Printable View
@ Horetore
A quick look at a topographic map and then a population density map shows the fact the two big regions which agitate most for independence have a high population and they feel they are separate from the rest of Spain both culturally and physically too due to the mountains between them and Madrid.
There is both a huge mountain running through the middle of Norway and there are big populations(granted, in a Norwegian scale) on both sides with very few in-between. If what you say is true: why is Norway a country?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Because the pattern of settlement was influenced by marine factors.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Much easier to keep everyone feeling they belong in Norway if they feel connected by the sea.
There is no sea route to any of Spain's either historical or present day capitals they pretty much been inland for a long while now.
Plus the Basques and Catalans are probably more likely to oreient to a Northern power centre even if they have arguements with France part of the ancient Homelands are the other side of the Pyrennes.
Hmmmm..... So, what you're saying, is that the people living in Norway stay together because they feel they are being heard....hmmm, interesting....Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
No it absolutely has nothing to do with being heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
For example Ireland is separated by water from UK this means the ability of the UK to submerge Irish culture is vastly reduced unlike say in Wales which has a land border with England.
In the 19th century we were eventually allowed to practice our religon freely we could vote for Irish parties to be Heard the story we told them was for UK to go home. No amount of being listened too was going to stop that revolution it was inevitable when the boot was off our neck.
Britain was not going to do the kind of actual extermination war like summit from Africa they needed to stop us, yes they loosed the Tans on Ireland but in the grand scheme of things it was a dying sting of an empire who could not decide which way they should turn.
What you're describing is still the symptoms of one root cause, that of, you guessed it, not being heard. The Irish had gone several centuries without being heard at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Being heard, taken seriously and then challenged is the fundamental need all humans have to be productive in a micro level. I haven't seen any indication that it's any different on a macro level.
EDIT: Do note that I'm not being literal here.... An example of "being heard"(or seen) can be a co-worker that fills up your coffee mug in the morning just before you come in.
EDIT2: standing in the doorways, shaking hands with and welcoming every pupil into the classroom every morning is a nice and very easy way of making sure that every one of my pupils are seen.
The point is that it doesn't matter whether or not Basques are heard in Madrid, since the votes from all the other regions overrule theirs. The only way you could make the Basque voice effective is to make their vote worth more than that of other Spaniards, which would be undemocratic.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Norway works as a country because its people are united by historical factors. For Spain, that is true to a far lesser extent. The different regions feel they have different needs because of their different histories. They are just too different to work together effectively (or so they say).
What you just described is a classical example of "not being heard".Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No your still not getting it the people felt different and they were generally treated different because both side agreed we were different. Once we were allowed to properly organise we did not use this power to engage with Britain but to actively disengage.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
This was there from day one and will be still in us long after any of us on the org are dust.
The cultural, religious and the geographical factors all combined to ensure no amount of blandishments and Hearing people could stop the feeling we did not belong in this marriage together.
Britain could point to schools an civil service jobs now available to catholics they could point to reform of landlordism and they gave us the vote an new roads and rail none of it mattered the people had been awakened the game was up.
So, because the people were so different, they didn't think it was possible for them to ever be heard? So because they weren't heard, they decided to abandon the union?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
Weren't you claiming democracy was the answer? But in a democracy their vote would be vastly outnumbered.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Horetore I think I just made the point that when we were Heard the narrative we gave to London was to disengage, these other nations and cultures like Catalonia are most defo saying go home so it must be you who is not listening.
No, they are heard, and their voice is overruled. That is what happens with democracy. Your solution of more democracy does not make sense. The only way to allow the Basques to have an active role in running the affairs of Spain is to have less democracy, to allow the much smaller Basque population to have the same impact on the political system as the larger population in the rest of the country.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
....And yet, the saami in Northern Norway are vastly outnumbered in our democracy, but yet they feel that they are being heard within our democratic state? Could it perhaps be that a "democracy" can be more than just one thing?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Following from the example above, your Irish certainly haven't been treated any worse than our saami, yet we have managed the transition from master/slave to equal citizens through democracy... Do you believe in genetics? Are the Irish genetically determined to be incapable of living with other brits?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
If things happen one way, can we then conclude that was the only way it could've played out?
"Being heard" means "not being overruled". I'm not talking about just physically hearing a voice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
As I've said to Gaelic, try replacing "heard" with "seen" ~;)
Your trying to say all the British had to do was listen to us or to be seen to value our culture etc etc that was never going to work in 19th and early 20th century UK the system was set up as a monarchy we wanted a Republic.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
A quick google says the sami are what 70,000-140,000 in total across what say four countries the population of one county like my own one Mayo today is over 120,000 alone. We can safely assume the sami voice is well drowned out but several million people is not so easily brushed aside by "listening"
Also your forgetting economic factors the Sami were easily pushed aside but in Ireland once very simple things like education, freedom of religon, voting, ownership of land and security of tenure were given to the catholics we had a much greater power to change the reality to our own liking.
