system may disagree with your understanding, it does not make my understanding invalid. Besides which, "my ideology" being "confused and obfuscatory" does not mean that I do not understand capitalism.

(Contradiction: a difference between something stated and the reality (or something else stated), mutually opposite. Can not have one with the other. )



Originally posted by Publius
The problem is that people choose not to vote. No! The problem is that of the people who did vote, the majority did not vote for the government that is now in power! If only 20% of people vote for a candidate, is it "right" that they get elected? (A scenario perfectly possible in "first past the post").


Originally posted by Publius
You could have a 'none of the above' option on a ballot with a 'fill in the reason here' box.

It could be very easily done.

So then the problem isn't systematic but is instead pragmatic.So would you support such a change? Do you think that "votes" for none of the above should be counted? Do you think that another election should be held (with different candidates) if there are enough none of the above votes?

Do you really think that a "liberal democracy" could cope with that? I think that the system would not succeed.


Originally posted by Publius
And we have Bush.

I know the feeling, and it does make me wish we had recall.

The Constitution could be ammended, though.The problem with all the options that I am putting forward (none of the above, recall etc.) is that they do not really fit in well with the "liberal democratic" project. Because despite stated aims of representation, liberal democracy is not about representation. It is about "legitimate" rule. It is about producing a government that has legitimacy.


Vote for better candidates.

That's really the only solution to any problem in a liberal democracy.Ha ha. I did not vote in the last state election (and I got a letter asking why not too!). One reason, there were no "better candidates". Why? Because the majority of people who do stand, support the status quo. The rest have not got a hope in hell (and I do not support them either, reformist Marxists despite what they may claim).

Thus leading to the problem, what representation?


Perhaps then the more pointed question would be 'what role does goverance have'?None at all ... But you should try a serious answer to the question. And to the question I asked initially, "democracy is all about representation isn't it?"


NOt if you made the system sufficiently un-oppressive, non-hierarachical, and non-dictorial.

Use your imagination here.

Vote for committees. Use short terms of office. Split roles.

Try to think through the problem of 'liberal democracy' for 5 minutes instead of just abandoning it.I have thought about the problems, I did not start my political thinkings an anarchist, I started as a believer in the system. But the system had problems, so what can we do to fix it?

You seem to be advocating an minimal government with a focus on local affairs, sounds good to me (well better then the present alternative). But what about capitalism then? Can we have global (or even national) corporations if government is focused on local affairs?
My answer, to fix the problems, you also need to get rid of capitalism.


"Flawed" and "problematic" are perhaps the best two terms for desribing human social relations.

That's the story of society.You seem some what cynical ...
Do you not think that we can create a better society? Less focused on profit for profits sake?


Yes, and everything has problems, and its completely foolish to think we'll ever fix them all. Definitely cynical ...
I think we should scrap the present system, as we will never fix all the problems, and those ones are too great to be put up with.


Originally posted by AH

Democracy does not pretend that government will never "screw up". It's intent is that the government mirror's the intent of the citizen. Let us take your three examples: The last time the U.S. declared war was December 8, 1941, against Japan. This was not, by my point of view, a screw up. If the people wanted to increase the income tax to 98.3%, and both houses of Congress created such law, and the President signed it upon presentment, then it would be law. What is the "screw up"? The presumption is that such was the will of the majority. (I can't imagine ANY Congress doing so, but that's what you wrote. In the United States, salaries are increased occassionally by Congress. Yes, that is so. 300% sounds idiotic in one moment, and I can't imagine the motivation. There are currently 535 people serving in Congress. If their salaries went up 300%, they'd cost us about a million dollars a year. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money, but sometimes not so.What was that little thing in Afghanistan and Iraq then? Not a war? Incidentally, the Australian government went to war against the wishes of the majority in Iraq.
As to the increase in income tax and salary increase, the point is that "the people" do not need to come into it at all. Congress passes the law, president signs it (in the USA at least). It becomes law, where are the people in all this? The point is that "the people" do not have any say in how the government is run from day to day, they only have a "voice" on election day.


