how self-evident is democracy?

[The Stranger]

how self evident is the supremacy of democracy over other forms of political constitution?

perhaps an old discussion, yet i would like to know what you guys think.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

how self evident is the supremacy of democracy over other forms of political constitution?

perhaps an old discussion, yet i would like to know what you guys think.

Aristotle said the best form of goverment is a wise and noble King, he went on to say that such men are hard to find.

I agree completely.

So far as I can tell, the main benefit of democracy is it limits political excess, nasty things like genocide etc., but it obviously also limits reform, as seen in the West today. Many of our social problems today stem, I believe, from stagnation caused by the tendancy of our party-democratic systems tending to promote the avergae because in a democracy you have to appeal to a wide base.

Churchil, for example, would never have been Prime Minister were it not for the War, and today it seems unlikely even under those circumstances.

[Viking]

Supremacy with respect to what? Many people today probably see democracy as an end in itself, not a means to an end.

[HoreTore]

The belief that a dictatorship is more effective is a lie.

Dictatorships get things done quicker than a democracy, that is true, because when a dictator wants to do something, it simply gets done. But the opposition plays a crucial part in policy making, and what is usually seen as "political bickering" actually makes things better.

An example: let's say political party X wants to build a bridge. They will spend a lot of time planning it, and then make a proposal. That proposal will then be scrutinized by opposition party Y, who will try their best to find every fault in the plan. Political party X will then have to rethink their plan and is forced to repair the worst flaws, before they propose it again, because they know that both the opposition and the media will tear them apart for years should the bridge collapse.

In a dictatorship, however, political party X won't have anyone to help them find the flaws, and they will simply go ahead with the original, flawed plan, and the bridge will collapse.

The mere existance of the Conservative party makes the Socialist party better, and the mere existance of the Socialist party makes the Conservative party better, regardless of who is in actual control of the government.

That is what makes democracy superior to all other forms of government.

Hitler is seen as the typical "effective dictator". But Barbarossa was a massive failure, and I believe the key factor in its failure was that there were nobody around to point out the massive flaws in his plans.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Aristotle said the best form of goverment is a wise and noble King, he went on to say that such men are hard to find.

Of course, Aristotle demonstrates that the United Kingdom has by far the best constitution in the world, since it combines all three elements of his good forms of government with the monarchy/aristocracy/democracy.

The Yanks thought they were being clever when they removed the monarchic element, but in reality this imbalance allowed the aristocracy to turn into its "bad" counterpart, oligarchy. They don't have a king but they have political dynasties instead.

I mean, how can you rant about monarchy being bad because it leads to inbred idiots taking power, then next thing you know your own President is... George W Bush...

Anyway, for the reasons HoreTore stated, some form of elected, representative government is best. The thing is I think it is far too simplistic to just say "one person, one vote", and presume that that will somehow allow everyone to feel they have a voice in government. As I said in another thread, we need more direct ways to make sure all socio/economic/religious/ethnic etc groups are represented.

The old "one person, one vote" system we use today has left large parts of the community feeling unrepresented, and this leads to extremism, separatism etc. Constitutions should be drafted to make sure all the citizens of a polity have a real voice in the governmnent. IMO a very good first step would be to allocate seats between the working and middle classes, since right now if communism is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then democracy is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Strike For The South]

democracy is the bad form of mob rule Rhy

IF YOU STUDIED INSTEAD OF THOUGHT ABOUT WOMEN MAYBE YOU'D KNOW THAY

I would love to see how your monarch prevents power from being consildated. How Charles or Henry stands on the steps of parliment haltng those whom do not merit it. LO FREAKING L

I come into this world as one man and I will leave as one man, no one will rule me unless he has my consent funny clothes and extravagent wedings be damned. A monarchy in all forms is an affront to thought and livelyhood

Exile or execution

[Rhyfelwyr]

democracy is the bad form of mob rule Rhy

IF YOU STUDIED INSTEAD OF THOUGHT ABOUT WOMEN MAYBE YOU'D KNOW THAY

~:mecry:


I would love to see how your monarch prevents power from being consildated. How Charles or Henry stands on the steps of parliment haltng those whom do not merit it. LO FREAKING L

By and large I agree, I was just playing the pompous British ****. Although I think the monarch could have some value on merit of being a non-partisan actor.


I come into this world as one man and I will leave as one man, no one will rule me unless he has my consent funny clothes and extravagent wedings be damned. A monarchy in all forms is an affront to thought and livelyhood

Exile or execution

Bah, that is just silly rhetoric! You Frenchmen/Yanks keep justifying your own oligarhic set up by appeals to this supposed 'social contract'. Funny thing is I don't ever remember signing that. In fact I find the idea that the people surrender their sovereignty through an invisible and undefined contract, which they are born into of necessity, to be quite tyrannical.

tbh, you need to abandon the inevitable tyranny of such 18th-century atheist thought, and return to the real enlightenment, the golden age of the 17-century when God-fearing Protestant political theorists layed the framework for our political freedoms. Try and tell Samuel Rutherford or Oliver Cromwell that the people surrender their sovereignty when they elect rulers over them. They'd have you hanging from the gallows before you could say the word "sovereignty"!

