|
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 |
On March 01 2017 06:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 05:59 Plansix wrote:That article is pretty non-specific to why they are suddenly opening a new campus in the UK. Did they get plum military contracts? Sweet tax deals? Why is May commenting on this business deal? Dyson owns a vacuum cleaning (and now those air hand drying machines) company. He came up with the design for the first bagless vacuum cleaner but couldn't sell the idea because the existing companies made a shitton of their money off of the bags. But they were too stupid to buy the design and not make it so he got some venture capital and beat them at their own game. Awesome entrepreneur story. But manufacturing costs in the UK got too high so like everyone else he went to China. It's unlikely they got some big military contracts.
Wtf is this random history lesson about Dyson? Random off topic facts.
I think he just ment a Dyson for every Barracks floor or something.. The tax break angle and why/how T.May is so quick to react to it is suspect though. And no it wasn't her office it was specifically her, possibly signifying yet more behind closed doors bribery.
Oh and China minimum wages have surpassed that of South America and several several other countries so I doubt that Dyson still uses them. Although I guess it is semi-skilled labour, not like clothing or something which has now seemingly moved to Bangladesh (Primark).
|
On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 05:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 01 2017 04:13 bardtown wrote:
There is just as much misinformation now as there was then. Welcome to politics. What you want is to repeat the referendum until you get the result you want. Not going to happen. I'm not saying repeat anything. I'm saying there should be a separate referendum about a completely different matter, which is whether or not the peoples of the U.K. approve of PM May's deal for triggering Article 50 before it is activated. What's so wrong about that? Suppose people were overwhelmingly against it--surely you wouldn't be so anti-democratic as to deny them their sovereignty, right? For that matter, if the only thing that counts is majority-votes, why would it even matter if the U.K. would "repeat the referendum until [they] get the result [I] want"? That's even more democratic than having just one referendum. I don't remember any part of the text of the referendum suggesting that the result would be permanently binding on the future no matter the variables. Also, please don't attribute British parliamentary/legal concepts to republics inspired by those British systems. You're talking about concepts (like habeas corpus) that have their origins in British parliamentary democracy, and not in any republic. Republicanism draws from democratic values, not vice versa. Constitutional restrictions, legislative quorums, and most of those concepts are traceable back to ancient Greece and Rome. Habeas corpus is arguably English in origin, but that's still a republican value (i.e. a lawful restriction upon the power of government to prevent arbitrary dictatorship). But this is all just quibbling about terms. If you don't like the term "republican" to refer to that kind of thing, call it whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. Let's just call it Begrenztenregierungprinzipien if you'd like. In any case, democracy needs to be tempered by begrenztenregierungprinzipien or it's just mob rule. That's why in most countries, decisions of such massive importance aren't decided by simple majority plebiscites. You clearly do not understand the issue you are trying to discuss. Given this fact, please feel free to stop or to do some background reading before trying to contribute. There will be no negotiations on the UK leaving the EU until A50 is triggered. Triggering A50 is literally what was voted for in the referendum, as it is the mechanism for leaving the EU. There is no 'deal for triggering Article 50'. Also, as a matter of fact the government explicitly stated that it would carry out the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. So yes, it was made clear that A50 would be triggered. This is the only piece of legislation that is directly affected by the referendum.
I don't see what's so confusing about this. The conditions of Brexit were in flux when the referendum was being voted on, but now Brits have learned some concrete facts, like that there's going to be no single-market, and the exit bill will be in the ballpark of £60b, and there might be some unexpected border restrictions. With this information in hand, should the U.K. still trigger Article 50 -- yes or no?
What's so repulsive about that? You want "the will of the people" to be sovereign, so why not give them a chance to say "we made a mistake, we don't want to go down this route"?
On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:
You're being extremely facetious. It is not clever to imply that if I support a particular referendum I should support a referendum on every issue under the sun. Referendums are undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution. Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority. And why not just use the correct word? Republicanism has nothing to do with anything.
Let's briefly recap how we got here. I said that there was some systemic flaws in the referendum that, for the sake of justice, means that at the very least the peoples of the U.K. should get another chance to voice their say before Article 50 is triggered.
You responded by saying that the people have already spoken, and going back on that is anti-democracy.
I then responded in two parts: one, by saying that a one-time simple-majority plebiscite is not the summit of democracy. Two, by saying that if you really believed in democracy, then you wouldn't want to deny the people's sovereignty by denying them the ability to say "we made a mistake, we don't really want to go through with this." With that in mind, let's now dissect your most recent reply:
1. If you want to argue that referendums should have some sort of permanent binding, then the Brexit referendum should never have happened, because the British people already decided in 1975 to join the European community.