Originally posted by AH
Liberal democracies don't need to be racist. You are very correct about what you point out as part of U.S. history. We can have a great argument re: whether the courts discriminate against the poor. But let's not waste an entire day over it.
But the fact that they can be racist says something doesn't it? There is something nasty in the woodshed, and the liberal democracies are shielding it.

[email protected]
But I would like to point out to you a great mystery along the lines of your argument: In the 1970's and through the early '80's, an organization known as the All African People's Revolutionary Party (AAPRP) attempted to organize all black Americans to leave the United States, move to Africa, and create a new, pan-African society, based upon scientific socialism. They raised some money, but what they couldn't get was people to actually move to Africa. In fact, its former leaders ARE ALL STILL IN THE UNITED STATES. I know three people who have gone to Africa to visit their "roots". They each told me the trip was very emotional, and that they intended one day to return. Yet none of them moved there. My guess is that they are Americans, and see themselves as such. I don't know if this properly responds to the point you raise, other than to make the observation that, to many, a poor life in the United States beats a good life in other places.Poor life in the USA vs Poor life in Africa? Of course they choose the USA. (And no it does not respond to my point really.)


AH
Well, it's a pathway to challenge the actions of the government. What other systems allow you to to such? Everyone who writes in support of Marxism admits there would be NO instituted means to challenge the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the People's Army, or the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Their rule would be law, without any court to state, "we have no monarchs..."My point is that liberal democracies need such a pathway because they are not democratic. If they were, then ... well.

As to DoP etc. I am not a Marxist. I do not support such stuff. Besides which, we are not discussing Leninism (which I think that autonomous Marxists would state your examples are from).

AH: Your last point is vaguely incoherent. The Irish and Italians went to the USA because it was better then where they came from. I do not really see what you are attempting to address with your point about anti-capitalism in Germany etc.

[t_wolves_fan]

Yes I have a "potential" audience of billions, but the capitalist has a guaranteed audience.

No he or she doesn't - people change stations or turn off the radio or TV.


That is like saying that because I do not have democracy in (for example) Australia, I can always get a different set of rulers if I move to the USA. Either way, I do not have a real say in who my rulers are going to be.

Sure you do. You have just as much opportunity to run for office, or join a party, or do whatever as anyone else has.

Your problem seems to be that you can't get anyone to buy your message, which is not a sign of lack of speech or political opportunity.



You can go on about how working conditions are great or whatever, but the fact remains that for the majority of people their working conditions are not set by them. The only choice they have in their working conditions is to go somewhere else if they do not like them. And for most people, that is unrealistic. I am sure you can find plenty of threads on this point if you look.

Choices are more limited for some than others, no question. But the fact remains, there is always going to be opportunity to better yourself or better your children's lives. It is entirely your responsibility to take advantage of those opportunities.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Hi apathy_maybe:

First, you're going to have to excuse me for being burnt out this morning. A combination of several things led to this:

1) A tough day riding motocross.

2) While riding, making a series of bets on sports, all of them winning, and turning in two days, sixty dollars into twenty-two hundred, and sixty cents into $22 for NWOG, a member of this board.

3) An outrageous party that went on forever, as our team here in St. Louis is in the penant race.

4) One of my girlfriend's impromptu stripteases at aforementioned party.

5) My waking up in a trashed room environment that has reminded me of my age (29), and my near extinction in being able to hang out with the "kids" who are now the definition of the sport (19 through 25). I'm getting old.