Aye, give me a king and let me keep my sovereingty any day, rather than surrender my sovereingty to some citizens when I elect him over me. Now wonder the French soon descended into totalitarianism when they had their revolutions. Despite the French ideals adopted by the USA's founding fathers, thankfully they had more solid Anglo-Saxon roots to keep things stable.

[Strike For The South]

Yea Obama is really a product of the American Oligarchy

I do not deny we have some elements of one or that trying to break the glass ceiling of the political stage is, for all practical purposes, impossible but in the same vein I must ask I be allowed to choose how I will be ruled over and that no one by virtue of birthright rises above me

I also think many of the endemic problems we think face our democracies today stem from nothing more than civic laziness and complacency

[HoreTore]

Non-partisan player, you say?

If you want that, why not opt for competence instead of inbreeding? A supreme court wil, be non-partisan and clearly superior to a monarch when it comes to competence, and the times they need to interfere they will have actual influence because of their competence.

Which sounds rather similar to the authority the US Supreme Court has...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The difference is supreme court judges were all still politicised citizens at some point. Only a king can be born removed from partisan politics.

It's kind of a weak argument but it makes some sort of sense.

[HoreTore]

The difference is supreme court judges were all still politicised citizens at some point. Only a king can be born removed from partisan politics.

It's kind of a weak argument but it makes some sort of sense.

no, it makes no sense whatsoever, but I don't think you actually believe in it yourself, so I don't think I have to explain why...

[The Stranger]

Non-partisan player, you say?

If you want that, why not opt for competence instead of inbreeding? A supreme court wil, be non-partisan and clearly superior to a monarch when it comes to competence, and the times they need to interfere they will have actual influence because of their competence.

Which sounds rather similar to the authority the US Supreme Court has...

but then there is the problems that the supreme court is completely political... and they sit for life. and the only way to get rid of the supreme court is by a law which they have to approve of... they are kinda like a royal family with intrige and all save the heriditary part.

[HoreTore]

but then there is the problems that the supreme court is completely political... and they sit for life. and the only way to get rid of the supreme court is by a law which they have to approve of... they are kinda like a royal family with intrige and all save the heriditary part.

....and that alone makes them a thousand times better, as not being hereditary means that they have to be competent to be considered for the role.

A meddling king is everything you mentioned above, except there would be no competence requirement whatsoever and it would cost a ton of money more than a supreme court.

[The Stranger]

perhaps only that in reality not the most competant judge is put forward but the judge most loyal to the president that puts him in office. but guess so he still has to have some competence.

about something else. how suited is democracy for gigantic countries such as the USA and China? isnt democracy more for small communities?

[HoreTore]

about something else. how suited is democracy for gigantic countries such as the USA and China? isnt democracy more for small communities?

No, of course it isn't.

The worlds 2nd most populous state, India, is a democracy. And that immense country is a country because of its democracy. There are a gazillion different population groups in India, and a dictator would base his power around one of them. This would lead to increased tensions in India, and before long a violent break-up of the country.


But as India is a democracy, the country is held together, as the government is representative, the entire Indian population feels included, accepted and respected.

[gaelic cowboy]

In fact I find the idea that the people surrender their sovereignty through an invisible and undefined contract, which they are born into of necessity, to be quite tyrannical.

Could a person not use the same sentence about people having to surrender to a monarch, did you personally have any say in Elizabeth mark2.



tbh, you need to abandon the inevitable tyranny of such 18th-century atheist thought, and return to the real enlightenment, the golden age of the 17-century when God-fearing Protestant political theorists layed the framework for our political freedoms.

These would be the same intellectuals who were happy to construct and later work in a system that denied the vote to millions of people purely on religious grounds doesn't sound very free to me.


Try and tell Samuel Rutherford or Oliver Cromwell that the people surrender their sovereignty when they elect rulers over them. They'd have you hanging from the gallows before you could say the word "sovereignty"!

Hmm Rutherford and Cromwell didn't they belong to a tradition that was denied for a long time it's rights purely under the ageis of the monarchy

EDIT I am in a fierce Republican mood today what with the sitting of the 31st Dail today, and the election of a new Taoiseach from my home county

[a completely inoffensive name]

Bah, that is just silly rhetoric! You Frenchmen/Yanks keep justifying your own oligarhic set up by appeals to this supposed 'social contract'. Funny thing is I don't ever remember signing that. In fact I find the idea that the people surrender their sovereignty through an invisible and undefined contract, which they are born into of necessity, to be quite tyrannical.

tbh, you need to abandon the inevitable tyranny of such 18th-century atheist thought, and return to the real enlightenment, the golden age of the 17-century when God-fearing Protestant political theorists layed the framework for our political freedoms. Try and tell Samuel Rutherford or Oliver Cromwell that the people surrender their sovereignty when they elect rulers over them. They'd have you hanging from the gallows before you could say the word "sovereignty"!