2. If you want to argue that another referendum to inhibit Brexit is wrong because they need to be "undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution", then I would say that it fits all of your personal criteria perfectly. This is a rare circumstance, this requires much more deliberation, and it's certainly still a constitutional matter.
In response to this:
"Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority."
So do you think simple-majority votes should be able to abolish habeas corpus? Legislative quorums? The rule of law? Freedom of speech? Unrestrained democracy is merely mob rule. There is no question about that.
|
There's no situation where the UK will owe remotely close to £60b. The EU is pulling a bitchfit and will probably try to screw them over as much as possible, but it won't happen. At best they'll try and threaten the UK with the debt in order to get them to agree to some conditions.
|
Maybe the actual figure will be like £40b as bardtown has argued. I couldn't tell you. Nobody's really going to know until the bill is mailed.
In any case, none of this was made clear when the people voted Leave; saying that the referendum needs to be permanently binding no matter what information arises is quite a dangerous path to go down. I mean, elected politicians resign when they're caught in a scandal, they don't say "well, the people elected me, it makes no difference that I embezzled ten million bucks, the people spoke and that's that." Lots of elections are later annulled due to information or events that happen after the ballots have been cast.
|
On March 01 2017 23:15 LightSpectra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:On March 01 2017 05:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 01 2017 04:13 bardtown wrote:
There is just as much misinformation now as there was then. Welcome to politics. What you want is to repeat the referendum until you get the result you want. Not going to happen. I'm not saying repeat anything. I'm saying there should be a separate referendum about a completely different matter, which is whether or not the peoples of the U.K. approve of PM May's deal for triggering Article 50 before it is activated. What's so wrong about that? Suppose people were overwhelmingly against it--surely you wouldn't be so anti-democratic as to deny them their sovereignty, right? For that matter, if the only thing that counts is majority-votes, why would it even matter if the U.K. would "repeat the referendum until [they] get the result [I] want"? That's even more democratic than having just one referendum. I don't remember any part of the text of the referendum suggesting that the result would be permanently binding on the future no matter the variables. Also, please don't attribute British parliamentary/legal concepts to republics inspired by those British systems. You're talking about concepts (like habeas corpus) that have their origins in British parliamentary democracy, and not in any republic. Republicanism draws from democratic values, not vice versa. Constitutional restrictions, legislative quorums, and most of those concepts are traceable back to ancient Greece and Rome. Habeas corpus is arguably English in origin, but that's still a republican value (i.e. a lawful restriction upon the power of government to prevent arbitrary dictatorship). But this is all just quibbling about terms. If you don't like the term "republican" to refer to that kind of thing, call it whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. Let's just call it Begrenztenregierungprinzipien if you'd like. In any case, democracy needs to be tempered by begrenztenregierungprinzipien or it's just mob rule. That's why in most countries, decisions of such massive importance aren't decided by simple majority plebiscites. You clearly do not understand the issue you are trying to discuss. Given this fact, please feel free to stop or to do some background reading before trying to contribute. There will be no negotiations on the UK leaving the EU until A50 is triggered. Triggering A50 is literally what was voted for in the referendum, as it is the mechanism for leaving the EU. There is no 'deal for triggering Article 50'. Also, as a matter of fact the government explicitly stated that it would carry out the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. So yes, it was made clear that A50 would be triggered. This is the only piece of legislation that is directly affected by the referendum. I don't see what's so confusing about this. The conditions of Brexit were in flux when the referendum was being voted on, but now Brits have learned some concrete facts, like that there's going to be no single-market, and the exit bill will be in the ballpark of £60b, and there might be some unexpected border restrictions. With this information in hand, should the U.K. still trigger Article 50 -- yes or no? What's so repulsive about that? You want "the will of the people" to be sovereign, so why not give them a chance to say "we made a mistake, we don't want to go down this route"? Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:
You're being extremely facetious. It is not clever to imply that if I support a particular referendum I should support a referendum on every issue under the sun. Referendums are undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution. Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority. And why not just use the correct word? Republicanism has nothing to do with anything. Let's briefly recap how we got here. I said that there was some systemic flaws in the referendum that, for the sake of justice, means that at the very least the peoples of the U.K. should get another chance to voice their say before Article 50 is triggered. You responded by saying that the people have already spoken, and going back on that is anti-democracy. I then responded in two parts: one, by saying that a one-time simple-majority plebiscite is not the summit of democracy. Two, by saying that if you really believed in democracy, then you wouldn't want to deny the people's sovereignty by denying them the ability to say "we made a mistake, we don't really want to go through with this." With that in mind, let's now dissect your most recent reply: 1. If you want to argue that referendums should have some sort of permanent binding, then the Brexit referendum should never have happened, because the British people already decided in 1975 to join the European community. 2. If you want to argue that another referendum to inhibit Brexit is wrong because they need to be "undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution", then I would say that it fits all of your personal criteria perfectly. This is a rare circumstance, this requires much more deliberation, and it's certainly still a constitutional matter. In response to this: "Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority." So do you think simple-majority votes should be able to abolish habeas corpus? Legislative quorums? The rule of law? Freedom of speech? Unrestrained democracy is merely mob rule. There is no question about that.
