|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On April 20 2018 02:10 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 00:54 Velr wrote:
I just know that everytime i went to france for the last 20 years the smaller towns look worse and worse, the stuff is just falling apart more and more... An "old town" doesn't have to look like it got his last fresh paint right after ww2...
Aside from the very tourist foto motives and goverment districts (often the same place), these are squeeky clean. Its really staggering to me, you walk 200 metres away from the tourism centers and suddenly stuff looks like shit.
I really love to visit France but it seems to just fall apart physically.
Btw: Didn't macron run on reforms? Why the outrage about doing some? Because unlike in Switzerland, where you have an actually decent level of democracy, in the rest of the world including France you vote for a Führer/Führerparty/Führercoalition that just happens to be the least negative choice for most (and that is an exaggeration already, depending on the voting system and the choices allowed by the political system "most" may mean a 20-25% minority like in the USA). That Führer/Führerparty/Führercoalition can then do as they want for multiple years, as there are basically no democratic controls that would force an actual representation between elections. Demanding demcratic obedience is an extremely authoritarian stance in most countries. Many people might be for "reforms", but there is a vast spectrum of choices to be made and if you give all power to the Führer, then it will not be a representative reform, regardless how many people voted for him first. (or in other words: why market choices are better than democratic authoritarianism - assuming you don't use a feudalist-conservatively distributed weight system with no dependence on personal achievments whatsoever, that gives 2nd generation inbred rich kids money to influence a liberal economy. Like a Donald Trump or other idiots that shouldn't have millions or billions to compete on markets and ruin liberalism for everyone)
because countries like France actually need to make decisions that matter. Switzerland can only be a lofty direct democracy because it has voluntarily withdrawn itself from global politics and lives in a sort of rich, protected bubble in the middle of Europe.
Hierarchies are a way to manage complexity. Switzerland works well without a lot of hierarchies because Switzerland does not have to deal with a lot of complexity. If Switzerland suddenly would have to make military decisions within a time frame of hours I'd have trouble conceiving how that would work out. Then, of course, there's the everyday downside to the Swiss model, for example having your village neighbours vote on your citizenship status which can turn demagogic quite fast.
|
On April 20 2018 05:06 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 02:10 Big J wrote:On April 20 2018 00:54 Velr wrote:
I just know that everytime i went to france for the last 20 years the smaller towns look worse and worse, the stuff is just falling apart more and more... An "old town" doesn't have to look like it got his last fresh paint right after ww2...
Aside from the very tourist foto motives and goverment districts (often the same place), these are squeeky clean. Its really staggering to me, you walk 200 metres away from the tourism centers and suddenly stuff looks like shit.
I really love to visit France but it seems to just fall apart physically.
Btw: Didn't macron run on reforms? Why the outrage about doing some? Because unlike in Switzerland, where you have an actually decent level of democracy, in the rest of the world including France you vote for a Führer/Führerparty/Führercoalition that just happens to be the least negative choice for most (and that is an exaggeration already, depending on the voting system and the choices allowed by the political system "most" may mean a 20-25% minority like in the USA). That Führer/Führerparty/Führercoalition can then do as they want for multiple years, as there are basically no democratic controls that would force an actual representation between elections. Demanding demcratic obedience is an extremely authoritarian stance in most countries. Many people might be for "reforms", but there is a vast spectrum of choices to be made and if you give all power to the Führer, then it will not be a representative reform, regardless how many people voted for him first. (or in other words: why market choices are better than democratic authoritarianism - assuming you don't use a feudalist-conservatively distributed weight system with no dependence on personal achievments whatsoever, that gives 2nd generation inbred rich kids money to influence a liberal economy. Like a Donald Trump or other idiots that shouldn't have millions or billions to compete on markets and ruin liberalism for everyone) because countries like France actually need to make decisions that matter. Switzerland can only be a lofty direct democracy because it has voluntarily withdrawn itself from global politics and lives in a sort of rich, protected bubble in the middle of Europe. Hierarchies are a way to manage complexity. Switzerland works well without a lot of hierarchies because Switzerland does not have to deal with a lot of complexity. If Switzerland suddenly would have to make military decisions within a time frame of hours I'd have trouble conceiving how that would work out. Then, of course, there's the everyday downside to the Swiss model, for example having your village neighbours vote on your citizenship status which can turn demagogic quite fast.
France and Switzerland are not people, so fundamentally put, they do not make decisions. Who makes decisions? Actual people. How does "France" or "Switzerland", so the people belonging to those societies, make decisions on a collective level? Through more or less accepted social mechanism. Which mechanisms are most supported? Those which lead to the most accurate representation of opinions.