Aye, give me a king and let me keep my sovereingty any day, rather than surrender my sovereingty to some citizens when I elect him over me. Now wonder the French soon descended into totalitarianism when they had their revolutions. Despite the French ideals adopted by the USA's founding fathers, thankfully they had more solid Anglo-Saxon roots to keep things stable.

Your vote is your signature and the contract is non binding. If I don't like my social contract with American society, then hello Canada for me.

Once again, more jibberish about why we need to go back 300 years to be more free and that a king that you know you can't change is better than a hollow vote.


but then there is the problems that the supreme court is completely political... and they sit for life. and the only way to get rid of the supreme court is by a law which they have to approve of... they are kinda like a royal family with intrige and all save the heriditary part.

Supreme Court members can be impeached. This is in the Constitution and there is nothing the Supreme Court can do about that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

perhaps only that in reality not the most competant judge is put forward but the judge most loyal to the president that puts him in office. but guess so he still has to have some competence.

Presidents pick judges they feel will uphold the same ideology as them. Most of the time this works (Roberts), but not always (Warren).

By having the Supreme Court subject to re-election or re-appointment they become slaves to political forces just as much as the president and congress which means all decisions will be politically based guaranteed. A guaranteed job promotes them to DGAF about what everyone else thinks and go with what the law truly says.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Could a person not use the same sentence about people having to surrender to a monarch, did you personally have any say in Elizabeth mark2.

The difference is without a social contract, I am not obliged to be her subject. Louis, Strike, ACIN etc all come from a tradition whereby even passively living under the system means you surrender your sovereignty to it. You lose your right to determine your own political destiny, so long as the rulers obey the terms of their contract with you.

For want of a better quote, as it says of the social contract on wiki: "Among humans, it implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed."

On the other hand, I never signed over my sovereignty to some elected body like the do in the USA or Frenchland. Unlike them, I am free to rise up in arms against Elizabeth II as soon as I feel that she no longer governs in my interest, or the interest of the people as a whole. And this is the tradition of the great Protestant thinkers of old.

To paraphrase Quentin Skinner on the Puritans - they believe "the people communicate this sovereignty to the king by trust", yet "they deprive not themselves of this sovereingty", since the grant it "only communicatively".

So should Elizabeth no longer work in the interests of the people, I will quote Rutherford himself, who said "Now what are kings but vassals to the state, who, if they turn tyrants, fall from their right?" (from 'Lex Rex').

So while you obey politicians, the Queen serves me! She is my vassal!

So all the "enlightened" Yanks/French/Irish Republicans that consider themselves free for living under the social contract ala Rousseau, in fact have competely surrendered the right to their own political destiny. That is should be to a body of citizens, rather than an individual in the position of a monarch, does not seem to be of much significance to me. Ultimately, their 18-century atheist traditions mean they surrendered their freedom.

As one more inspired by the Protestant theorists of the 17-th century, I am a free man, ready to rise in revolt at the first sign of tyranny and get my ruler, by it a President or a King, off to the gallows!


These would be the same intellectuals who were happy to construct and later work in a system that denied the vote to millions of people purely on religious grounds doesn't sound very free to me.

That was more due to pragmatism than them really implementing their ideals. Religion was heavily intertwined with politics in those days, Catholics were largely royalists. It doesn't really change the ideals behind what I'm talking about.


Hmm Rutherford and Cromwell didn't they belong to a tradition that was denied for a long time it's rights purely under the ageis of the monarchy

Indeed, there's nothing worse than an absolute monarch!


Your vote is your signature and the contract is non binding. If I don't like my social contract with American society, then hello Canada for me.

lol, you think you have a meaningful sense of freedom when you have to flee your country of birth just to escape a government you don't like?

Well, such is the consequences of the social contract. I, on the other hand, do not sign over my sovereignty on a piece of paper, and retain the right to depose any ruler than fails to govern in my interest.


Once again, more jibberish about why we need to go back 300 years to be more free and that a king that you know you can't change is better than a hollow vote.

Read my posts more carefully please. I am a republican (with a small 'r', before gaelic gets too excited) :beam:

I simply think that democracy, at least the kind we have today, is overated. I also think we place far too much emphasis on the vote. There are far more important rights IMO. And tbh, I would rather lose the right to vote than have to sign away my sovereingty when I put a piece of paper in the ballot box.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's the difference between a King and a Statesman.

A Good King believes he is charged with the protection of his realm by God, unto his death, but a Good Statesman in a democracy still has to worry about elections where the majority don't understand what they are voting for.

[gaelic cowboy]

So while you obey politicians, the Queen serves me! She is my vassal!

tut tut tut a politician is my/our representative they SERVE me/us, but unlike yourself I can also vote them out and even put myself forward on the ballot paper for election to Head of State.

article 6.1 of the Irish constitutuion


Article 6

1. All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good.




On the other hand, I never signed over my sovereignty to some elected body like the do in the USA or Frenchland. Unlike them, I am free to rise up in arms against Elizabeth II as soon as I feel that she no longer governs in my interest, or the interest of the people as a whole. And this is the tradition of the great Protestant thinkers of old.

hmm I cant think where it was someone actually did that, and they ended up in a Union or summit :deal:

:wink:



What's the difference between a King and a Statesman.