The answer that first springs to mind is that the Sami never had the various economic/social blabla preconditions to allow for the development of nationhood that took place in Ireland. The Sami do not have any sort of concept of the nation state as the Irish do, so being under another nation state such as Norway is not seen as a major issue to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
The Irish were not averse to rule from London (in general, obviously there were particular issues) until such preconditions were met eg a strong middle-class, the rise of nationalism etc... it was only after these that Ireland reinvented itself and created this image of it being distinct from the rest of Britain. That is what all nationalist movements do.
Well if you don't want the majority opinion of Spain as a whole to overrule the Basques then you can't support democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
If you say democracy is more than one thing, then what sort of democratic measure do you propose that will allow the Basques to have a real role in governing Spain?
No, that is not at all what I am saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy
I think you're a little to taken by the "noble savage"-myth. While of course smaller in the scale, the Saami did try armed rebellion, and even in the 70's there was a real danger of a civil war(terrorist style) up north when the dam was built in Alta. And being under norway wasn't seen as a bad thing for the saami? Ask the guys we cut the testicles off of(no more desecration of our pure christian young), they *might* disagree....Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
The opinion of the three people plus one dog living in Finnmark isn't overruled by those living in Oslo, yet we still call our system of government a democracy, don't we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
EDIT: And since when did "Democracy" start meaning "rule of the majority"? I was under the impression that it meant "rule of the people".... And "the people" means 100% of the people, doesn't it?
A question to you both(and any others):
Let's say a stranger enters your life, for example a new co-worker at work. How will you go about earning his/her trust? What measures will you take? Will you behave in a certain way?
Still, the situation with the Sami seems more akin to that of the native Americans. Kind of reminds me how Meth seems to have no problem with British or Canadian rule as such, so long as his treaty rights are respected. Such societies have a different view of sovereignty.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Aye, it does mean rule of the people, and so it only works when there is a single 'people that have a large degree of common concerns/interests, hence the importance of being a nation-state for any democracy. If the Basques argue they are a separate 'people' alongside another in the same political system, then democracy can only represent the majority 'people'.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
@ Horetore
The famine cannot be overestimated the shame of survival was so deep no one talked about it, even between family members it was blanked totally.
This leads us to my great grandfather born just after being raised in a family who lived through it, he was lucky as he was born just after but it is likely many relatives died and maybe even brother and sisters. None of this would have been talked about openly but the ruins of houses would have been everywhere to see creating a strong image for a young child.
We now have a situation where an entire society has a deep mental scar no one talks about but they also have the vote, I think you can guess where I going here
The liberalisation of property specifically of farmland ownership means his son my grandfather is raised in a relatively stable enviroment compared to any previous generation.
The infant seeds of globalisation like steamships and the telegraph allow emigrants to the USA and OZ to actually follow actual current events and even set the agenda the odd time.
For the first time London has to actually consider international implications in it's rule here and it is becoming harder to ignore the wider world more and more everyday.
The remittances home help to lift plenty of farmers sons into low level civil service jobs through proper schooling enter the Irish Parlimentary Party on the back of the Land League.
The anti-conscription movement radicalised the people and they basically rejected the IPP for Sinn Fein who incidently had reinvented themselves from Dual Monarchists to Republicans.
WW1 smashes Victorian society and bleeds white Ireland's protestant ascendancy and lastly it killed the moderate nationalist dream of Home Rule in the horror of the trenches.
My grand uncle never came home from France that was a particularly strong coffin nail in my view, his brother my Grandfather then decided to hell with this lets kick em out
None of these things in and of themselves lead to independence but taken together and driven into the enemy at the right time it can and was pretty fatal.
Gah double post
The culture of hospitality here is still largely very strong people are to be treated as friends that is pretty much a rule. Even English people are not exempt from this that is why they are easily the largest ethnic minority in the republic today.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
That would have been the situation here till the reformation or maybe a bit after even, once the English decided they had to extinguish Gaelic culture and impose things like there own idea of inheritance etc they sowed a seed that needed careful watching.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
No serious effort was made at conversion so the disenfranchised were left where they were, if you do that you have to be prepared to hold that nettle forever.