There are two problems with your criticisms. Firstly, you're avoiding common sense with regards to time frames, etc. I am not saying that the referendum should be binding forever after. It is perfectly reasonable that we should have another referendum on EU membership at some point in time. However, the last one was 40 years ago. Trying to compare that to having another referendum a couple of months later before the result of the initial referendum has even been carried through is plainly absurd. You used a similarly flawed line of argument when you suggested that if I really supported democracy I would support London's right to secede. Taking this to its logical conclusion anybody who supports democracy should therefore support the right of the individual to do whatever they please.
Secondly, you continue to misunderstand (or misrepresent) what the referendum was about. The question was this: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The result that won was this: Leave the European Union. That was it. Anything beyond that - remaining in the single market, free movement, payments, etc - are questions for parliament to resolve. The only legislation that is derived directly from the referendum is triggering Article 50, because Article 50 is the mechanism for leaving the EU. Anything beyond that and we are back to representative democracy. All the major Remain campaigners suggested we would leave the single market. All the prominent Leave campaigners suggested we would leave the single market. And no, a fee from the European Union for leaving is not a constitutional issue. But even if that wasn't the case, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that there has been any change in mood since the referendum. Quite the opposite is evidenced by polling since the referendum and by the popularity of Theresa May (very high for a politician) despite her plans for hard Brexit.
I have no real interest in what you consider to be (or not to be) the summit of democracy. In response to your question, though, yes I absolutely do think simple majority votes should be able to change fundamental rights/the constitution. Nothing is sacred except insofar as it is held to be sacred in the collective consciousness of the nation. If the English decide they don't like habeas corpus any more then by all means they should be able to get rid of it. If a country's population becomes so ignorant that they would vote against their own rights then so be it, but these rights are very deeply and organically engrained into our national history, so it just wouldn't happen.
|
On March 02 2017 00:14 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On March 01 2017 23:15 LightSpectra wrote:On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:On March 01 2017 05:35 LightSpectra wrote:On March 01 2017 04:13 bardtown wrote:
There is just as much misinformation now as there was then. Welcome to politics. What you want is to repeat the referendum until you get the result you want. Not going to happen. I'm not saying repeat anything. I'm saying there should be a separate referendum about a completely different matter, which is whether or not the peoples of the U.K. approve of PM May's deal for triggering Article 50 before it is activated. What's so wrong about that? Suppose people were overwhelmingly against it--surely you wouldn't be so anti-democratic as to deny them their sovereignty, right? For that matter, if the only thing that counts is majority-votes, why would it even matter if the U.K. would "repeat the referendum until [they] get the result [I] want"? That's even more democratic than having just one referendum. I don't remember any part of the text of the referendum suggesting that the result would be permanently binding on the future no matter the variables. Also, please don't attribute British parliamentary/legal concepts to republics inspired by those British systems. You're talking about concepts (like habeas corpus) that have their origins in British parliamentary democracy, and not in any republic. Republicanism draws from democratic values, not vice versa. Constitutional restrictions, legislative quorums, and most of those concepts are traceable back to ancient Greece and Rome. Habeas corpus is arguably English in origin, but that's still a republican value (i.e. a lawful restriction upon the power of government to prevent arbitrary dictatorship). But this is all just quibbling about terms. If you don't like the term "republican" to refer to that kind of thing, call it whatever you like. Makes no difference to me. Let's just call it Begrenztenregierungprinzipien if you'd like. In any case, democracy needs to be tempered by begrenztenregierungprinzipien or it's just mob rule. That's why in most countries, decisions of such massive importance aren't decided by simple majority plebiscites. You clearly do not understand the issue you are trying to discuss. Given this fact, please feel free to stop or to do some background reading before trying to contribute. There will be no negotiations on the UK leaving the EU until A50 is triggered. Triggering A50 is literally what was voted for in the referendum, as it is the mechanism for leaving the EU. There is no 'deal for triggering Article 50'. Also, as a matter of fact the government explicitly stated that it would carry out the will of the people as expressed in the referendum. So yes, it was made clear that A50 would be triggered. This is the only piece of legislation that is directly affected by the referendum. I don't see what's so confusing about this. The conditions of Brexit were in flux when the referendum was being voted on, but now Brits have learned some concrete facts, like that there's going to be no single-market, and the exit bill will be in the ballpark of £60b, and there might be some unexpected border restrictions. With this information in hand, should the U.K. still trigger Article 50 -- yes or no? What's so repulsive about that? You want "the will of the people" to be sovereign, so why not give them a chance to say "we made a mistake, we don't want to go down this route"? On March 01 2017 05:55 bardtown wrote:
You're being extremely facetious. It is not clever to imply that if I support a particular referendum I should support a referendum on every issue under the sun. Referendums are undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution. Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority. And why not just use the correct word? Republicanism has nothing to do with anything. Let's briefly recap how we got here. I said that there was some systemic flaws in the referendum that, for the sake of justice, means that at the very least the peoples of the U.K. should get another chance to voice their say before Article 50 is triggered. You responded by saying that the people have already spoken, and going back on that is anti-democracy. I then responded in two parts: one, by saying that a one-time simple-majority plebiscite is not the summit of democracy. Two, by saying that if you really believed in democracy, then you wouldn't want to deny the people's sovereignty by denying them the ability to say "we made a mistake, we don't really want to go through with this." With that in mind, let's now dissect your most recent reply: 1. If you want to argue that referendums should have some sort of permanent binding, then the Brexit referendum should never have happened, because the British people already decided in 1975 to join the European community. 2. If you want to argue that another referendum to inhibit Brexit is wrong because they need to be "undertaken in rare circumstances, after much deliberation, and generally relate to broad questions that directly affect the constitution", then I would say that it fits all of your personal criteria perfectly. This is a rare circumstance, this requires much more deliberation, and it's certainly still a constitutional matter. In response to this: "Again: a majority is a majority. Anything else is an arbitrary number that means denying the majority will of the population. We do not defer many decisions to a direct vote, but those that we do should be decided by a simple majority." So do you think simple-majority votes should be able to abolish habeas corpus? Legislative quorums? The rule of law? Freedom of speech? Unrestrained democracy is merely mob rule. There is no question about that. There are two problems with your criticisms. Firstly, you're avoiding common sense with regards to time frames, etc. I am not saying that the referendum should be binding forever after. It is perfectly reasonable that we should have another referendum on EU membership at some point in time. However, the last one was 40 years ago. Trying to compare that to having another referendum a couple of months later before the result of the initial referendum has even been carried through is plainly absurd. You used a similarly flawed line of argument when you suggested that if I really supported democracy I would support London's right to secede. Taking this to its logical conclusion anybody who supports democracy should therefore support the right of the individual to do whatever they please.
What I'm saying is that there's nothing infallible about democracy, there have been plenty of times when people have voted for bad decisions and later had buyer's remorse. It is healthier and more just and more democratic to allow the people to recant a mistake by going back to the polls later. If they double-down on Brexit, then there can be no more question about if it's the will of the people. If they vote to cancel Brexit, then that demonstrates that there was, in fact, systemic flaws in the original referendum.
Secondly, you continue to misunderstand (or misrepresent) what the referendum was about. The question was this: Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union? The result that won was this: Leave the European Union. That was it. Anything beyond that - remaining in the single market, free movement, payments, etc - are questions for parliament to resolve. The only legislation that is derived directly from the referendum is triggering Article 50, because Article 50 is the mechanism for leaving the EU. Anything beyond that and we are back to representative democracy.
Right, so if you vote for a politician and then it turns out he's a murderer or an embezzler, he should stay in office. Because the question on the ballot wasn't "X for Parliament under the condition that he's not a crook", it was just "X for Parliament" -- right?
But even if that wasn't the case, there is absolutely nothing to indicate that there has been any change in mood since the referendum. Quite the opposite is evidenced by polling since the referendum and by the popularity of Theresa May (very high for a politician) despite her plans for hard Brexit.