A Good King believes he is charged with the protection of his realm by God, unto his death, but a Good Statesman in a democracy still has to worry about elections where the majority don't understand what they are voting for.


I should not do justice to the warm impulse of my heart if I entered on the subject most unpleasant to my mind without first expressing that the cordial affection I have for Mr Pitt, as well as high opinions of his talents and integrity, greatly add to my uneasiness on this occasion; but a sense of religious as well as political duty has made me, from the moment I mounted the throne, consider the Oath that the wisdom of our forefathers has enjoined the Kings of this realm to take at their Coronation, and enforced by the obligation of instantly following it in the course of the ceremony with taking the Sacrament, as so binding a religious obligation on me to maintain the fundamental maxims on which our Constitution is placed, namely the Church of England being the established one, and that those who hold employment in the State must be members of it, and consequently obliged not only to take oaths against Popery, but to receive the Holy Communion agreeably to the rites of the Church of England.

This principle of duty must therefore prevent me from discussing any proposition tending to destroy this groundwork of our happy Constitution, and much more so that now mentioned by Mr Pitt, which is no less than the complete overthrow of the whole fabric.

King George the 3rd making his views know on Catholics and there right to emancipation, looks just like a grubby politicians statement to me from here so it does no imperial glory at all at all.

Gimme some one who has a bit of fear of his electorate any day


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpodInDmPpk&feature=related

[a completely inoffensive name]

On the other hand, I never signed over my sOvereignty to some elected body like the do in the USA or Frenchland. Unlike them, I am free to rise up in arms against Elizabeth II as soon as I feel that she no longer governs in my interest, or the interest of the people as a whole. And this is the tradition of the great Protestant thinkers of old.



lol, you think you have a meaningful sense of freedom when you have to flee your country of birth just to escape a government you don't like?

Well, such is the consequences of the social contract. I, on the other hand, do not sign over my sovereignty on a piece of paper, and retain the right to depose any ruler than fails to govern in my interest.
lol, you think you have a meaningful sense of freedom when you have to take up arms against your country and risk your life in order to escape a government you don't like?



Read my posts more carefully please. I am a republican (with a small 'r', before gaelic gets too excited) :beam:

I simply think that democracy, at least the kind we have today, is overated. I also think we place far too much emphasis on the vote. There are far more important rights IMO. And tbh, I would rather lose the right to vote than have to sign away my sovereingty when I put a piece of paper in the ballot box.
Wtf is your sovereignty when you have no say in your government besides how big you gun/sword is?

[Ironside]

What's the difference between a King and a Statesman.

A Good King believes he is charged with the protection of his realm by God, unto his death, but a Good Statesman in a democracy still has to worry about elections where the majority don't understand what they are voting for.

So the stateman needs to ask himself if the world ran ahead of him these last decades?

Besides, one of the signs of a good stateman is pursuation skills.

[rory_20_uk]

Democracy: you can have all the power and freedoms you want, on the understanding you don't ask for any we don't give you.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the stateman needs to ask himself if the world ran ahead of him these last decades?

Besides, one of the signs of a good stateman is pursuation skills.

Decades? Nick Clegg has done more for this country in forming the coalition than any other politician, yet it has destroyed him and his party politically.

[Rhyfelwyr]

tut tut tut a politician is my/our representative they SERVE me/us, but unlike yourself I can also vote them out and even put myself forward on the ballot paper for election to Head of State.

Sure the individual politician must appeal to you for your vote, but you still signed over your right to protest against the wider political system. As your constitution says, you have the "right to designate the rulers of the state", but no more. You, and the people as a whole, are considered to have delegated all their sovereignty to the state when they granted it its powers.

You have no right to depose it if it fails to serve your own good. In, on the other hand, can remove the whole system of government if I don't like it.


hmm I cant think where it was someone actually did that, and they ended up in a Union or summit :deal:

:wink:

lol. Well I'm not going to defend imperialism, since it goes against everything I'm arguing for here.


lol, you think you have a meaningful sense of freedom when you have to take up arms against your country and risk your life in order to escape a government you don't like?

The right to do just that is practically my definition of freedom. Inifinitely better than having to surrender your birthright. Would you trade this sense of freedom for the safety of not having to "risk your life"?


Wtf is your sovereignty when you have no say in your government besides how big you gun/sword is?

Sovereignty is everything. I freely choose to give Elizabeth II whatever powers she has. There are various reasons why people might want to elect monarchs or strong leaders over representative institutions. You might disagree with them, but its the peoples choice, and they are free people so long as they keep the right to depose those leaders when they no longer serve them.

[gaelic cowboy]

Sure the individual politician must appeal to you for your vote, but you still signed over your right to protest against the wider political system. As your constitution says, you have the "right to designate the rulers of the state", but no more. You, and the people as a whole, are considered to have delegated all their sovereignty to the state when they granted it its powers.

You have no right to depose it if it fails to serve your own good. In, on the other hand, can remove the whole system of government if I don't like it.