Are you saying that democracy cannot work for a diverse country like the US?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr
Or are you saying that the conservative christians in Alabama have the same interests and concerns as the african-american law student in Boston?
And, by the way, I voted 16 as voting age, because a 16 year old who knows what he's voting on is better than an adult who just votes for the one with the nicest name.
Still, restricted Platoist-like, intelligence based suffrage is the best and the state has nothing to do with 'being heard'.
The USA has a large armed forces which has been used against its own citizens when required when the voices wanting to be heard were not wanting the "right" things.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
There are probably forces which would pull the USA apart, but there are stronger one holding it together.
~:smoking:
http://pixhost.info/share/img/2006_05_1/02032246qwl.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
"What should the voting age be?"
You missed a poll option that says; whenever the state considers you to be a legally responsible adult.
Ah yes, I forgot. There has never been civil war between Brit against Brit or Norwegian against Norwegian.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Sorry then, move along here....
An interesting thing to note, however, is that the wounds from the civil war have been healed, and it did so within a democracy, even one where one part was smaller than the other.....
Hm.
Yeah, healed. The South wasn't beaten to sue for peace and aren't at all upset by it.
A "democracy" where the states can't vote to leave even if they want to as if that were to happen habeus corpus would be revoked and the state invaded.
~:smoking:
As far as I know, the people living in the states feel quite included in America.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
I haven't heard of any recent suggestions(well, any serious ones) by the south to secede, so obviously they can't feel like they did in the 1860's anymore.
Naw...
Quote:
Georgia
On April 1, 2009, the Georgia State Senate passed a resolution 43-1 that affirmed the right of states to nullify federal laws. The resolution also included the assertion that if Congress took certain steps, including restricting firearms or ammunition, the United States government would cease to exist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessi..._United_States
As soon as possible. Delaying it will mean that it doesn't become part of a person's life early enough for it to form a core life habit. Yeh what if you have more "life experience" by age 25+ (which is purely subjective and variable anyway), if people haven't been made to or been encouraged to vote at a young age they never will and they won't care two bats about the democratic process.
I would suggest that one theme here that might have some explanative power is the concept of "identity." One's sense of self has quite a few implications. For a lot of people, "nation" constitutes a significant component of that sense of identity and is, functionally, integral. Simply "being heard" does contribute to the acceptance of a decision, but will NOT suffice if being heard runs counter to one's sense of self as identified nationally or culturally.
For you, Horetore, being Norwegian is very different from the sense of Norwegian-ness that was likely applied to their own identities by, for example, your grandparents. Being part of a nation is, for you, secondary to other factors in defining your sense of self.
As to the USA:
Under the original interpretation of the Constitution, we were THESE United States and not THE United States. So cultural and tax concerns relevant to Bostonians were supposed to be the purview of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and not of the state of Mississippi precisely BECAUSE the founders felt that the best means to address the issue should be the collective decision of those affected thereby. The Federal government was the means to address international interaction and to address only those concerns that impinged upon several of the states at the same time. It was only after the arrogation of authority by the federal government that Lincoln used to win the Civil War that the USA began to emphasize the federal government over the states. The shift in power was, in retrospect, a fundamental alteration of how we did business.
Why does people feel a sense national identity? Is it not because those they share that identity with, are people they trust to respect and hear them more than people with another identity?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
But voting isn't something we want people to "just do". That the maturation between 18 and 25 is variable is irrelevant (true of any age number) and why do you say it is subjective? Are you denying that it happens or are you saying that we can't tell when it happens? But we don't need to do it on a case by case basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
Why would we want as many people to vote as possible with no eye to how thoughtful and well considered their votes are?
Because that will give you, the enlightened one, the incentitive to educate them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Maturation in a person is highly variable. I'm 20. Highly conscious of the political climate, I feel mature, whether I am or not is subjective. You question my parents, my siblings, my friends, my lecturers about how mature I am you'll get 100 different answers. Then, under your suggestion, I shouldn't be allowed to vote simply because I don't meet a "time spent on planet Earth" criteria. Whereas, some window licker aged 26 can vote, regardless of how much life experience they actually have because they've had the good fortune to have been pushed out of their mother screaming and covered in fluids a a wink and skip before I was. Cabbage. Make it simple. When you are considered a legal adult you gain the right to vote. Sure, some people are not going to make conscious decisions, or thoughtful choices, but that is the nature of the beast. Some people either a) do not care about the process, b) aren't intelligent enough to make a diligent choice or c) will vote for the populist choice. Age has nothing to do with any of that. Across any spectrum of ages you will find people who fall into those categories. A lot of it has to do with the culture of the process and the way the process is taught and educated. If you get youth involved and interested then they will be less likely to fall into those three categories, it's a simple human process of developing habits, routines and cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Because it is the best option you have. Whether at 25, 26, 57 or 89 that is precisely what many people do. They “just do” that voting thing, or they abstain completely. In (general) absence of well thought out votes the next best thing is to have as many votes as possible because that way you have a much better view of the electorate as a whole including those who do not vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
AgreedQuote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
If we dont encourage more people especially more young people to vote we will tend to get policy that protects the wealth of older people, older people generally have wealth and property and they fear it's loss so they vote to protect it and Governments oblige in return.