On a fundamental level you can describe a society as a set of people that accepts two fundamental rules:
1) They accept each other being a member of the society
2) They accept a general rulemaking process
Anyone that doesn't accept these two rules is not really a part of that society. They can be a part of a similar society and the union of many similar societies, that rule over a certain piece of land, is what makes such people belong to a state. But in reverse this also means that a state becomes more unstable, the more societies it represents and the more the goals of these societies drift apart.
In France for example you have a very strong nationalist society at this point, that does not accept many of the members of the French state as part of the "Nationalist French Society", because they were not born in France, or their parents weren't. That society is strongly against rule 1) of the "Republican Society", because they have a very different definition of French membership. And there are many other societies too, that are very fundamentally questioning the existing order.
Switzerland works very well, because pretty much everyone is putting the "Democratic Society" first, before any other society they may also belong to. They do so, because they matter in that society. And it forms a strong common bond between them. It gives them an actually accepted hierarchy of rules, unlike what France has in Macron, or the USA in Trump (as the respective leaders of their Democratic Societies). Those hierachies are only accepted on paper, but they do not have large public support, which makes their positions in reality very weak and makes for the exactly opposite of what you want for these societies.
Macron is dead in the water, same goes for Merkel, Trump or May at this point. Neither of them can really push their ideas anymore because they are hitting excessive civilian resistance. The EU is stuck in a democratic deficit with less and less support for ideas that are not derived by the people of Europe. What we are facing in large parts of the West is an excessive loss of control of the people (and thereby of their leaders), both politically and economically.
And this is really scary to me.
|
Makes me wonder who's behind of these posters. Anyone has an idea?
|
Why do you ask? In any case, hasn't Turkey already brutally conquered that part of Syria already? But you are better off asking such a question outside of the European poltics thread. Try the UK or Syria/Iraq one. I don't know why this thread has turned into ask random questions thread.
|
On April 20 2018 06:14 Big J wrote:
Switzerland works very well, because pretty much everyone is putting the "Democratic Society" first, before any other society they may also belong to. They do so, because they matter in that society. And it forms a strong common bond between them. It gives them an actually accepted hierarchy of rules, unlike what France has in Macron, or the USA in Trump
Switzerland doesn't work well because democracy works well, Democracy works well because Switzerland works well. Everybody in Switzerland essentially already agrees on the big questions, and if they don't everybody goes to their own Canton where you can do what you want.
In countries where the population is demographically, politically and culturally and economically diverse like the United States you have communities ranging from liberal Silicon Valley to rural Missouri who agree on literally nothing. More democracy would only result in more conflict. France tried to solve that problem by turning everybody French. No religion, no race, only one language, everything united under the central state, but it seems to increasingly fall apart.
Politizing everything is a bad idea if you're living in a big and truly diverse country.
|
On April 20 2018 09:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 06:14 Big J wrote:
Switzerland works very well, because pretty much everyone is putting the "Democratic Society" first, before any other society they may also belong to. They do so, because they matter in that society. And it forms a strong common bond between them. It gives them an actually accepted hierarchy of rules, unlike what France has in Macron, or the USA in Trump Switzerland doesn't work well because democracy works well, Democracy works well because Switzerland works well. Everybody in Switzerland essentially already agrees on the big questions, and if they don't everybody goes to their own Canton where you can do what you want. In countries where the population is demographically, politically and culturally and economically diverse like the United States you have communities ranging from liberal Silicon Valley to rural Missouri who agree on literally nothing. More democracy would only result in more conflict. France tried to solve that problem by turning everybody French. No religion, no race, only one language, everything united under the central state, but it seems to increasingly fall apart. Politizing everything is a bad idea if you're living in a big and truly diverse country.
Who gets to decide that there shouldn't be more democracy in country X? You?
You can't not politicise something. By the very nature of politics everything is always politicised, the question is just by who and by which method.
|
Yeah, bad luck, "not wanting to do politics" is still political.
|
On April 20 2018 09:10 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2018 06:14 Big J wrote:
Switzerland works very well, because pretty much everyone is putting the "Democratic Society" first, before any other society they may also belong to. They do so, because they matter in that society. And it forms a strong common bond between them. It gives them an actually accepted hierarchy of rules, unlike what France has in Macron, or the USA in Trump Switzerland doesn't work well because democracy works well, Democracy works well because Switzerland works well. Everybody in Switzerland essentially already agrees on the big questions, and if they don't everybody goes to their own Canton where you can do what you want. In countries where the population is demographically, politically and culturally and economically diverse like the United States you have communities ranging from liberal Silicon Valley to rural Missouri who agree on literally nothing.