Not true Article 6.1 clearly states the people have the right of final appeal in all matters of National policy hence we have to have a referendum for the EU stuff so the people are very much in charge here, but I take your point this is not generally the case elsewhere.

[rory_20_uk]

Decades? Nick Clegg has done more for this country in forming the coalition than any other politician, yet it has destroyed him and his party politically.

The Lib Dems did get precicely the wrong number of seats at the last election - not enough to be the opposition, but enough to be a junior partner in either camp. I agree that he did the "right" thing by forming a majority with the larger of the two main party. And they are suffering from that as the glare of reality is not pleasant.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

The Lib Dems did get precicely the wrong number of seats at the last election - not enough to be the opposition, but enough to be a junior partner in either camp. I agree that he did the "right" thing by forming a majority with the larger of the two main party. And they are suffering from that as the glare of reality is not pleasant.

~:smoking:

Clegg needs a win and soon or the perception will stick all the way to the next election and he will lose a load of seats. The danger of a small party is in aiming too high I suppose, it would prob be better for the Libs to campaign on a basis preventing single party government of either big party in order to moderate elements in the left and right.

This has been a very effective tool of small parties here over the years and our two systems are prob the most easily compared culturally.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Not true Article 6.1 clearly states the people have the right of final appeal in all matters of National policy hence we have to have a referendum for the EU stuff so the people are very much in charge here, but I take your point this is not generally the case elsewhere.

You know, I always thought that Rousseau and the whole social contract thing really laid the grounds for totalitarianism. It's been reflected on the continent not just through facism/communism, but going right back to the time of the French Revolution - it was pretty totalitarian.

The social contract is all about being an active citizen, you can see it even today when Brenus uses such language in a recent thread, when he said how threatening public institutions like education and various industries was a threat to the republic.

In Anglo-Saxonland on the other hand, its all about the government leaving you alone. And you definitely don't sign anything over to it in the form of a contract.

So in short, thank goodness that my superior (W)ASP ideals protect me from tyranny. :snobby:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Lib Dems did get precicely the wrong number of seats at the last election - not enough to be the opposition, but enough to be a junior partner in either camp. I agree that he did the "right" thing by forming a majority with the larger of the two main party. And they are suffering from that as the glare of reality is not pleasant.

~:smoking:

It's not just them getting attention though, there have been one or two slip-ups but nothing that should account fro polling 5% in a bi-election, behind the BNP. They are being hammered because their "party" supporters can't see the Tories as anything other than evil, remember that clod who tore up his membership card on national TV? The public should be lauding Nick Clegg for political heroism, but instead they're throwing rotten vegitables.

This is our democracy in action; Winnie was right.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Lib Dem party supporters are not economic liberals of the same mold as the Tories are. Big Society is precisely what they do not want. Tuition fee hikes is what they do not want. Trident is what they do not want. So tell me again, why should these people feel that Nick Clegg is doing a terrific heroic job when the issues that they care about they get what they do not want?

Nick Clegg simply isn't doing the job he was elected to do (push through Lib dem views), and the proper response is to mark him down on it by way of the ballot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The right to do just that is practically my definition of freedom. Inifinitely better than having to surrender your birthright. Would you trade this sense of freedom for the safety of not having to "risk your life"?
You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does. You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.
Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.



Sovereignty is everything. I freely choose to give Elizabeth II whatever powers she has. There are various reasons why people might want to elect monarchs or strong leaders over representative institutions. You might disagree with them, but its the peoples choice, and they are free people so long as they keep the right to depose those leaders when they no longer serve them.
I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

[rory_20_uk]

You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does. You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.
Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.


I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

American Civil War shows what happens when people try to gain their freedom - destruction and transient suspension of habeus corpus. Pretend that things are different over there, but your government is as immovable as ours.

~:smoking:

[a completely inoffensive name]

American Civil War shows what happens when people try to gain their freedom - destruction and transient suspension of habeus corpus. Pretend that things are different over there, but your government is as immovable as ours.

~:smoking:

Habeus Corpus as written in the Constitution is allowed to be revoked during times of rebellion/insurrection. So your point there fails. Secondly, "gaining their freedom"? That's disgusting man. They rebelled so they could continue to whip slaves to pick cotton for them. If it was a real case of systematic government tyranny, the public would have been more united in their opposition against the government. The bottom line about the Civil War was that it wasn't an insurrection against the government, it was a cultural divide among the populace itself that manifested itself politically and then militarily.

Learn American history, and read about how the Civil War might as well have started with Bleeding Kansas when the public was already slaughtering each other with no governmental forces involved whatsoever.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does.

Again, you make it sound like the government chooses what rights it grants me. It's the other way around, I choose what powers I give to the government. I do not need the government to tell me I can overthrow it in order to know I have the right to overthrow it.


You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.

Well if we're talking more in theoretical terms, the Queen would simply step down when told by the people that they no longer wish her to govern them, she is their vassal after all. If she refuses to, you fight it out, I don't see how that is any different from what you do when faced with a tyrant.


Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.

Don't forget where your own political traditions came from (aimed at the bit in bold)! Anyway, you do not have all the freedom I do, for the reasons stated below...