Look at France with underemployed graduates kept out by labour laws to protect older workers, look at America with BabyBoomer entitlements that are to be paid by the smaller young demographic yet the BabyBoomers Culture War in America prevents sensible immigration law to boost it's young population.
I dont care if you spoil your vote just go and do it.
But variability is irrelevant. I may, at less than 25 years of age, be a good voter. And a certain 26 year old may not. But a cut off age is made because it is too difficult to determine who is ready to vote, so having a cutoff age is "making it simple" as you say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Psychonaut
I don't see where you are getting that it is subjective either. Are you more mature than you were at 12, yes or no? Yes. Where is the subjectivity?
I agree. And if we develop the habit and the voting culture of "all that's important is that you are involved in the voting process" we get the result of people who think all they need to do is have an opinion on everything. I suggest that the higher age would lend itself towards a voting culture that saw voting as something that requires more thought and self questioning and education than the 18 year old age does.Quote:
When you are considered a legal adult you gain the right to vote. Sure, some people are not going to make conscious decisions, or thoughtful choices, but that is the nature of the beast. Some people either a) do not care about the process, b) aren't intelligent enough to make a diligent choice or c) will vote for the populist choice. Age has nothing to do with any of that. Across any spectrum of ages you will find people who fall into those categories. A lot of it has to do with the culture of the process and the way the process is taught and educated. If you get youth involved and interested then they will be less likely to fall into those three categories, it's a simple human process of developing habits, routines and cultures.
That's pessimistic, doesn't mean you're wrong though. But don't surveys suffice for a "better view of the electorate"? What is the distinct advantage to having 18-25 year olds represented? gaelic suggests something, but if people are just voting to serve themselves in his theory than so will young people. And if we have a culture of selfish voting, then people should have more time separate from their self voting parents before voting themselves. My argument is based on the idea that it would change people's voting styles, not just that 18 year olds make semi-blind votes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Bums on seats. In other words because surveys do not confer a political seat, they can and will be ignored: specifically because in such a scenario the opinion of 18-25 year olds would not only be a minority opinion (by definition the 18-25 year olds are a small group relatively to those aged 25 and onwards) but also a minority opinion without political clout. There already is a strong tendency to ignore the younger members of society in favour of older generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Self interest changes over time, voting for your own self interest has been done since time immemorial. It's nothing to do with living in the basement of your mum, it's everything to do with a basic question: what's in it for me?
I'm not objecting to voting in self interest per se, but to voting selfishly--i.e. in your own self interest while spiting others.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
I think it's legitimate to say that there is a loss involved with moving the age, but I have been making a case that the benefits outweigh that. Just as the benefits of having the voting age set at 18 outweigh the fact that middle schoolers are a minority with no political clout--even though they have specific issues regarding education affecting them in a big way.
And how is any voting age threshold going to change that? Specifically what makes you think the 50 somethings clinging on to an 80's sense of self-entitlement are going to become altruistic, well meaning citizens in touch with the need and tribulations of their society? How are they any better or more entitled to the vote than spoiled 20 year olds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
Or to put it bluntly: why further emphasise the power of those who led us into the current mess in the first place at the cost of those who will need to find a way out in 30 years time?
I don't think 50 something will become altruistic. And spoiled 50 year olds are not more entitled to vote than spoiled 20 year olds. My suggestion is that raising the age will have a genuine positive effect on people in that regard. I think people at 18 are much more likely to either conform to their parents beliefs (the 50 year old spoiled person in your argument) or blindly reject them. More likely than they are at 25, when they are more independent and more educated and more experienced.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios
Heh, you should only get to vote if you pay more in taxes than you collect in benefits.
But how do you make that fair? What is classified as "benefits"? What about someone who just recently lost work, do they lose their vote in the election the month after because of failure to get work?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
It is a massive grey area.
Best solution would be to make the 'benefits' for unemployment do public service, then everyone is happy. It helps people keep work active, and they are not getting money for 'nothing'.