Debatable. I admit that if you were correct on this point there would be no justification for another referendum. But that doesn't seem to the case.
I have no real interest in what you consider to be (or not to be) the summit of democracy. In response to your question, though, yes I absolutely do think simple majority votes should be able to change fundamental rights/the constitution. Nothing is sacred except insofar as it is held to be sacred in the collective consciousness of the nation. If the English decide they don't like habeas corpus any more then by all means they should be able to get rid of it. If a country's population becomes so ignorant that they would vote against their own rights then so be it, but these rights are very deeply and organically engrained into our national history, so it just wouldn't happen.
Just to make sure we're very clear on this, are you denying that tyranny of the majority is a real thing, or are you denying that it's a bad thing that should be avoided?
|
What I'm saying is that there's nothing infallible about democracy, there have been plenty of times when people have voted for bad decisions and later had buyer's remorse. It is healthier and more just and more democratic to allow the people to recant a mistake by going back to the polls later. If they double-down on Brexit, then there can be no more question about if it's the will of the people. If they vote to cancel Brexit, then that demonstrates that there was, in fact, systemic flaws in the original referendum.
The result of this logic? A never-ending chain of referendums, because when the majority of the population are engaged in an issue there will always be enough people to demand a new referendum. This is what I'm telling you about a common sense approach to time frames. We put our politics on hold for months and invested huge amounts of energy and money in this referendum. The result is the result.
Right, so if you vote for a politician and then it turns out he's a murderer or an embezzler, he should stay in office. Because the question on the ballot wasn't "X for Parliament under the condition that he's not a crook", it was just "X for Parliament" -- right?
Another flippant argument. You're comparing a politician doing their job to a politician breaking the law.
Debatable. I admit that if you were correct on this point there would be no justification for another referendum. But that doesn't seem to the case.
I have shown you polls. Even the most negatively phrased polls come back in favour of Brexit. Note: this was not the case before the referendum. Odds on Remain winning were 90% before the results started coming in on June 23, and polling consistently understated support for Leave. If polling after the referendum is consistent with polling beforehand then Brexit has broader support now than it did then.
Just to make sure we're very clear on this, are you denying that tyranny of the majority is a real thing, or are you denying that it's a bad thing that should be avoided?
Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It is a class/inequality balancing act and it has a fluid balance of winners and losers.
'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…'
But yep, I would be infinitely more accepting of a dumb decision taken by the people than a dumb decision as to what the people are entitled to decide by politicians, corporations or 'God'. There is no better alternative. I would also be over the moon if people felt a responsibility to educate themselves about their history, their rights and their duty to preserve and protect them. It was tragic to me to see people arguing for signing away the authority of ancient, exceptionally successful institutions to some plastic foreign body characterised by successive failures.
|
On March 02 2017 01:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +What I'm saying is that there's nothing infallible about democracy, there have been plenty of times when people have voted for bad decisions and later had buyer's remorse. It is healthier and more just and more democratic to allow the people to recant a mistake by going back to the polls later. If they double-down on Brexit, then there can be no more question about if it's the will of the people. If they vote to cancel Brexit, then that demonstrates that there was, in fact, systemic flaws in the original referendum. The result of this logic? A never-ending chain of referendums, because when the majority of the population are engaged in an issue there will always be enough people to demand a new referendum. This is what I'm telling you about a common sense approach to time frames. We put our politics on hold for months and invested huge amounts of energy and money in this referendum. The result is the result.
Well, yes, you could derive from this argument that all decisions should essentially be directly voted upon, thus giving us to a system similar to Switzerland.
Or you could take a moderate approach by saying that there are some issues that deserve a second chance at the polls for various reasons, but not all things.
On March 02 2017 01:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +Right, so if you vote for a politician and then it turns out he's a murderer or an embezzler, he should stay in office. Because the question on the ballot wasn't "X for Parliament under the condition that he's not a crook", it was just "X for Parliament" -- right? Another flippant argument. You're comparing a politician doing their job to a politician breaking the law.
Instead of simply hand-waving the comparison, perhaps you can tell me why it breaks down?
On March 02 2017 01:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +Debatable. I admit that if you were correct on this point there would be no justification for another referendum. But that doesn't seem to the case. I have shown you polls. Even the most negatively phrased polls come back in favour of Brexit. Note: this was not the case before the referendum. Odds on Remain winning were 90% before the results started coming in on June 23, and polling consistently understated support for Leave. If polling after the referendum is consistent with polling beforehand then Brexit has broader support now than it did then.
