It's hard not to become a Euro sceptic

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

So it's not some idealistically pure system ala what HoreTore wants (which is impossible, 100% of people with conflicting interests cannot all rule a country :inquisitive:), but it works fairly well.

---

Congratulations on a complete failure to read posts. I suggest you reread the last two sentences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Majority vote? What? How does "rule of the people" mean "rule of 51% of the people"?

No, Democracy is not a tyranny of the majority. Democracy means that the country is ruled by 100% of the country. Does it mean that we all hsve to agree all the time? No, but everyone has to be able to live by the decisions being made.

---

Exactly. For example, one would hardly speak of a democracy of when the 51% majority votes to genocide the remaining 49%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Congratulations on a complete failure to read posts. I suggest you reread the last two sentences.

---

It's not my fault you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Plus your ideas are still divorced from reality, at different times some of the cleavages in society have been too big to just smooth over, whether ethnic, class, or whatever.

The reality is that a state functions best when it has a relatively homogenous population. I think its funny to see a Frenchman like Louis arguing otherwise, given the roots of republicanism with Rousseau, when he thought France at his time was far too big and diverse to function as a republic. Of course, over the centuries with centralisation etc this has changed, and IMO now the nation states of western Europe are the natural level at which the state should exist.

Anyway, the problem with democracy is that is fails to represent the nation as a whole. It almost always represents a single class, or prioritieses one ethnic group or religion or whatever over another. Given that minority rights in democracies only exist to prevent an outright tyranny of the majority, minorities will never be ideally represented in an a democracy. They will have basic rights, but they won't have a real voice.

One classic example of this today, especially in Britain, is what you see with the white working-class. Democratic institutions completely fail to represent them, because the growing middle class suffocate their voice in a democratic system. IMO we need a more direct way to represent their interests, screw democracy. If you don't like that, just remember that the vote is not really valuable in itself, it is simply a means to an end - representation. If democracy fails to deliver that, it's not serving its purpose.

IMO corporatism is the best solution, kind of going back to the three estates idea - reserve a certain number of seats for groups that would otherwise not be represented in a democratic system. Say 40% of the population are working-class, and 60% middle-class... in a democracy, the middle-classes get 100% control of the government. If they have a majority they can do what they like (besides the basic rights given to minorities). The working-class have their rights but no voice, no power in government.

The only solution is power-sharing, with the interests of all the nation being represented regardless of whether or not they are a minority. Give each an equal voice. Every individual citizens should have the same voice in the government, instead of it being reserved to one interest group just because it is composed of more individuals.

This should be complemented by the fact that the nation should be the natural level for economic life. It is very much connected with the political sphere, since all democracy does is preserve the dominance of the international capitalist elite. People might complain about basing the market on national borders, but at the end of the day they do the same with the political sphere, and all good lefties will appreciate the two have to be connected for a succesful economy. :wink: Certainly, I support a strong welfare state.

In short, national socialism ftw.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think that this post might just somehow evoke a Godwin. But no Vuk, I do not support that German political movement from the mid 20th century.

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

In fact, should a European government do such a thing, its democracy would instantly crumble, to be replaced by either a fascist dictatorship of the oppressor, or the revoluton of the oppressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

In fact, should a European government do such a thing, its democracy would instantly crumble, to be replaced by either a fascist dictatorship of the oppressor, or the revoluton of the oppressed.

---

That's utter nonsense, the Athenians were doing slavery and genocide ALL THE TIME.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Contradict? Nonsense.

Democracy means rule of the people, and that means the people, which is all of them. But does "rule" mean that you get your way in everything? Of course it doesn't! But what it does mean is that the decisions being made has to be decisions that we can all live by - which excludes stuff like genocide, slavry, etc.

---

Oh, I believe very much in the rule of the people. The problem is democracy doesn't deliver that. It gives us the rule of the biggest interest group.

As I said, if you have a mini-democracy where three guys are working-class, and four middle-class, then the four-middle class guys call all the shots based on the fact that there is one more of them. 4 of the 7 guys have all the influence. This is not the rule of all the people.

So as I said, the solution is to give representation not based on individual votes, but on group interests. Give the 3 working-class guys equal power in the government as the four middle-class guys have. It's not democratic, but it is IMO a much fairer system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And for your information, this is the way Europe is currently governed. European governments simply will not make decisions that some of its population groups cannot live with. We do not decide to kill each other. We do not outlaw or heavily oppress groups in our population like we have done in the past. While we heavily disagree with policy all the time, we have not put ourselves where parts of the population cannot live by the decisions made.