We now turn to your comments and my responses:




QUOTE (AH)
Democracy does not pretend that government will never "screw up". It's intent is that the government mirror's the intent of the citizen. Let us take your three examples: The last time the U.S. declared war was December 8, 1941, against Japan. This was not, by my point of view, a screw up. If the people wanted to increase the income tax to 98.3%, and both houses of Congress created such law, and the President signed it upon presentment, then it would be law. What is the "screw up"? The presumption is that such was the will of the majority. (I can't imagine ANY Congress doing so, but that's what you wrote. In the United States, salaries are increased occassionally by Congress. Yes, that is so. 300% sounds idiotic in one moment, and I can't imagine the motivation. There are currently 535 people serving in Congress. If their salaries went up 300%, they'd cost us about a million dollars a year. Half a billion dollars is a lot of money, but sometimes not so

apathy's response:
What was that little thing in Afghanistan and Iraq then? Not a war? Incidentally, the Australian government went to war against the wishes of the majority in Iraq.
As to the increase in income tax and salary increase, the point is that "the people" do not need to come into it at all. Congress passes the law, president signs it (in the USA at least). It becomes law, where are the people in all this? The point is that "the people" do not have any say in how the government is run from day to day, they only have a "voice" on election day.
[QUOTE]

The United States chose to go to war against another country without a declaration. It occasionally happens. Congress did so with an appropriation's bill, as required in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 12. The vast majority of Americans wanted to go to war in Afghanistan to destroy the Taliban (I support this), and a lesser majority wanted to remove Hussain (I supported this, but beleived we should have removed him and then leave, but then I believe the entire world should have this attitude toward guys who chemically bomb their own people). But the majority was there. The same part of the Constitution requires that the appropriations for any army come up every 2 years. It has done so twice, and both times Congress has given the money.

The fact that people have no say in the day to day operation of the government is obvious. If you have more than 5 people in a country, there would be no agreement on the day to day operation. It's no way to run anything. If there were a society run by direct democracy, nothing, NOTHING, would ever get done. That in and of itself might be a blessing to anarchists, but hardly realistic.


[QUOTE]
QUOTE (AH)
Liberal democracies don't need to be racist. You are very correct about what you point out as part of U.S. history. We can have a great argument re: whether the courts discriminate against the poor. But let's not waste an entire day over it.


apathy's response:
But the fact that they can be racist says something doesn't it? There is something nasty in the woodshed, and the liberal democracies are shielding it.


I have yet to see a socitey which was fair or kind to the poor. I agree with you here. The solutions would probably cause all Americans to have less, so that there would be a more even society. I would support this, though not by taxation. There could be other approaches, which I support, though they would scare quite a few here.




QUOTE (AH)
But I would like to point out to you a great mystery along the lines of your argument: In the 1970's and through the early '80's, an organization known as the All African People's Revolutionary Party (AAPRP) attempted to organize all black Americans to leave the United States, move to Africa, and create a new, pan-African society, based upon scientific socialism. They raised some money, but what they couldn't get was people to actually move to Africa. In fact, its former leaders ARE ALL STILL IN THE UNITED STATES. I know three people who have gone to Africa to visit their "roots". They each told me the trip was very emotional, and that they intended one day to return. Yet none of them moved there. My guess is that they are Americans, and see themselves as such. I don't know if this properly responds to the point you raise, other than to make the observation that, to many, a poor life in the United States beats a good life in other places.

apathy's response:
Poor life in the USA vs Poor life in Africa? Of course they choose the USA. (And no it does not respond to my point really.)



It appears we're learning from each other. I agreed with something you wrote, and you've agreed with something I wrote. Scary.


QUOTE (AH)
Well, it's a pathway to challenge the actions of the government. What other systems allow you to to such? Everyone who writes in support of Marxism admits there would be NO instituted means to challenge the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the People's Army, or the Central Committee of the Communist Party. Their rule would be law, without any court to state, "we have no monarchs..."

apathy's response:
My point is that liberal democracies need such a pathway because they are not democratic. If they were, then ... well.