I'm going to briefly abandon this argument, since first we have to establish that theoretically there should be another referendum if the polls do reflect that. No point in arguing about the polls themselves if they don't matter to you.
On March 02 2017 01:16 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +Just to make sure we're very clear on this, are you denying that tyranny of the majority is a real thing, or are you denying that it's a bad thing that should be avoided? Democracy is tyranny of the majority. It is a class/inequality balancing act and it has an fluid balance of winners and losers. Show nested quote +'Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…' But yep, I would be infinitely more accepting of a dumb decision taken by the people than a dumb decision as to what the people are entitled to decide by politicians, corporations or 'God'. There is no better alternative. I would also be over the moon if people felt a responsibility to educate themselves about their history, their rights and their duty to preserve and protect them. It was tragic to me to see people arguing for signing away the authority of ancient, exceptionally successful institutions to some plastic foreign body characterised by successive failures.
You're essentially rejecting everything that forms the basis of liberalism (i.e. that there should be a democratic government without resorting to mob rule), while simultaneously praising the "ancient, exceptionally successful institutions" that were founded or operated upon those exact principles. Don't you see the contradictions there?
I'm really amazed at what I'm reading here. You like habeas corpus and the rule of law and all those other great concepts, but only insofar that they're popular. It's not a bad thing if they're abolished by some populist frenzy, because hey, democracy.
That's precisely how dictatorships are born.
|
Yeah, I really don't know what you're struggling to understand. Liberal principles in the UK were developed organically (this word is very important) from an ever increasing share of the population having a say in politics. If something changes so dramatically that the entire country turns its back on its own culture and history then it might well be that a dictatorship is what is needed. In fact, denying the people their right to make that choice is a form dictatorship in its own right. There is no transcendent principle about how things should work. It's just a self organising system, albeit an extremely resilient one marked by gradual and moderate progression in a consistent direction.
|
"organically" is not an important word because it is a clear signpost for a value judgment that only the speaker considers a given. The extent to which change can ever be "inorganic" or "organic" is a matter of mostly intractable epistemological debate that gets at issues relating to original position etc., and in this instance, it's pretty clear that you've set up a dichotomy of organic=my way, inorganic=the way of people arguing with me. In other words, calling the political system of the UK a "self-organizing" system is either platitudinal or wrong, and in either case it's a useless thing to say.
|
Your opinion, to say the least I can politely, just isn't what western civilization is built upon.
The people of your country that decided to ratify the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all those other documents did so under the belief that human rights are inviolable, and that civilized countries need institutional safeguards from mob rule and corruption and demagoguery.
Because your country has an uncodified constitution, it is possible to do crazy things like put fundamental rights up for a simple-majority vote. Which is unfortunate, I am only thankful that most people in the U.K. are not so frenzied as to want such a thing--history has shown repeatedly that lacking such institutional safeguards can lead to a lot violence and oppression. Hitler only needed 44% of voters to turn Germany into a totalitarian state, by exploiting some weaknesses in the Weimar constitution, after all.
|
It would be platitudinal if people were more informed in the way they discuss the issue - but they aren't, as evidenced nicely by yourself. So, no, it's not useless. Countries like the US, where the constitution was written up explicitly, have less organic political systems than the UK where the constitution is not codified and has developed in tandem with common law over many centuries. Do you contest that? Organic systems are entrenched at a lower level than any top down organisation, granting resilience, but also adaptability. Apply the same principles to Arab spring states that tried to implement democratic systems. It didn't work, because the foundations don't exist. Do you contest that? There's nothing intractable about it. It is universally accepted. The foundations themselves are our security against a radical shift to dictatorship, not any God given rights or governmentally enforced principles.
Honestly if you're not applying systems theory to politics then you're operating within a medieval framework.
On March 02 2017 02:12 LightSpectra wrote:
The people of your country that decided to ratify the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all those other documents did so under the belief that human rights are inviolable, and that civilized countries need institutional safeguards from mob rule and corruption and demagoguery.
Not under the belief that human rights are inviolable, but in agreement to behave as though they are to the benefit of the majority. It's all easily explained through low level behaviours.
|
"The US system of goverment is "less organic" than the UK." What? Is this argument that because a nation stumbled into a system through trial and error, it is automatically “more” meritorious?
And claiming the US system is less organic only highlights a limited understanding of US history and how much we fucked up on the way to creating our government. Here is a preview: our own army almost destroyed us because we couldn’t figure out how to pay them.
|
There is almost nobody who does not accept that systems which govern solely upon simple-majority votes, without any other institutional safeguards, are unstable and prone to abuse. That's basically what it comes down to in this argument.