You're overstating your case by a mile. The level of agreement between someone in rural Appenzell and someone in Geneva is not that different.
|
On April 20 2018 19:31 TheDwf wrote:
Yeah, bad luck, "not wanting to do politics" is still political.
This is a populist fantasy. No, not everything is political. My personal life sure isn't and I'd like to keep it that way because I don't want politics to invade every aspect of my private life. not everybody is ready to join the glorious revolution at every minute of the day, and the continued call to solve systemic problems by simply calling for 'more democracy' whatever that means is very misguided.
|
Recognizing that the personal is the political is the basis for recognizing bodily autonomy, the governments role in policing domestic violence, and a host of other "personal" matters that were considered out of bounds for many years.
|
Well, personal by the very definition of the word is non-political. The problem is there are hardly any purely personal matters. A person playing with their dick on their own is personal (and will inevitably be non-political when there is noone there who knows). When someone starts observing it, and one of them complains about the situation, it becomes a matter of a political decision who invades whose personal space in that case.
|
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons.
|
What's your argument for having more direct democracy?
|
On April 21 2018 06:34 RvB wrote:
What's your argument for having more direct democracy?
Every argument in favor of democracy increases in strength and impact the more direct your democracy is.
The main mechanism is that you want to limit the capacity of people in power to benefit from their position of power. And the two main tools to do that are a shared government (including executive power) so that it's much harder to have a leading direction for your politics, and most importantly a necessity to have the people on your side whenever you want to do significant changes.
|
On April 21 2018 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons.
There's plenty of arguments against more direct democracy, the most important one that it quickly falls prey to a tragedy of the commons. When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences for it can devolve into mob rule pretty quickly. Best example Swiss direct vote on minarets. Democracy can turn into a club to hit minorities with if you're not careful about it, and individual rights put limits to democracy to prevent that.
|
On April 21 2018 08:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons. There's plenty of arguments against more direct democracy, the most important one that it quickly falls prey to a tragedy of the commons. When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences for it can devolve into mob rule pretty quickly. Best example Swiss direct vote on minarets. Democracy can turn into a club to hit minorities with if you're not careful about it, and individual rights put limits to democracy to prevent that.
What would be your argument for the notion that a more representative democratic system is less vulnerable to mob rule than a more direct one? I'd view the two as similar, with the direct one being perhaps a little less vulnerable based on the limitations on power.
|
On April 21 2018 09:02 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 08:48 Nyxisto wrote:On April 21 2018 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons. There's plenty of arguments against more direct democracy, the most important one that it quickly falls prey to a tragedy of the commons. When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences for it can devolve into mob rule pretty quickly. Best example Swiss direct vote on minarets. Democracy can turn into a club to hit minorities with if you're not careful about it, and individual rights put limits to democracy to prevent that. What would be your argument for the notion that a more representative democratic system is less vulnerable to mob rule than a more direct one? I'd view the two as similar, with the direct one being perhaps a little less vulnerable based on the limitations on power.
Representatives are personally held responsible and exercise their own independent judgment. In Republican systems, elected officials are bound to their own conscience, not to the voter. (quite explicitly for example in the German constitution). They also need to defend their decisions in the court of public opinion, decisions are moderated upwards through institutions that shave the rough edges off. Also, representatives have access to significantly more resources and experts they personally can draw support from.
Somebody making a mark on a ballot is anonymous, does not need to defend their position, hell they arguably don't even need to think about what they're voting on. As a result, direct democratic decisions are often dumbing down complex processes into binary questions, see Brexit.
|
On April 21 2018 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 09:02 Nebuchad wrote:On April 21 2018 08:48 Nyxisto wrote:On April 21 2018 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons. There's plenty of arguments against more direct democracy, the most important one that it quickly falls prey to a tragedy of the commons. When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences for it can devolve into mob rule pretty quickly. Best example Swiss direct vote on minarets. Democracy can turn into a club to hit minorities with if you're not careful about it, and individual rights put limits to democracy to prevent that. What would be your argument for the notion that a more representative democratic system is less vulnerable to mob rule than a more direct one? I'd view the two as similar, with the direct one being perhaps a little less vulnerable based on the limitations on power. Representatives are personally held responsible and exercise their own independent judgment. In Republican systems, elected officials are bound to their own conscience, not to the voter. (quite explicitly for example in the German constitution). They also need to defend their decisions in the court of public opinion, decisions are moderated upwards through institutions that shave the rough edges off. Also, representatives have access to significantly more resources and experts they personally can draw support from. Somebody making a mark on a ballot is anonymous, does not need to defend their position, hell they arguably don't even need to think about what they're voting on. As a result, direct democratic decisions are often dumbing down complex processes into binary questions, see Brexit.