---

As I said already, there are two elements to liberal democracies - majority rule and minority rights. All minority rights do is curb the excesses of the majority rule element, to prevent genocide etc. It still does not mean the minorities have a real voice in government. It will always be impossible for them to based on the fact that they are a minority, and democracy is based in part of majority rule. It's that simple. :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

That's utter nonsense, the Athenians were doing slavery and genocide ALL THE TIME.

---

In fairness, we are talking about modern liberal democracies. The mob rule you are talking of is precisely why Aristotle labelled democracy as one of the bad forms of government. Some people today scoff at him for saying that, they don't realise he was talking about a much purer form of democracy than the liberal democracy we mean today.

And this thread is about modern liberal democracies. They are not tyrannies of the majority as you are suggesting, nor are they purely about minority rights as Louis argued. You are both obviously extremists. :tongue: The reality is it is a mix of both.

the wonderful european arrest warrant is doing sterling work convincing the people of britain that 'harmonised' governance is a great idea:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-in-limbo.html

So anyone could be summoned to, say, Bulgaria to go through their "courts" with no evidence ever produced?

Oh, the joys...

On a completely unrelated subject I'm more pleased than ever that I'm planning to become an expatriate as soon as I get a suitable job somewhere in the GCC. Yes, they have arbitrary rubber stamped justice that wouldn't stand up in the UK... but then so do we effectively.

~:smoking:

That Whore of Babylon, the instrument of Catholic oppression, the EU, has issued a DIKTAT that all European children must bow five times a day to a crucifix.


Won't somebody stop this madness? I want a referendum now!! I have never agreed to this. I signed up for a single European superstate that supresses capitalism, national sovereignty and freedom of conscience. Not to a European Theocratic Union.


Now look at the latest madness, another fatwa issued by the court of the ETU, the ECHR, to be imposed by that other instrument of Brussels, the UN security Council. Berlusconi is now magna pater Europae. The small nations have been crushed, made minnows to the Catholic supermajority.

:furious3:

Quote:

---

EU rules school crucifixes do not breach human rights

Displaying crucifixes in schools in Italy does not breach the rights of non-Catholic families, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The court ruled there was no evidence that a crucifix hung in a classroom would influence pupils.
The ruling overturned a previous decision made in November 2009, which angered the Roman Catholic country.
Friday's decision was welcomed by Italy's foreign minister as a win for European "popular sentiment".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12791082

---

The Pope u'll be chuffed to bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

That Whore of Babylon, the instrument of Catholic oppression, the EU, has issued a DIKTAT that all European children must bow five times a day to a crucifix.


Won't somebody stop this madness? I want a referendum now!! I have never agreed to this. I signed up for a single European superstate that supresses capitalism, national sovereignty and freedom of conscience. Not to a European Theocratic Union.


Now look at the latest madness, another fatwa issued by the court of the ETU, the ECHR, to be imposed by that other instrument of Brussels, the UN security Council. Berlusconi is now magna pater Europae. The small nations have been crushed, made minnows to the Catholic supermajority.

:furious3:

---

Two things:

1. This is a removal of a restriction previously imposed by the Court which was deeply unpopular in Italy and elsewere.

2. By all means, have a referendum and EU. I fully support your right to self-determination, and that of your fellow Frenchmen.

A cross has absolutely no place in a classroom whatsoever.

It is indeed a shame that the EU is unable to protect the rights of the italian civilian population, but the blame is first and foremost with the wretched leadership in Italy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

A cross has absolutely no place in a classroom whatsoever.

---

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

Hmmm.....

It, erm, it was parody. I guess the standards of my posts lately have dropped so much I have become indistinguishable from silly parody.

*worries :embarassed: *

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Hmmm.....

It, erm, it was parody. I guess the standards of my posts lately have dropped so much I have become indistinguishable from silly parody.

*worries :embarassed: *

---

You were trying to make a point though, yes?

Torygraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...U-schools.html

I can't speak for others, but I personally have trouble telling when you are being inflamatory for emphasis, and when just being silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

---

The logo of the Labour party is quite nice too, a red rose, but I still don't want it anywhere near my classroom.