To agree with you would be to accept that there would be a system of any kind that is perfect, and, therefore, would need no fix or appeals process to question what was decided. I can't go along with you here. ALL societies (not merely liberal democracies) need such a pathway because people make mistakes. In our system, the appeals process does not change the law, it changes the decision made by the lower forum because of an error made by that forum. I support such a process.



apathy's final statement:
As to DoP etc. I am not a Marxist. I do not support such stuff. Besides which, we are not discussing Leninism (which I think that autonomous Marxists would state your examples are from).

AH: Your last point is vaguely incoherent. The Irish and Italians went to the USA because it was better then where they came from. I do not really see what you are attempting to address with your point about anti-capitalism in Germany etc.
[QUOTE]

I'll go back and see what I wrote. Everything to me at the moment is incoherent. (As an aside, did you really want to write that it was "vaguely incoherent". The words used that way, and they rarely would be, would mean that my comment was only partially incoherent. Did you wish to write, "vague AND incoherent"? That would be more likely, unless you are saying I did something right. Again, scary.


A. Hamilton

[t_wolves_fan]

apathy_maybe said:

Congress passes the law, president signs it (in the USA at least). It becomes law, where are the people in all this? The point is that "the people" do not have any say in how the government is run from day to day, they only have a "voice" on election day.


This is purposeful. "The people" are generally incapable of running government via direct democracy or involvement. The reason is, governing is incredibly complex and involves many decisions that require an expertise that few common folks have. Now of course politicians do not have the necessary expertise on all topics, or even on any topics; but this is why they hire staff and hold hearings where experts tell them what makes sense and what does not.

Governing is like any other industry. Can you imagine getting input by someone who mixes concrete for a living on how a new supercomputer should be built?

[apathy maybe]

Bah. So you admit that "liberal democracy" is not really representative, and thus should lay no claim to the term "democracy"? Sounds like you want a technocracy.

A similar point to AH,
Originally posted by AH+--> (AH) The fact that people have no say in the day to day operation of the government is obvious. If you have more than 5 people in a country, there would be no agreement on the day to day operation. It's no way to run anything. If there were a society run by direct democracy, nothing, NOTHING, would ever get done. That in and of itself might be a blessing to anarchists, but hardly realistic.[/b]The point is that "liberal democracy" is not representative. It therefore should lay no claim to being democratic.

Oh, and the government and society is not run by those elected politicians. But rather by unelected bureaucrats. Even in an anarchist society things would still happen, but there would not be the crap and oppression associated with decisions now a days (no more parentalism from the government either!).


TWF
Sure you do. You have just as much opportunity to run for office, or join a party, or do whatever as anyone else has.

Your problem seems to be that you can't get anyone to buy your message, which is not a sign of lack of speech or political opportunity.That first point reminds me of a quote, "the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread". Standing for office or starting a party comes under the same collection of rules as stealing bread. Let alone getting elected. It all requires money, which I and other working class people do not really have easy access to. As to joining a party, sure which one? The one that advocates smashing the state by first becoming the state? As if.

My problem is that hardly any working class or poor people have a real opportunity for widespread access to an audience or political opportunity. It is not just me, it is virtually everyone.

[colonelguppy]

Oh, and the government and society is not run by those elected politicians. But rather by unelected bureaucrats. Even in an anarchist society things would still happen, but there would not be the crap and oppression associated with decisions now a days (no more parentalism from the government either!).

lol unelected bureaucrats

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2006, 02:08 PM

Oh, and the government and society is not run by those elected politicians. But rather by unelected bureaucrats. Even in an anarchist society things would still happen, but there would not be the crap and oppression associated with decisions now a days (no more parentalism from the government either!).

lol unelected bureaucrats
Scary words aren't they. Almost as scary as 'elected morons'. Although I know which I'd prefer.

[t_wolves_fan]

Bah. So you admit that "liberal democracy" is not really representative, and thus should lay no claim to the term "democracy"?

Well it's complicated.