Now, the U.K. does in fact have a safeguard in this regard, because referendums need to be proposed via parliamentary majority, and the Parliament of the U.K. has lots of built-in mechanisms to prevent mob rule. But you seem to be arguing that even those should be eschewed if they prove to be unpopular. You are essentially rejecting the entire basis of limited government and liberalism, albeit you think they should exist while they're still popular.
At this point I think there's not much else to be said, really! It'd take an eon of debating to convince you of the folly of that.
|
On March 02 2017 02:48 LightSpectra wrote:
There is almost nobody who does not accept that systems which govern solely upon simple-majority votes, without any other institutional safeguards, are unstable and prone to abuse. That's basically what it comes down to in this argument.
Now, the U.K. does in fact have a safeguard in this regard, because referendums need to be proposed via parliamentary majority, and the Parliament of the U.K. has lots of built-in mechanisms to prevent mob rule. But you seem to be arguing that even those should be eschewed if they prove to be unpopular. You are essentially rejecting the entire basis of limited government and liberalism, albeit you think they should exist while they're still popular.
At this point I think there's not much else to be said, really! It'd take an eon of debating to convince you of the folly of that.
Good.
On March 02 2017 02:45 Plansix wrote:
"The US system of goverment is "less organic" than the UK." What? Is this argument that because a nation stumbled into a system through trial and error, it is automatically “more” meritorious?
And claiming the US system is less organic only highlights a limited understanding of US history and how much we fucked up on the way to creating our government. Here is a preview: our own army almost destroyed us because we couldn’t figure out how to pay them.
Not inherently, but as a general rule, yes. Try, for example, to design me an animal better adapted to hunting gazelle than a cheetah. It gets complicated because the low level of the system builds into the high level which then modifies the low level through downward causation. In a healthy system the various levels autoregulate towards the most efficient model.
I'm not saying the US doesn't develop organically. It's impossible for a system not to, even in the most severe dictatorship. It is doubtlessly less organic than the UK, though. The second amendment is a pretty interesting example, clung to with quasi-religious zeal because 'it is written', despite the fact that its meaning in a modern context is severely disconnected from the original intention. I'm not even convinced I can argue against the second amendment, though, given how susceptible your system is to corporate abuse of the people. This is also a consequence of being a large country where the autoregulation is less effective though.
|
All right, I completely agree farvacola's point about your use of organically, then. This scale seems to have been created by your to back up your own points of view by applying some loose themes of evolution to the way governments develop.
Governments don't develop organically or inorganically. They are abstract ideas created by individual people in an effort to create long lasting social contracts. They are not masses of cells attempting attempting find the most efficient means of procreation. Attempting to present them as undulating masses of ideas mashing against each other is reductive and removes the critical human element required to understand their origins.
|
United States43538 Posts
On March 02 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
All right, I completely agree farvacola's point about your use of organically, then. This scale seems to have been created by your to back up your own points of view by applying some loose themes of evolution to the way governments develop.
Governments don't develop organically or inorganically. They are abstract ideas created by individual people in an effort to create long lasting social contracts. They are not masses of cells attempting attempting find the most efficient means of procreation. Attempting to present them as undulating masses of ideas mashing against each other is reductive and removes the critical human element required to understand their origins.
I dunno. Take the change in the UK uncodified constitution which stripped the right to declare war from the powers of the PM at some point in the last 15 years. Historically all foreign policy was governed by royal prerogative, the powers of the monarch wielded directly by the PM, not by Parliament. During the run-up to Iraq there was an awful lot of public outrage and that outrage made Blair think it politically expedient to hold a debate on the Iraq War. That set a precedent which was subsequently followed for the Libyan intervention. It wasn't a planned change, nor the outcome of a judicial ruling, nor the responsibility of any single individual. It came about due to a general feeling within the British populace that those PM powers were insufficiently accountable and needed to go to Parliament.
That's the heart of the organic, uncodified constitution. Sure the US also adapts with living constitution interpretations when the public sways strongly one way on an issue but it's not really comparable.
|
On March 02 2017 03:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
All right, I completely agree farvacola's point about your use of organically, then. This scale seems to have been created by your to back up your own points of view by applying some loose themes of evolution to the way governments develop.
