|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
Ben Carson notwithstanding, I think Shield has a good point; it really does seem like a lot of current issues can be directly related to lagging public education.
|
On July 09 2016 02:08 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 02:04 Shield wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Some referendums/elections will definitely benefit from higher education requirement... Otherwise, you end up with this: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/polish-family-in-plymouth-terrorised-by-racist-arsonists-who-left-note-saying-go-home/story-29488159-detail/story.htmlhttp://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/eu-rats-told-go-home-in-graffiti-daubed-on-health-centre-wall-in-fallout-from-brexit-vote/story-29483158-detail/story.html education != intelligence or knowledge. See a certain neurosurgeon presidential candidate who thinks the pyramids were grain silo's. The problem with deciding to limit certain peoples voting rights is that before long the people making the decisions start to believe that those who disagree with them are not worthy of voting. It sounds like a great idea because lack of voter knowledge is indeed a major problem but it never works out in the end.
I agree with you, also keep in mind that as soon as you start to exclude people from the process (by whatever criteria you pick) the chances of civil unrest rise dramatically. If someone feels there is no legal way they can participate the temptation to do something illegal (from protests to actual violence) is much larger.
Some aspects of that can already be observed easily, people feel that nothing changes and the "elites" in Westminster do everything for their own good instead of whatever "they" (meaning the minority or even majority they feel they are) want. The rising of hate-crime and semi violent protests is a part of this. If those people felt that their democratic voice mattered and the people in Westminster truly represented them, most of them wouldn't feel the need to attend a rally or demonstration, never mind firebombing stores or other violent crimes.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side.
|
On July 09 2016 03:56 LegalLord wrote:
Can't we all just agree to stop pretending that one side has a monopoly on stupid or dangerous behavior? I've seen plenty of shitty people saying shitty things from both sides. "Poles go home" is no less racist or fucked up than "white old people should die" and both have been associated with the Brexit movement on either side.
But no one is setting fire to people's homes because they're old though are they.
|
On July 09 2016 02:49 farvacola wrote:
Ben Carson notwithstanding, I think Shield has a good point; it really does seem like a lot of current issues can be directly related to lagging public education.
Alternative to a requirement to vote in specific referendums/elections, high school education or earlier could be improved. Individuals need to be taught to think and do their research before believing what some people say. It could have solved a lot of problems in this referendum.
Also, I can admit there are nationalities I don't like. That's normal. The point is to stay peaceful. Setting people's garden on fire isn't ok.
|
|
|
On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with.
Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality.
In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger.
In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions.
Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later.
Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood.
Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3.
Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken.
|
On July 08 2016 17:03 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 07:15 BurningSera wrote:
Career development, buying property, raising a family etc, brexit put instability/high risk in everyone from 20-40 years old.
And a better deal? I really doubt US/China (and maybe India) too will not take the advantage of the fact that UK has no EU at the back now ie maybe UK needs them more so than ever, and why would they cut a 'better deal' for UK. Either way I don't see how UK will pay less than brexit to everything.
This all goes back to my point again: 'This is 2016, not 1970'. UK is not the sun-never-set nation anymore. If the UK and global economies were in good shape (low debt) then brexit would change nothing. Sadly the UK and the rest of the west has been in a giant credit/debt bubble that has been building for the past 40 years.This is why house prices have become so insane, especially around London. The years ahead will be incredibly tough.But they have to happen, to allow house prices to return to sane levels, for the budget deficit, current account deficit and trade deficit to return to the levels they were prior to the early 80s. People need to stop blaming Brexit for a recession caused by underlying economic issues that have been worsening for the past four decades.You talk about wanting stability when purchasing property please just look at this chart.Then realise there is NO WAY to bring house prices back to SANE LEVELS without a severe recession/depression.
LONDON FIRST TIME HOMEBUYER PRICE - SOURCE : NATIONWIDE1995 Q4 : £61,522
2015 Q4 : £401,212![[image loading]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cmx3pMxWYAA0XDS.jpg)
there is NO WAY to bring house prices back to SANE LEVELS without a severe recession/depression... IN LONDON.
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the country, people in their 20s on below the average wage can afford to buy a house, such as around Birmingham.
7 bedroom recently built house for under £250k?
http://www.zoopla.co.uk/new-homes/details/40467284?search_identifier=c78114c414369a113cfdc74cd068fbc3#jDEzOcqzeMFP6KbY.97
You don't solve a problem like London with a recession, you solve it by either relaxing planning rules, building upwards, or moving jobs elsewhere. Pretty much every major city in the WORLD has crazy/rising house prices. London isn't a special snowflake in that regard.
|
On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken.
I don't pretend to have great mind, but I can't honestly think of something that is as fair as democracy. It's absolutely stupid when you have stupid population, but it can be really nice when you have intelligent people. Solution: encourage people to be smart individuals. Encourage people to be proactive in politics. I don't know how, but less lying/corrupt politicians is a start. Some people lose faith in politics and stop caring because of all the lying politicians. Just like Brexit's big promises.