It is representative and it is democratic because the people choose candidates they like best using democratic means. Of course, the voters rarely have the opportunity to vote for someone who is just like them, which is a good thing. So an elected official represents the people who vote for them to varying degrees.

Which is pretty much how it has to work.


The point is that "liberal democracy" is not representative. It therefore should lay no claim to being democratic.

Wrong on both counts. You don't like how representative it is or how democratic it is, but that doesn't mean it's neither at all.



Oh, and the government and society is not run by those elected politicians. But rather by unelected bureaucrats.

As an unelected bureaucrat myself, I can tell you that you are dead wrong. We do indeed run the day-to-day affairs of government, but what we do and how we do it is entirely subject to the whims of elected officials.

[Herman]

This is purposeful. "The people" are generally incapable of running government via direct democracy or involvement. The reason is, governing is incredibly complex and involves many decisions that require an expertise that few common folks have. Now of course politicians do not have the necessary expertise on all topics, or even on any topics; but this is why they hire staff and hold hearings where experts tell them what makes sense and what does not.

You know, this reminds me of the good old feudal system.

Since the people are too ignorant to rule themselves, we shouldn't let them have any power. Okay, maybe a little of it, but just a drop. However, I'm not that unfair either! Since I myself am too stupid to rule too, at least i'll hire a bunch of experts on governmental matters and see what advice they give.

There we go, I am democratic after all!


Governing is like any other industry. Can you imagine getting input by someone who mixes concrete for a living on how a new supercomputer should be built?

Actually I do. How about the man/woman who understands about supercomputers explains the man/woman who mixes concrete their point of view? And viceversa? And they can both agree on a plan while getting paid for their respective labour according to their needs?

[t_wolves_fan]

You know, this reminds me of the good old feudal system.

Not sure why that would be, since it's not hereditary and pretty much anyone is capable of gaining power in some way.



Since the people are too ignorant to rule themselves, we shouldn't let them have any power. Okay, maybe a little of it, but just a drop. However, I'm not that unfair either! Since I myself am too stupid to rule too, at least i'll hire a bunch of experts on governmental matters and see what advice they give.

There we go, I am democratic after all!

Very cute, but not really accurate.



Governing is like any other industry. Can you imagine getting input by someone who mixes concrete for a living on how a new supercomputer should be built?

Actually I do. How about the man/woman who understands about supercomputers explains the man/woman who mixes concrete their point of view? And viceversa? And they can both agree on a plan while getting paid for their respective labour according to their needs?

What would a person who mixes concrete know about building a supercomputer or how it should be used? What if the concrete mixer has an opinion about the design of or use for a supercomputer that is completely unrealistic or absurd? Likewise with the supercomputer engineer offering an absurd opinion on how the concrete should be mixed or how it should be used?

What if the two disagree wildly on their needs?

[Alexander Hamilton]

Actually I do. How about the man/woman who understands about supercomputers explains the man/woman who mixes concrete their point of view? And viceversa? And they can both agree on a plan while getting paid for their respective labour according to their needs?

Actually, just to show how dumb an idea this is, we should have a state in the U.S. where federal authority and the Constitution are non-existant. The scientists/engineers would be in charge and have total power. It would be a joke watching them yell at each other and compete for funding and projects, trying to explain to the direct democracy masses why one generator is better than the six others.

I'd PAY to see it. We could put it on cable and charge $20 a day.

Make millions.


A.H.

[Herman]

Not sure why that would be, since it's not hereditary and pretty much anyone is capable of gaining power in some way.

The only difference as I see it.


Very cute, but not really accurate.

Just using your same words... only inverted to match feudalist thought.

Oh right, maybe you're referring to the precious congress or parliament? To the fact that a president 'cannot do everything' since he responds to the congress/parliament and these can say 'No' or 'Yes'?

Please, even a European liberal democracy is much more representative than the American one.


What would a person who mixes concrete know about building a supercomputer or how it should be used?

