EPTUK Politics Mega-thread - Page 376
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
KwarK
United States44299 Posts
| ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 09 2017 09:07 KwarK wrote: That argument amounts to "direct democracy got us into this mess so direct democracy should get us out of it". No it doesn't, you're assuming the fact I support a second referendum is because I'm anti-Brexit. I think there either never should have been a referendum and we should have relied on good old representative democracy (which clearly had many, many flaws) OR we need to incorporate referendums into representative democracy more completely to give people maximum agency, and therefore the maximum ability to educate themselves on a subject, see the consequences, and consider whether or not they should proceed. Applied to Brexit, this means a vote on the final deal presented to us. If the deal is good enough, then Leave should win - if it's not, it shouldn't. Either way I don't see a problem, either the original will of the people is respected or they are given a chance to change their minds. | ||
|
KwarK
United States44299 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
1059 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10953 Posts
| ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22597 Posts
On August 09 2017 19:21 Razyda wrote: TBH I'll never understand people fascination and love for democracy. I really cant understand while vote of someone who weren't able finish primary school should carry the same weight as professor being worldwide known expert on the subject voted for. As for parliamentary democracy, it cant really work as soon as party is formed - representative of community must vote against interest of this community, his own conviction, or face sacking. Sorry all but i just dont understand how anyone can expect it to work. Democracy is a terrible system full of faults. It is also better then every other system we have tried. | ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10165 Posts
On August 09 2017 19:21 Razyda wrote: Because for everything barring a few exceptions we don't vote for "subjects", but for representatives, and someone to represent the uneducated in a responsible manner benefits all of us. Otherwise you would introduce another barrier to explore for politicians, if people without a primary school diploma can't vote, then why the fuck should we appeal to them in elections or policies ?I really cant understand while vote of someone who weren't able finish primary school should carry the same weight as professor being worldwide known expert on the subject voted for. | ||
|
Razyda
1059 Posts
On August 09 2017 19:45 Godwrath wrote: Because for everything barring a few exceptions we don't vote for "subjects", but for representatives, and someone to represent the uneducated in a responsible manner benefits all of us. Otherwise you would introduce another barrier to explore for politicians, if people without a primary school diploma can't vote, then why the fuck should we appeal to them in elections or policies ? This part of my post is referring only to voting on subjects eg; referendum. Second part refers to voting for representatives. On August 09 2017 19:23 Velr wrote: Well... It worked better than anything else so far. On August 09 2017 19:27 bardtown wrote: 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. On August 09 2017 19:34 Gorsameth wrote: Democracy is a terrible system full of faults. It is also better then every other system we have tried. Here I dare to disagree - it actually worked worse than anything else. | ||
|
kollin
United Kingdom8380 Posts
On August 09 2017 12:31 KwarK wrote: Solving a problem caused by direct democracy with more referendums is like solving obesity with cake. What is the problem you think I want to solve here? Assuming you don't think it's Brexit itself, then If it's that people didn't know what they were voting for, that's changed by a second referendum in which what they voted for becomes very clear in the exit deal. I'm not trying to solve a problem, I just think that it's the right and logical thing to do. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11998 Posts
On August 09 2017 21:37 Razyda wrote: This part of my post is referring only to voting on subjects eg; referendum. Second part refers to voting for representatives. Here I dare to disagree - it actually worked worse than anything else. Than anything else? That is a strong statement. So it worked worse than, for example, absolutist french monarchy in the 18th century? Or the incredibly complex Holy Roman Empire system of weird heridary titles with strange interactions and ancient privileges? Or the Khmer Rouge system of just torturing and murdering pretty much anyone who looks at you weirdly? Or all of the hundreds of systems that simply didn't last long enough to even be remembered? In fact, i challenge you to name a single already tried system that has better results that western representative democracy. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Unentschieden
Germany1471 Posts
There is also the question of what the majority voted for given that close to all claims by the leave campaign turned out to be lies or hoplessly optimisitc. The current apparent direction, the "norway way" would mean that the UK would stay in the EU in all but name and UK exclusive priviliges. I mean how could the Brexit direction be any WORSE for the UK than it is right now? | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
| ||
|
Razyda
1059 Posts