Maybe truth should be enforced by law for politicians somehow to discourage them from lying? Another thing is more transparency.
|
On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken.
How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30.
|
On July 09 2016 08:37 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. I don't pretend to have great mind, but I can't honestly think of something that is as fair as democracy. It's absolutely stupid when you have stupid population, but it can be really nice when you have intelligent people. Solution: encourage people to be smart individuals. Encourage people to be proactive in politics. I don't know how, but less lying/corrupt politicians is a start. Some people lose faith in politics and stop caring because of all the lying politicians. Just like Brexit's big promises. Maybe truth should be enforced by law for politicians somehow to discourage them from lying? Another thing is more transparency.
There are many systems which can be better in theory. If we assume ideal situations almost any political system IS better in theory. This is because democracy is slow. In an ideal situation with perfect people tyranny is probably the best system with one super smart guy telling everybody what to do. Of course that doesnt work well in reality.
The greatest weakness of democracy is also its strength in real life. The slow processes make it hard for corrupt people gain a lot of power. The longer it takes you to execute your evil schemes the higher is the chance somebody will notice and stop you.
On July 09 2016 09:04 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30.
Because in theory we as ideal people would not vote for the candidates that do the best thing for us personally but those who do the best thing for the entire nation. If everybody was the ideal, super smart person, we would vote for the candidate / party which will do the best thing for the nation in the long run.
We dont do that because we are stupid, greedy, needy, etc.
|
It would help if the press managed to stop printing complete bullshit that politicians spout masquerading as the truth or at least make clear that xxx said xxx, however it's total horseshit as evidenced by xxx.
At the moment the only houses and gardens that should be burned down are those of lying MPs since right now they don't seem accountable to anyone anywhere.
|
On July 09 2016 09:30 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 08:37 Shield wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. I don't pretend to have great mind, but I can't honestly think of something that is as fair as democracy. It's absolutely stupid when you have stupid population, but it can be really nice when you have intelligent people. Solution: encourage people to be smart individuals. Encourage people to be proactive in politics. I don't know how, but less lying/corrupt politicians is a start. Some people lose faith in politics and stop caring because of all the lying politicians. Just like Brexit's big promises. Maybe truth should be enforced by law for politicians somehow to discourage them from lying? Another thing is more transparency. There are many systems which can be better in theory. If we assume ideal situations almost any political system IS better in theory. This is because democracy is slow. In an ideal situation with perfect people tyranny is probably the best system with one super smart guy telling everybody what to do. Of course that doesnt work well in reality. The greatest weakness of democracy is also its strength in real life. The slow processes make it hard for corrupt people gain a lot of power. The longer it takes you to execute your evil schemes the higher is the chance somebody will notice and stop you. Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 09:04 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30. Because in theory we as ideal people would not vote for the candidates that do the best thing for us personally but those who do the best thing for the entire nation. If everybody was the ideal, super smart person, we would vote for the candidate / party which will do the best thing for the nation in the long run. We dont do that because we are stupid, greedy, needy, etc.
That doesn't even make sense. You are describing non-people. With those kind of "people" any government works (if even necessary).
|
Thats why it says "ideal people" and "theory". Duh.
|
So uneducated are the people who want democracy and to decide for their own future and educated the ones who want to be dictated by secret commissions and magistrates.
|
Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already.
With regards to xenophobic attacks in the UK: this is obviously very sad, but it is also worth drawing attention to the response of communities to them. A Romanian shop was set on fire in Norwich, for example, but by the next day a community effort had raised many times the worth of the damages for the owners of the shop. The kind of people responsible for these attacks are the same people who would attack English people on any other day of the week.
|
On July 09 2016 09:30 RoomOfMush wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 08:37 Shield wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. I don't pretend to have great mind, but I can't honestly think of something that is as fair as democracy. It's absolutely stupid when you have stupid population, but it can be really nice when you have intelligent people. Solution: encourage people to be smart individuals. Encourage people to be proactive in politics. I don't know how, but less lying/corrupt politicians is a start. Some people lose faith in politics and stop caring because of all the lying politicians. Just like Brexit's big promises. Maybe truth should be enforced by law for politicians somehow to discourage them from lying? Another thing is more transparency. There are many systems which can be better in theory. If we assume ideal situations almost any political system IS better in theory. This is because democracy is slow. In an ideal situation with perfect people tyranny is probably the best system with one super smart guy telling everybody what to do. Of course that doesnt work well in reality. The greatest weakness of democracy is also its strength in real life. The slow processes make it hard for corrupt people gain a lot of power. The longer it takes you to execute your evil schemes the higher is the chance somebody will notice and stop you. Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 09:04 cLutZ wrote:On July 09 2016 07:56 RoomOfMush wrote:On July 09 2016 01:21 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 01:10 Uldridge wrote:
So if representative democracy, even though it's the closes kind of democracy you can get imo (when I look at my own nation), even fails to actually reach what the ideals of democracy stand for, would there be another, better option?