He might not now... but that doesn't mean he should be treated less or paid less because of it.


What if the concrete mixer has an opinion about the design of or use for a supercomputer that is completely unrealistic or absurd?

Then the other person who knows a lot about the subject of supercomputers will warn him by saying, 'Hey, I don't think it's a good idea, you should do this or that, but that's just my opinion'.


Likewise with the supercomputer engineer offering an absurd opinion on how the concrete should be mixed or how it should be used?

Refer to my previous response, only that you can just invert the situation.


What if the two disagree wildly on their needs?

This can happen. So? Then look for another person who knows about supercomputers/mixing concrete. Maybe he/she will have a different opinion.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by t_wolves_fan+--> (t_wolves_fan)Well it's complicated.

It is representative and it is democratic because the people choose candidates they like best using democratic means. Of course, the voters rarely have the opportunity to vote for someone who is just like them, which is a good thing. So an elected official represents the people who vote for them to varying degrees.

Which is pretty much how it has to work.[/b]
It is "representative" if you admit that the voters choice is severely limited and in some places (such as in the UK) a "representative" can get 20% of the vote and still get elected (who do they represent again? The 20% or everyone?). It is "democratic" if you redefine the word to simply mean elections.
Another thing, why is it a good thing that electors can't vote for someone who is just like them?

And why does it have to work that way?



t_wolves_fan
Wrong on both counts. You don't like how representative it is or how democratic it is, but that doesn't mean it's neither at all.By my definition of democratic (basically "rule by the people", it isn't. It also isn't representative by any stretch of the imagination in most cases. In Australia a person only needs 50% plus one of the votes to get elected. They are not representing the other 49%, in fact most of the time they "represent" the party that they are a member of.

The current state government in Tasmania is Labor. People like them, except for one point, their stance on the environment more specifically old growth logging. Since it is only one issue, they don't vote Green, but they still don't like that old growth logging. Yet the Labor government keeps it up. Is that representative?

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by Alexander [email protected] 7 2006, 02:01 AM
Actually, just to show how dumb an idea this is, we should have a state in the U.S. where federal authority and the Constitution are non-existant. The scientists/engineers would be in charge and have total power. It would be a joke watching them yell at each other and compete for funding and projects, trying to explain to the direct democracy masses why one generator is better than the six others.

I'd PAY to see it. We could put it on cable and charge $20 a day.

Make millions.


A.H.
Done. I'm thinking western Nebraska or something.

I remember in grad school we discussed this forum where experienced policy-makers gathered a group of scientists and asked them to come up with answers to a wide variety of social problems. The results, while scientifically feasible, were so ridiculous and unrealistic that the entire program was scrapped.

[t_wolves_fan]

Just using your same words... only inverted to match feudalist thought.

Uh huh.


Please, even a European liberal democracy is much more representative than the American one.

I agree.



What would a person who mixes concrete know about building a supercomputer or how it should be used?

He might not now... but that doesn't mean he should be treated less or paid less because of it.

There's no guarantee that a cement mixer will make less than a supercomputer programmer in capitalism, as it's entirely possible (and common) that the cement mixer will start his own business and make a pile of money while the supercomputer tech gets his job outsourced to India.



What if the concrete mixer has an opinion about the design of or use for a supercomputer that is completely unrealistic or absurd?

Then the other person who knows a lot about the subject of supercomputers will warn him by saying, 'Hey, I don't think it's a good idea, you should do this or that, but that's just my opinion'.

And what happens when the cement mixer has the support of the crowd, so they vote his way anyway?



What if the two disagree wildly on their needs?

This can happen. So? Then look for another person who knows about supercomputers/mixing concrete. Maybe he/she will have a different opinion.

If we're giving to people based on their need, how does this happen?

[t_wolves_fan]

It is "representative" if you admit that the voters choice is severely limited and in some places (such as in the UK) a "representative" can get 20% of the vote and still get elected (who do they represent again? The 20% or everyone?). It is "democratic" if you redefine the word to simply mean elections.