I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

The problem the American and French visions of government is that they see government as being natural, and so comes the whole idea of the social contract that people are just born into, with the superiority of their liberal democracies being seen, as the OP implies, as being "self-evident".

While you see such government as being natural (the whole US Constitutions is shrouded in the language of natural law after all), I see it, in the words of Rutherford, as being "artificial and positive". Why? Because "the way and manner of government is voluntary" (all this is from 'Lex Rex' btw). As such, the people as a whole choose what form of government to place themselves under, be it a democracy, a monarchy, or whatever.

Since my government is artificial, I may remove it at any time. On the other hand, while you may remove particular individuals or parties from power, you cannot lawfully rise up against your own political system, since there is some concept of it being the natural and just government for all mankind, which everyone assents to on merit of being born into it! This is clearly a terrible tyranny, and limits everyones political freedoms within the boundaries of what some people decided are determined by 'natural law'.

As for what I mean by sovereignty, look it up, its a common term in political theory. It is a loftier ideal, its not concerned with who is able to control a territory by force. It is about who has the moral right to rule a territory. As I said earlier, in the Rousseauean tradition which influenced France/the US, people are considered to have signed away their sovereignty to their rulers through the social contract, when they elect them over them to govern in their good. However, in the British tradition going back to the 17th century, sovereignty is considered to remain with the people even when they elect rulers over them. This gives me the moral right to demand that Elizabeth II steps down as soon as I don't like her or her government. You, on the other hand, are obliged to slavishly follow your rulers so long as they rule within the powers you delegated to them.

[Beskar]

Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

I didn't. I am highly opposed to it.

[Cute Wolf]

Of course, Aristotle demonstrates that the United Kingdom has by far the best constitution in the world, since it combines all three elements of his good forms of government with the monarchy/aristocracy/democracy.

The Yanks thought they were being clever when they removed the monarchic element, but in reality this imbalance allowed the aristocracy to turn into its "bad" counterpart, oligarchy. They don't have a king but they have political dynasties instead.

I mean, how can you rant about monarchy being bad because it leads to inbred idiots taking power, then next thing you know your own President is... George W Bush...

Anyway, for the reasons HoreTore stated, some form of elected, representative government is best. The thing is I think it is far too simplistic to just say "one person, one vote", and presume that that will somehow allow everyone to feel they have a voice in government. As I said in another thread, we need more direct ways to make sure all socio/economic/religious/ethnic etc groups are represented.

The old "one person, one vote" system we use today has left large parts of the community feeling unrepresented, and this leads to extremism, separatism etc. Constitutions should be drafted to make sure all the citizens of a polity have a real voice in the governmnent. IMO a very good first step would be to allocate seats between the working and middle classes, since right now if communism is a dictatorship of the proletariat, then democracy is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

ultimately this is the truth, all who live in a shady "democratic" country knows that monarchy will give something that politicians can't ruin easily

if not because politician's activities are blame their oppositions and vice versa

[The Stranger]

I didn't. I am highly opposed to it.

but in that case neither did the people as whole in a democratic country have chosen to be governed by a democratic system, because there there are also individuals who are opposed to it.

also should we be looking at ideal forms of government? or at the form of government which thrives best in "reality". should we change the people to suit the government or should the government adapt to the people?

[Rhyfelwyr]

I didn't. I am highly opposed to it.

I didn't elect Mr. Cameron over me either but there he is. I didn't ask to be governed by all these 'liberal democratic' institutions, but they're still here.

Ultimately, we would have got rid of the monarchy a long time ago if they didn't govern with the consent of the people. They made it very clear in 1660 that they want a monarch figure to have some role in leading/representing the country.

[gaelic cowboy]

I didn't elect Mr. Cameron over me either but there he is. I didn't ask to be governed by all these 'liberal democratic' institutions, but they're still here.

Ultimately, we would have got rid of the monarchy a long time ago if they didn't govern with the consent of the people. They made it very clear in 1660 that they want a monarch figure to have some role in leading/representing the country.

The later rows with Parliment are WAY more important to how your governed, in reality 1660 is irrelevent in terms of the rows during George's mark3/mark4

Eddit and I not just talking about Catholic Emancipation here there is the rows over who was top dog the Monarch or Parliment, there was the constant bickering on the funding of the monarch and the messy regency etc etc.

Edit:2 by the way you cant claim you didn't elect Cameron IF as you claim you Chose to be governed by Elizabeth, then usually the correct term is that the Monarch Asks perxon X to form a government for Her, therefore you did elect him albeit indirectly

[Greyblades]

I thought the problem with democracy is that we elect people who are good at persuading people instead of people who are actually any good at running a country.

[HoreTore]

I thought the problem with democracy is that we elect people who are good at persuading people instead of people who are actually any good at running a country.

That's why we have hordes of beauraucrats, they are responsible for implementation, while the politician is responsible for coming up with ideas and persuading others to agree that the ideas are good.

[Greyblades]

Yeah, but shouldn't coming up with an idea be the beuracrats job?

[Beskar]

They give their ideas to the politicians who then claim them as their own.