Could the democratic way, in all its facets, be an outdated model?
I mean, you vote for the party that kind of is in line with what your beliefs are. Then, if that party gets to be in the government, needs to form coalitions with other parties that kind of will be able to work with them, while an opposition tries to control what the government does.
It seems an okay model, but there are some glaring problems:
1- Change is difficult, can take years, can be easily opposed, not that this is bad per se.
2- The people that run the government, even when transparancy is there (we have a program here where they show the debates in the parliament the entire afternoon (idk if it's every afternoon though) with updates and interviews, yet idk if that's done in the UK), these people still do what they want, and they still try to forward their own ideas on how society should be shaped.
3- Following 2, the people in power are problematic on their own. You have a representative of a party, completely backed by his party, still conveys his or his party's beliefs, which can be pretty fucking esoteric if you ask me. How can a few headpieces of a party be able to know how to structure a society?
I don't know anymore, society is so complex, the older I get the more I fail to see how a handful of people are able to affectively shape it. Maybe the scale of society has become that the current models become inadequate?
If I need to delete this or put this somewhere else because it's more general, I will gladly do so.. Democracy is a terrible system full of flaws, loopholes and problems. It is also the best system we have been able to come up with. Democracy works well in theory. But the problem is it doesnt translate well into reality. In theory we all try to improve our nation as a whole. We try to be reasonable and elect the right people to represent us. The "stupid" part of the population might still exist but in theory it is comparatively small enough to be ignored because the educated "smart" part of the population is bigger. In practice it doesnt work that way. For one: Most people simply dont care enough about politics. They dont do enough research and dont educate themselves enough to make "smart" decisions. Second: Actions that benefit you as a person might not always benefit the nation as a whole. Sometimes an unpopular course of action has to be followed to improve the situation long term. This is really hard to do in a democracy because nobody will want to sacrifice his life now for a better life for his children later. Third: Corruption. Corruption is bad in any political system, not just in democracy, but of course it contributes to the problems. Its not just the classic corruption like stealing money from the state. Its also moral corruption at the side of the politicians who follow their personal crusades and mask them as great political solutions by using lies and spreading falsehood. Is there a better political system? Maybe. But even if there is, I doubt there is a chance for us to change the system anytime soon. The people who could make it change are the people who may lose the most from the change. They are not going to do it voluntarily. And I fear that any kind of modern day revolution will only invite more sinister countries to see it as the west falling apart and a good opportunity to start WW3. Edit: @Dan HH your link is broken. How is that even the theory of democracy? Democracy in theory is two wolves and a lamb deciding whats for dinner. The ignorance of voters on their relative positions and the impact of any individual policy on is one of the primary aspects that it is not a total disaster. Now, in certain instances lack of knowledge also has disastrous effects, but if tomorrow every voter woke up with perfect knowledge of the politician to vote for to improve their personal life the most we would have disaster because whats good for voters age 45+ is disastrous for those of us still under 30. Because in theory we as ideal people would not vote for the candidates that do the best thing for us personally but those who do the best thing for the entire nation. If everybody was the ideal, super smart person, we would vote for the candidate / party which will do the best thing for the nation in the long run. We dont do that because we are stupid, greedy, needy, etc.
Sorry, but this is a complete misunderstanding of democracy. It is precisely because people vote in their own interests that democracy works.
|
I think that argument that the Norway/Switzerland deal isn't for the UK because the UK wants more political influence than them is right. What do you think?
|
On July 09 2016 19:27 Shield wrote:
I think that argument that the Norway/Switzerland deal isn't for the UK because the UK wants more political influence than them is right. What do you think?
It isn't really something those on the leave side have talked about. Cameron was always hugely in favour of anything that would increase our ability to influence major world powers in their decision making process, or even to be able to talk about ourselves as a major world power.
Those who campaigned so hard to leave have rightly ignored this, as they know that just the act of leaving the EU has diminished this somewhat.
At least we still have Trident I suppose.
|
On July 09 2016 19:18 bardtown wrote:Not to be rude - Norway is one of my favourite countries in the world - but their trade is absolutely irrelevant, and it was always clear that trade deals with EEA countries would be dependent on the finalised nature of Brexit. Meanwhile, India is making very positive noises about an FTA, which after 9 years they have failed to reach with the EU. 30% of India's exports go to the UK: the global nature of our history is one more reason why the EU has been more detrimental to the UK than other member states. China and the US also sound positive about trade deals, as do other major markets - a great many of whom have commonwealth ties to the UK already. With regards to xenophobic attacks in the UK: this is obviously very sad, but it is also worth drawing attention to the response of communities to them. A Romanian shop was set on fire in Norwich, for example, but by the next day a community effort had raised many times the worth of the damages for the owners of the shop. The kind of people responsible for these attacks are the same people who would attack English people on any other day of the week.
If you think India will negotiate a real FTA you're fooling yourself. India is insanely protectionist and their Free trade agreements are hardly worthy of the name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