Do I really have to explain why, or is it self-evident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Why?

It's just an image, and Italian crucifixes are often esepecially beautiful. Even a an atheist like yourself should be able to appreciate the potence of an image of suffering and sacrifice.

---

I fail to see the need to have images of torture displayed on classrooms for small children. What next, the potence of someone being skinned alive or perhaps having their hands cut off?

There are many more beautiful images in the world.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The logo of the Labour party is quite nice too, a red rose, but I still don't want it anywhere near my classroom.

Do I really have to explain why, or is it self-evident?

---

Political Parties are not religions or creeds. So your comparison falls flat. On the other hand, if you want to put photgraphs of great communist theorists on the walls - I see no problem with at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I fail to see the need to have images of torture displayed on classrooms for small children. What next, the potence of someone being skinned alive or perhaps having their hands cut off?

There are many more beautiful images in the world.

~:smoking:

---

That's a reasonable point to raise, but I don't think it's valid. The image is not an incitement to torture, and children (and adults) are far too insulated from the reality of the world outside a largely sanitised urban buble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

It's not my fault you contradict yourself from one sentence to the next. Plus your ideas are still divorced from reality, at different times some of the cleavages in society have been too big to just smooth over, whether ethnic, class, or whatever.

The reality is that a state functions best when it has a relatively homogenous population. I think its funny to see a Frenchman like Louis arguing otherwise, given the roots of republicanism with Rousseau, when he thought France at his time was far too big and diverse to function as a republic. Of course, over the centuries with centralisation etc this has changed, and IMO now the nation states of western Europe are the natural level at which the state should exist.

Anyway, the problem with democracy is that is fails to represent the nation as a whole. It almost always represents a single class, or prioritieses one ethnic group or religion or whatever over another. Given that minority rights in democracies only exist to prevent an outright tyranny of the majority, minorities will never be ideally represented in an a democracy. They will have basic rights, but they won't have a real voice. And our last two Viceroy's have been

One classic example of this today, especially in Britain, is what you see with the white working-class. Democratic institutions completely fail to represent them, because the growing middle class suffocate their voice in a democratic system. IMO we need a more direct way to represent their interests, screw democracy. If you don't like that, just remember that the vote is not really valuable in itself, it is simply a means to an end - representation. If democracy fails to deliver that, it's not serving its purpose.

IMO corporatism is the best solution, kind of going back to the three estates idea - reserve a certain number of seats for groups that would otherwise not be represented in a democratic system. Say 40% of the population are working-class, and 60% middle-class... in a democracy, the middle-classes get 100% control of the government. If they have a majority they can do what they like (besides the basic rights given to minorities). The working-class have their rights but no voice, no power in government.

The only solution is power-sharing, with the interests of all the nation being represented regardless of whether or not they are a minority. Give each an equal voice. Every individual citizens should have the same voice in the government, instead of it being reserved to one interest group just because it is composed of more individuals.

This should be complemented by the fact that the nation should be the natural level for economic life. It is very much connected with the political sphere, since all democracy does is preserve the dominance of the international capitalist elite. People might complain about basing the market on national borders, but at the end of the day they do the same with the political sphere, and all good lefties will appreciate the two have to be connected for a succesful economy. :wink: Certainly, I support a strong welfare state.

In short, national socialism ftw.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I think that this post might just somehow evoke a Godwin. But no Vuk, I do not support that German political movement from the mid 20th century.

---

Bollocks. Such backward 20th century ideas. Eruo egocentrism at it's finest. Just because that might be true in Britain/Scotland or even some other western European nations doesn't make it true everywhere. Look at Canada, a nation who's form of representative democratic government is copied nearly verbatim from the British model. Yet we have an entire federal party (Bloc Québécois*) dedicated to the representation of the interests of our largest ethnic minority, French catholics of Quebec. I mention Quebec specifically as there are populations of French Catholics outside Quebec in Canada. And even if you move outside the French popualtion of Canada there are MP's of most ethnic backgrounds you could find in Canada. Elected to represent ridings, in some cases, that cover ethnic communities of large cities. Or in other cases happened to be the person who chose to run in that riding. Perhaps because they were from that area. Our two previous Viceroy's were Haitian and Chinese immigrants .



* A party that I have a problem with only because of it's stated goal of destroying the country.