Don't know why the Brits have chosen that system. They are able at any time to change it via their political process.


Another thing, why is it a good thing that electors can't vote for someone who is just like them?

And why does it have to work that way?

It's not a "good" thing or a "bad thing", it has to work that way because it's reality. It's the same reason you're not guaranteed that the instant you turn on the television your favorite program will be on, or the reason that you're not guaranteed to hear a song you like when you turn the radio on.

Someone who is just like you - maybe yourself - has to run in order for you to be able to vote for that person. Otherwise you have to choose from the available options. If you don't like the options, then run yourself.

Good lord man think about it for maybe 6 seconds. Here in the U.S. I'd say all 300 million of us have our own individual combinations of opinions on just about everything. Are we all required to run so we meet your demand to be able to vote for someone just like yourself?




By my definition of democratic (basically "rule by the people", it isn't. It also isn't representative by any stretch of the imagination in most cases. In Australia a person only needs 50% plus one of the votes to get elected. They are not representing the other 49%, in fact most of the time they "represent" the party that they are a member of.

Explain in detail how your alternative would operate, and how you guarantee that any winner would any better represent any given individual. Then, explain why this is more likely to result in decisions that would satisfy every individual.


The current state government in Tasmania is Labor. People like them, except for one point, their stance on the environment more specifically old growth logging. Since it is only one issue, they don't vote Green, but they still don't like that old growth logging. Yet the Labor government keeps it up. Is that representative?

Yes because the people are voting them in. They are representing the fact that the other issues on which Labor makes decision are more important than this old growth logging issue.

I want specifics how in your fantasy land every single person gets their way.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
Yeah, surely congressmen and women clearly have the well being of their constituents in mind and not the agenda of the corporate forces that dominate Washington. :rolleyes: How niave.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Oct 9 2006, 12:58 PM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Oct 9 2006, 12:58 PM)
[email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
Yeah, surely congressmen and women clearly have the well being of their constituents in mind and not the agenda of the corporate forces that dominate Washington. :rolleyes: How niave. [/b]
and yes i'm sure that the majority moderate opinion likewise has my well being in mind.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by colonelguppy+Oct 9 2006, 08:29 PM--> (colonelguppy @ Oct 9 2006, 08:29 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:58 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
Yeah, surely congressmen and women clearly have the well being of their constituents in mind and not the agenda of the corporate forces that dominate Washington. :rolleyes: How niave.
and yes i'm sure that the majority moderate opinion likewise has my well being in mind. [/b]
Wouldn't the majority have their best interest in mind, that is the best interest of the country's citizens, not a corporate agenda? All of those, except for the ignorant ultra-conservatives, such as yourself, that is.

[t_wolves_fan]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:22 PM
Wouldn't the majority have their best interest in mind, that is the best interest of the country's citizens, not a corporate agenda? All of those, except for the ignorant ultra-conservatives, such as yourself, that is.
But the ignorant ultra-conservatives are just as convinced as you are that they have the country's - and people's - best interests in mind.

[colonelguppy]

Originally posted by Guerrilla22+Oct 11 2006, 11:22 AM--> (Guerrilla22 @ Oct 11 2006, 11:22 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 12:58 PM

[email protected] 21 2006, 04:59 PM
i think my views would be about as well represented in congress as the would be in a direct democracy situation.
Yeah, surely congressmen and women clearly have the well being of their constituents in mind and not the agenda of the corporate forces that dominate Washington. :rolleyes: How niave.
and yes i'm sure that the majority moderate opinion likewise has my well being in mind.
Wouldn't the majority have their best interest in mind, that is the best interest of the country's citizens, not a corporate agenda? All of those, except for the ignorant ultra-conservatives, such as yourself, that is. [/b]
so yeah my views won't be well represented in either system.

i'm not even ultra conservative, or really conservative at all