On August 09 2017 21:56 Simberto wrote: Than anything else? That is a strong statement. So it worked worse than, for example, absolutist french monarchy in the 18th century? Or the incredibly complex Holy Roman Empire system of weird heridary titles with strange interactions and ancient privileges? Or the Khmer Rouge system of just torturing and murdering pretty much anyone who looks at you weirdly? Or all of the hundreds of systems that simply didn't last long enough to even be remembered? In fact, i challenge you to name a single already tried system that has better results that western representative democracy. Both French absolutist Monarchy and Holy Roman Empire are end of the day monarchy. And actually French monarchy of 18th century is the very proof that this system work - vide Louis XVI (or closer home Edward II, Charles Stewart 1st. As of Khmer Rogue it was variance of communism and communism and socialism are ultimately end result of democracy. As for single already tried system I'll go with monarchy itself. The reasons I believe so are 2: there is only one person responsible for everything which is only way someone is responsible - as soon as 2+ people is responsible for something, no one is actually responsible. Second reason is directly connected to first - accountability (again Louis XVI, Edward II, Charles Stewart 1st come to mind) how are PM, President, or whatever you name it accountable?? you wont vote for them in next election? How is that adequate consequence for scr...wing country for X (depend on the country) years?? Beside Vatican seems to be doing fine while in fact it is electable Royalty. Now lets think about it more and use large corporations as example - are they run on democracy basis? no as a matter of fact they run way more as Dictatorship, with only one person in charge and carrying responsibility. As a matter of fact lets make experiment: Start business and run it as democracy - ultimately final result will be the same for country and business, just time scale will differ. On August 09 2017 22:14 bardtown wrote: Where are you from Razyda, out of curiosity? I am from Poland, although living and working in UK for 13 years years by now. Answering incoming question - i am 40, so not average SC, dota player, but i like what i like so... | ||
|
KwarK
United States44299 Posts
On August 09 2017 23:02 Unentschieden wrote: Democracy isn´t supposed to by the dictatorship of 50% + 1. While the majority voted to leave there are plenty people that want to maintain close ties with the EU, May learned that the hard way. There is also the question of what the majority voted for given that close to all claims by the leave campaign turned out to be lies or hoplessly optimisitc. The current apparent direction, the "norway way" would mean that the UK would stay in the EU in all but name and UK exclusive priviliges. I mean how could the Brexit direction be any WORSE for the UK than it is right now? In the UK it always has been. Hell, it's just a dictatorship of 51% of the votes in Parliament. Thatcher only needed 42% of the vote to get a landslide in Parliament. Also unless we view the status quo as somehow sacred 51% is a mandate to act. After all, the alternative is considering 49% a mandate to act. Both staying and leaving are policy directions that are actively pursued. If you are at a fork in the road and must choose a path then 51% must be a mandate to go left, because if it is not then logically 49% must be a mandate to go right. In some constitutional systems there ideas imbued with such such sacred value that it takes a supermajority to change them. We don't have those in the UK (or a constitution at all) but even if we did, EU membership would not be one of those things. I'm a remainer but remain lost. The country must follow where its folly leads. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On August 09 2017 23:02 Unentschieden wrote: Democracy isn´t supposed to by the dictatorship of 50% + 1. Actually, that's the intended benefit. Out of competing systems that more easily degenerate to oligarchy and dictatorship. Then you add constitutional to it to try and not concentrate power in the mob or the plurality of their representatives, and write one good enough to lay some prudence to not call an election every eleven days when you disagree with the last thing that happened. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On August 10 2017 00:10 Danglars wrote: Actually, that's the intended benefit. Out of competing systems that more easily degenerate to oligarchy and dictatorship. Then you add constitutional to it to try and not concentrate power in the mob or the plurality of their representatives, and write one good enough to lay some prudence to not call an election every eleven days when you disagree with the last thing that happened. I don't remember exactly which philosopher it was - one of Plato, Socrates, or Aristotle - who believed monarchy was best and democracy was kind of shitty, but that a degenerate democracy was the least bad degenerate form of government. Might not be a bad way to think of it. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On August 09 2017 23:58 KwarK wrote: In the UK it always has been. Hell, it's just a dictatorship of 51% of the votes in Parliament. Thatcher only needed 42% of the vote to get a landslide in Parliament. Also unless we view the status quo as somehow sacred 51% is a mandate to act. After all, the alternative is considering 49% a mandate to act. Both staying and leaving are policy directions that are actively pursued. If you are at a fork in the road and must choose a path then 51% must be a mandate to go left, because if it is not then logically 49% must be a mandate to go right. In some constitutional systems there ideas imbued with such such sacred value that it takes a supermajority to change them. We don't have those in the UK (or a constitution at all) but even if we did, EU membership would not be one of those things. I'm a remainer but remain lost. The country must follow where its folly leads. Further to this, if we did have sacred tenets that required a supermajority I think they would have prevented our signing the Maastricht/Lisbon treaties in the first place. Don't know if you agree? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Counter point: businesses don't exist without a stable government that can persist beyond the lifetime of the business owner. Democracy has proven to be one of the most stable forms of government long term. | ||
| ||