[HoreTore]

They give their ideas to the politicians who then claim them as their own.

That also happens, of course.

An ongoing joke in political circles here, is about what happens whenever the finance minister comes up with an idea. The ministry will then first tell him why the idea is impossible. If its not impossible, they will tell him its illegal. If its not illegal, then it won't matter anyway because of other policies already in place...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, you make it sound like the government chooses what rights it grants me. It's the other way around, I choose what powers I give to the government. I do not need the government to tell me I can overthrow it in order to know I have the right to overthrow it.
I don't recall saying the government chooses my rights. The difference between my gov and yours is that the early US politicians felt that the natural rights that we all have (including overthrowing a tyrannical government) should also be enshrined in the legal construction of the government itself to prevent any abuses of those rights. I think I see a miscommunication.

Excuse me when I said "You have no right." I meant to say, "You have no legal right, but I do, which means that your assertion that your sovereignty is somehow greater than mine is false."



Well if we're talking more in theoretical terms, the Queen would simply step down when told by the people that they no longer wish her to govern them, she is their vassal after all. If she refuses to, you fight it out, I don't see how that is any different from what you do when faced with a tyrant.Here the emphasis is on a national pride in the rule of law where when a separation of powers is implemented you won't find yourself in a situation where a "tyrant" will hold out against the will of the people. If a president decides to not step down, he is going to be gone pretty soon because theoretically (since this hasn't happened before) his opposing faction and the opposing branches of government are still loyal to the oath of the Constitution and not themselves or another man.



Don't forget where your own political traditions came from (aimed at the bit in bold)! Anyway, you do not have all the freedom I do, for the reasons stated below... Why should I care where (geographically) my political traditions came from? I respect the men who thought of them but I am not so Eurocentric as to think that these ideas would have never formed but in the minds of Brits and Greeks before them.



Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

The problem the American and French visions of government is that they see government as being natural, and so comes the whole idea of the social contract that people are just born into, with the superiority of their liberal democracies being seen, as the OP implies, as being "self-evident".

While you see such government as being natural (the whole US Constitutions is shrouded in the language of natural law after all), I see it, in the words of Rutherford, as being "artificial and positive". Why? Because "the way and manner of government is voluntary" (all this is from 'Lex Rex' btw). As such, the people as a whole choose what form of government to place themselves under, be it a democracy, a monarchy, or whatever.

Since my government is artificial, I may remove it at any time. On the other hand, while you may remove particular individuals or parties from power, you cannot lawfully rise up against your own political system, since there is some concept of it being the natural and just government for all mankind, which everyone assents to on merit of being born into it! This is clearly a terrible tyranny, and limits everyones political freedoms within the boundaries of what some people decided are determined by 'natural law'.

As for what I mean by sovereignty, look it up, its a common term in political theory. It is a loftier ideal, its not concerned with who is able to control a territory by force. It is about who has the moral right to rule a territory. As I said earlier, in the Rousseauean tradition which influenced France/the US, people are considered to have signed away their sovereignty to their rulers through the social contract, when they elect them over them to govern in their good. However, in the British tradition going back to the 17th century, sovereignty is considered to remain with the people even when they elect rulers over them. This gives me the moral right to demand that Elizabeth II steps down as soon as I don't like her or her government. You, on the other hand, are obliged to slavishly follow your rulers so long as they rule within the powers you delegated to them.

How is government not natural? A government is a social construction characterized by an organization in leadership among a populace. There have been "governments" since before civilization. A leader of a tribe is a dictator when everyone follows his word. Tribes that decided collectively to chase the wildlife across the Bering Strait from Asia into North America were proto democratic I guess you could say. I am very weak when it comes to biology but I can't recall a single species that contains a capacity for social interaction and doesn't show signs or notions of very basic leadership among members within that species. The more complex the social interaction, the more complex the leaderships become culminating in humans which have the most capacity for inter species interaction, highlighting a tremendous capability for various methods of leadership structures.

No government is artificial, only the method in which it is implemented. Government itself is natural and will always occur. I'm sorry if I have offended any anarchists out there.

To be fair I can completely see your point of the social contract being tyrannical, but you still have a few things wrong imo (I'm not super knowledgeable in political theory, I'm a chemist). The whole point of leadership of any sort is a submission of a person to another person (to a degree). Complete sovereignty of a public with a lack of the rule of law (in the way you describe it) would make for an ill society and a weak country. It is a mob rule, because if the government has no authority to stem the tide of public backlash, then the government cannot even function properly. If the citizens of Wisconsin simply decided to burn down the state capital and hang all the politicians, would this really be a good idea? Absolutely not. Even if 99% of them disagreed to the bill proposed, the goal is to follow the rule of law and respect the authority to which the representatives were granted and then kick them out at the next legal opportunity.

Secondly, I am not obliged to slavishly follow my rulers so long as they rule within the power I delegated to them. Let's not talk bull here, in the US the sentiment that you can overthrow the government anytime you want even if they are following "the rules" is alive and well. If we are going to start talking about anti-government sentiment between the US and the UK I'm not afraid to whip out my long list of right and left wing militias within the US and compare it to yours. However, from my understanding of early US philosophy (that the framers followed), it was important that such actions should not be the main tool for instituting a change in government, which I think was the whole point of the structure of the government. Great Britain allowed an elected parliament but the king was still the king no matter what.