Political parties are not religions, no, but I see absolutely no reason why religion should be treated any different to any political party.

And come on, we all know what would happen if Labour mandated that a picture of Marx or Lenin should hang in every classroom. And no, that's not something I want in my classroom either.

In fact, everything unrelated to learning should be banned from my classroom.

Religion can be used as an indicator of cultural values. But I did note French first, as that does represent a cultural divide. Not as huge as some like to think though

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Political parties are not religions, no, but I see absolutely no reason why religion should be treated any different to any political party.

And come on, we all know what would happen if Labour mandated that a picture of Marx or Lenin should hang in every classroom. And no, that's not something I want in my classroom either.

In fact, everything unrelated to learning should be banned from my classroom.

---

Well, that's consistant. However, most people in Britian aren't Communists, like Marx, but most people in Italy are Roman Catholics.

So, it's a bit different.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well, that's consistant. However, most people in Britian aren't Communists, like Marx, but most people in Italy are Roman Catholics.

So, it's a bit different.

---

Most people in Norway are social democrats, but I don't think we should hang either the labour party logo or pictures of labour leaders in classrooms because of that. Do you?

Obrigado Portugal!

Next up Spain.

I'll give the Euro five months.

The Euro will hang on in there. What form it takes is a more interesting question.

~:smoking:

This isn't the Inevitable Euro Default thread which so far had to default on its promise of imminent doom before Christmas. (Or something like that.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

This isn't the Inevitable Euro Default thread which so far had to default on its promise of imminent doom before Christmas. (Or something like that.)

---

Thats because they had to change the rules on the bailouts like I said they would or face default, thats what the meetings in europe are all about this week.

Oh and another thing the new rules will force default or as they will call it "burden sharing" after 2013.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Bollocks. Such backward 20th century ideas. Eruo egocentrism at it's finest. Just because that might be true in Britain/Scotland or even some other western European nations doesn't make it true everywhere. Look at Canada, a nation who's form of representative democratic government is copied nearly verbatim from the British model. Yet we have an entire federal party (Bloc Québécois*) dedicated to the representation of the interests of our largest ethnic minority, French catholics of Quebec. I mention Quebec specifically as there are populations of French Catholics outside Quebec in Canada. And even if you move outside the French popualtion of Canada there are MP's of most ethnic backgrounds you could find in Canada. Elected to represent ridings, in some cases, that cover ethnic communities of large cities. Or in other cases happened to be the person who chose to run in that riding. Perhaps because they were from that area. Our two previous Viceroy's were Haitian and Chinese immigrants.

---

Wow, Trudeau would be proud. Remember how he hated nationalism so much that he thought he would be clever and create a new civic identity for all Canadians so that they would live together and not become separatists.

Of course, it turned into a new sort of pan-Canadian nationalism.

You can try to be tolerant and inclusive but you will always find that nations do not in fact function best as multicultural havens, but as solid and homogenous entities.

I present the worlds largest democracy: India.

India is not only gargantuan, it is also so multicultural its absurd. There are no less than five major religions there(plus a ton of smaller ones), the worlds five biggest I might add, but the are also so many different ethnic groups its silly.

And yet, it is both a stable and functional democracy, as well as experiencing huge economic growth. But how is such a huge country so stable? Its not through the terror China uses against its 95% Han population, but rather through equal representation in government. All the major groups, ethnic and religious, is represented. In fact, if India was to do the opposite, and let one group run the show, the country would've been disolved within weeks.

India, who was a splintered colony just over half a century ago, looks set to be one of the worlds next superpowers. And it will be a democratic and multicultural superpower.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I present the worlds largest democracy: India.

India is not only gargantuan, it is also so multicultural its absurd. There are no less than five major religions there(plus a ton of smaller ones), the worlds five biggest I might add, but the are also so many different ethnic groups its silly.

And yet, it is both a stable and functional democracy, as well as experiencing huge economic growth. But how is such a huge country so stable? Its not through the terror China uses against its 95% Han population, but rather through equal representation in government. All the major groups, ethnic and religious, is represented. In fact, if India was to do the opposite, and let one group run the show, the country would've been disolved within weeks.

India, who was a splintered colony just over half a century ago, looks set to be one of the worlds next superpowers. And it will be a democratic and multicultural superpower.

---

I raise your stable multicultural utopia with Jammu/Kashmir and throw in a Golden Temple.