I see one valid argument in there (that a politician would be held responsible or would face backlash in public opinion implies a population that opposes the idea, and in that case the same population would also oppose the idea in direct democracy. And that a politician is "bound to their own conscience" rather than to voters... well that doesn't really reassure me in the slightest, does it). It is however true that representatives have access to significantly more resources and experts, but it's not the only thing that's amplified; so is the pressure from people who benefit from policies, so is the possibility of corruption, so is the pressure from partisan lines and viewpoints. When everything is amplified, is the result really so different? I can't imagine you often see representative politicians go against their own camp because of what experts say or because of some new specific information that was accessible to them. Information can be managed.
|
On April 21 2018 06:34 RvB wrote:
What's your argument for having more direct democracy?
Mine is simple: people should have control over their lives.
On April 21 2018 08:48 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 21 2018 05:31 Nebuchad wrote:
I don't think there's any good arguments against having a more direct democracy. But having the level of democracy that you already have can be perceived as "good enough", and people react to not having more by convincing/persuading themselves that they can't have it for legitimate reasons. There's plenty of arguments against more direct democracy, the most important one that it quickly falls prey to a tragedy of the commons. When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences for it can devolve into mob rule pretty quickly. Best example Swiss direct vote on minarets. Democracy can turn into a club to hit minorities with if you're not careful about it, and individual rights put limits to democracy to prevent that.
1. The myth of the “tragedy of the commons” has been abundantly criticized, see here or there.
2. “When people start to vote on things they don't personally take the consequences” — But don't you realize that this is exactly what we have now? When a conservative MP paid 7 000€ each month votes a law to harass unemployed people who get 800€ per month because “hurrr durrr they might be lazy people who abuse the system,” does he suffer the consequences of his own votes? In our societies, most of the time people who command belong to a separated class which doesn't have to endure the consequences of their decisions the way ordinary people do (hence the routinely anti-social behaviour of the rulers). This objection of yours is a bit rich, considering that the interest of more direct forms of democracy is precisely to abolish this separation between “who takes the decisions” and “who endures them”.
3. Xenophobia/racism are typical by-products of unequal orders and are heavily manipulated as political weapons to divide and control people (fear is the best tool ever for social control). Behind the so-called "tyranny of the majority," you often find a ruling minority using X or Y as a scapegoat to retain its own positions of power. Plus one only has to take a look at history to note that “representative democracies” are not at all an obstacle to colonialism, racism or persecution of various minorities.
4. Why would direct democracy mean that human rights, fundamental liberties and various other guard rails are dissolved?
|
1. The tragedy of the commons can be criticised when certain conditions don't apply, for example when a resource is renewable (think drinking out of a river that is practically limitless), but it is certainly true in cases of limited, depleting resources. And many scenarios where we talk about resource usage fall into that category. The articles don't really make a convincing point why that isn't supposed to be true. You can either privatize or regulate the commons. The counter-example of 'communal organisation' to protect the commons is simply a case of the latter on a local scale. When communities protect the commons, they do it by socially, or culturally ostracizing individuals that violate community trust. A little more romantic than state regulation, but basically the parochial version of the same mechanism.
2. In functioning democracies representatives are responsible for the decisions they make and have to face their constituents, it's always flawed of course but still mostly true in many developed democratic countries. If you cut people's benefits you're going to get the feedback at the next election, and it usually isn't very nice which is why groups like pensioners are almost always courted by politicians.
Direct democracy only holds people responsible when the effects of your vote affect you personally. This might be true in a municipality where direct democracy isn't much of a problem, but it doesn't work on a scale of large countries. If some xenophobe votes on a headscarf ban that affects Muslims that live three states away, how is that person held accountable? Why is he even supposed to have that right?
3. Not all racism is the result of 'small minorities manipulating majorities'. That's conspiratory like thinking that's even itself the root of vile racist theories. It's the underlying logic of "the manipulative Jews destroy the clean and moral fabric of our communities". It's an extremely dangerous idea honestly. And the rise of true egalitarian democracy in the 20st century has in fact, for the most part, ended colonialism. I'd not characterise 19th century societies, without women's suffrage as extremely democratic
4. Categorical rights and democracy are at odds. If I have a constitutional right, the majority can't infringe on it. Some fundamental individual liberties might easily fall prey to mass hysteria. Privacy and civil rights for example in the face of terrorist threats. In fact the idea of universal human rights is at odds with decision making. If something is a fundamental human right, no body of citizens, no matter how numerous, is supposed to be able to take it from me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