Governments don't develop organically or inorganically. They are abstract ideas created by individual people in an effort to create long lasting social contracts. They are not masses of cells attempting attempting find the most efficient means of procreation. Attempting to present them as undulating masses of ideas mashing against each other is reductive and removes the critical human element required to understand their origins. I dunno. Take the change in the UK uncodified constitution which stripped the right to declare war from the powers of the PM at some point in the last 15 years. Historically all foreign policy was governed by royal prerogative, the powers of the monarch wielded directly by the PM, not by Parliament. During the run-up to Iraq there was an awful lot of public outrage and that outrage made Blair think it politically expedient to hold a debate on the Iraq War. That set a precedent which was subsequently followed for the Libyan intervention. It wasn't a planned change, nor the outcome of a judicial ruling, nor the responsibility of any single individual. It came about due to a general feeling within the British populace that those PM powers were insufficiently accountable and needed to go to Parliament. That's the heart of the organic, uncodified constitution. Sure the US also adapts with living constitution interpretations when the public sways strongly one way on an issue but it's not really comparable.
I have no objection to the word as a descriptor to attempt to differentiate between governmental systems. But when merit is applied to those systems based on the perceived level of organic-ness, it becomes more that a descriptor.
Study of history and government is not science. Cause and effect is difficult to prove and we always lack complete information. Even the documents written in the era were not meant to be an accurate depiction of reality at the time. Saying the UK government developed organically gives the impression that there is a true, natural outcome to governments. That if left alone long enough, humanity would reach the highest and most organic form of government. That line of thinking is reductive and actively ignored many of the factors that went into the creation of governments.
|
On March 02 2017 03:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 02 2017 03:44 KwarK wrote:On March 02 2017 03:38 Plansix wrote:
All right, I completely agree farvacola's point about your use of organically, then. This scale seems to have been created by your to back up your own points of view by applying some loose themes of evolution to the way governments develop.
Governments don't develop organically or inorganically. They are abstract ideas created by individual people in an effort to create long lasting social contracts. They are not masses of cells attempting attempting find the most efficient means of procreation. Attempting to present them as undulating masses of ideas mashing against each other is reductive and removes the critical human element required to understand their origins. I dunno. Take the change in the UK uncodified constitution which stripped the right to declare war from the powers of the PM at some point in the last 15 years. Historically all foreign policy was governed by royal prerogative, the powers of the monarch wielded directly by the PM, not by Parliament. During the run-up to Iraq there was an awful lot of public outrage and that outrage made Blair think it politically expedient to hold a debate on the Iraq War. That set a precedent which was subsequently followed for the Libyan intervention. It wasn't a planned change, nor the outcome of a judicial ruling, nor the responsibility of any single individual. It came about due to a general feeling within the British populace that those PM powers were insufficiently accountable and needed to go to Parliament. That's the heart of the organic, uncodified constitution. Sure the US also adapts with living constitution interpretations when the public sways strongly one way on an issue but it's not really comparable. I have no objection to the word as a descriptor to attempt to differentiate between governmental systems. But when merit is applied to those systems based on the perceived level of organic-ness, it becomes more that a descriptor. Study of history and government is not science. Cause and effect is difficult to prove and we always lack complete information. Even the documents written in the era were not meant to be an accurate depiction of reality at the time. Saying the UK government developed organically gives the impression that there is a true, natural outcome to governments. That if left alone long enough, humanity would reach the highest and most organic form of government. That line of thinking is reductive and actively ignored many of the factors that went into the creation of governments.
It's actually kind of the opposite. There is no 'highest' form of government, there is only the eternal search for an optimum given the circumstances you find yourself in. The UK has had uniquely fortunate circumstances, most people would agree, which were conducive to this system of government. There are certainly situations where a dictatorship can react much more effectively than a democracy, though, but they are rather more error prone and tend to make the mistake of trekking into a Russian winter eventually.
Also, briefly, there is no incompatibility between understanding societies as systems (which they simply are) and understanding the importance of specific individuals, ideas and events. Chaos, whereby a highly localised event causes seismic changes for the entire system, is fundamental to systems theory. Commonly referred to as the butterfly effect.
Anyway, I appreciate this is getting rather abstract.
|
Society isn’t a system in the scientific sense. The formation of governments does not obey natural laws or any rules. The difference between feudalism and dictatorships is mostly a question of distance and relativity to other theories, rather than a set of hard line rules.
As a recovering teacher of US history, this sort of high level discussion of government development has serious pitfalls and tends to gloss over a lot of what made governments form. Feudalism developed because of economics of equipping warriors and the existence of harsh winters more than anything else. But even that understanding is reductive and incomplete.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