But whatever, I recognize I am not as well read on the subject as you are (I have not read "Lex Rex"), but don't make a silly assertion that US citizens are more complacent with tyranny or undergo more tyranny than you do. This isn't some extreme comparison of Ghadaffi and Washington here.

[Greyblades]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

If you read my argument, I don't necessarily think that government is only present in mankind, ours is just more advanced, more complex.

[The Stranger]

ideally, shouldnt the master selcet his own heir? he knows the job the best and should know who is best suited for the job. i know that inreality this will lead to corruption and friends first kinda things, but everything has flaws in reality.

[Viking]

He might recognise people that would rule somewhat like he did; but whether he chooses the one who is "best" suited for the job, means we first need to establish what is the "best" society or rule.

It is also clear that, even when establishing the fact that the present ruler and his ways are "decent", there may still be even better ways to rule.

[Greyblades]

If you read my argument, I don't necessarily think that government is only present in mankind, ours is just more advanced, more complex.

Hmph If it took the time to read every wall of text I see on this board insted of skimming it I'd be stuck here untill the next ice age.

[Viking]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

If humans are of nature, then all their creations are of nature. If humans are not of nature, then none of their creations will be of nature anyway, leaving the talk of "natural" human aspects as mere drivel. QED.

It might thus seem more fruitful to talk about the inherency of government; in the sense of its probability to occur.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If humans are of nature, then all their creations are of nature. If humans are not of nature, then none of their creations will be of nature anyway, leaving the talk of "natural" human aspects as mere drivel. QED.

It might thus seem more fruitful to talk about the inherency of government; in the sense of its probability to occur.

When people use that term in political theory I think they mean "natural to the human condition". So probably the same thing as what you said with it being "inherent".

Anyway, I'll reply later ACIN, this debate is getting too big!

[gaelic cowboy]

Primates display traits of politics in how they manage there troops in the jungle so therefore I would say government is of Nature.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Primates display traits of politics in how they manage there troops in the jungle so therefore I would say government is of Nature.

So would Samuel Rutherford:

"We teach that government is natural, not voluntary; but the way and manner of government is voluntary".

The problem is the US/French tradition makes it out like their liberal democracies are the only natural form of government, the one tailed to man's natural rights. As such, anything else is an abberation. On the other hand I say like Rutherford that the manner of government is voluntary, and like a true free man, can choose any one I like. :snobby:

The US/France social contract/natural rights view is pretty stupid IMO. The fact is their liberal democracy that they see as being the only "natural" form of government never really existed before the 17th-century. Of course, at the time they thought otherwise, because they believed the mythology of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution.

As for whether government is natural or not, it is hard to tell how much is natural to the human condition, and how much is created by socio/political/economic structures etc. Cicero was certainly wrong in saying early humans had no connections with each other, but Aristotle may be closest to the mark is saying early man was a social, rather than a political, creature.

I mean, when you are talking about primates etc, we are talking about maybe a head alpha male that governs through personal relations. It comes more under social relations like with man as the head of the family that Aristotle talked about. It's a different matter from political leaders that rule through institutions etc, that seems less natural and I'm not sure if I would say it is inherent to mankind to live that way.

[Pannonian]

how self evident is the supremacy of democracy over other forms of political constitution?

perhaps an old discussion, yet i would like to know what you guys think.

Can we have a poll please?

[The Stranger]

He might recognise people that would rule somewhat like he did; but whether he chooses the one who is "best" suited for the job, means we first need to establish what is the "best" society or rule.

It is also clear that, even when establishing the fact that the present ruler and his ways are "decent", there may still be even better ways to rule.

but the same thing can be said about democracy. and while we keep electing people to represent people no real thought is given by the people of how we can improve the "system"

[Viking]

Well, I have not actually uttered anything in defence of democracy; only countering your point.

[rory_20_uk]

but the same thing can be said about democracy. and while we keep electing people to represent people no real thought is given by the people of how we can improve the "system"

Have you see Yes Prime Minister "Power to the People"?

The system is designed to serve itself. Protests might get some minor changes at the edges, but nothing to alter what it does.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Have you see Yes Prime Minister "Power to the People"?

The system is designed to serve itself. Protests might get some minor changes at the edges, but nothing to alter what it does.

~:smoking:

I got the series.

This is also one of my favourites, I even had to reference to it in one of my essays because it is straight to the point.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjh13hxehl4

[Beskar]

Slightly off-topic, I was reading this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11609887

The only party not supporting any form of reform is the Conservatives and "New Labour"-wing of the Labour party (both right-wing).

The only party wanting a less democratic version of the vote is the BNP (Party-list). (extreme right)

Everyone else says "AV is okay.. but STV is the best and most democratic", so they are pro-change, hoping for a slipperly slope where we become more democratic.

I support STV, but i am going to vote "yes" on the referendum as AV is clearly the better alternative to FPTP.