Printable View
And we can always hope for a democratic leader as effective as an enlightened absolutist. There's nothing about monarchy that means only the competent will rule. All it means is that when a good leader comes to power he rules longer then he would in a democracy. Sadly, the same applies to bad rulers as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Actually in a Democracy without term limits (Which is to say most Western Democracies) a good ruler can keep on ruling for as long as he remains a good ruler and wishes to keep the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
But the difference is under a Democracy if I do not believe there is a good candidate - I can run for the purposes of changing that. If people are happy with the competence of the candidates they have then I won't be elected - the point then becomes that my view of competency may not be shared by everyone. Thus the majority wins out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Originally we were talking about the freedom, this democracy where I live just made another step towards curbing my freedomsby censoring access to childporn on the internet, the majority even seems to support this and there is at least one guy who wants to exploit it by extending the censorship to websites for "killergames" now that we have our first internet censorship law...Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Now maybe my view of freedom is not shared by everyone and maybe I'll have to accept running around in shackles in a prison as freedom some day because the majority will think that's the best form of freedom. ~:rolleyes:
Which is why freedom should have protection against a 'tyranny of the majority' in any real Democracy. That is why the court system and a bill of rights are supposed to exist (Still no Bill of Rights here... *mumble* *mumble*).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
I'm talking about the fact that the majority has a tendency not to mind any curbing of their own freedom as long as they have their daily dose of talkshows or whatever entertainment they prefer.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
If you had a benevolent dictator, he might just come up with a bill of rights. :laugh4:
We don't need a bill of rights. Our current system mightn't be perfect, but it's pretty bloody good. There is no point of change for the sake of change. Why risk messing up a system that already works well? In what way do you feel that your freedom is threatened?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Anywho, in a democracy, if we get a good leading party we keep re-electing them and if we get a bunch of tossers we shaft them at the next election. If enough people don't like the current system it is reletively simple to change it, well, there's always the red tape and :daisy: to get through but compared to any form of dictatorship it is rather simple.
Except history shows that all monarchies will eventually have a weak ruler and when that happens the whole country goes down. Even the "good" ones may pull the country down in the longterm. For example, France. You have Louis XIV, who's egotism plunged France into debt. As time went by in the 18th century the situation kept worsening until it the whole country crashed down with Louis XVI and the French Revolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Alternatively there is the option of a constitutional republic. Like Churchill said we don't chose democracy because its the best, we chose it because all the other options are worse.
My rights aren't at risk - I am a part of the white, wealthy majority. I am not concerned for my rights - It is the rights of other people that I am concerned for, whic have no constitutional protection. We are only protected as long as at least one major party in parliament is willing to stand up for us or it is covered under Common Law. Here is one educated opinion on the matter of a Bill of Rights:Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
"The common law system, supplemented as it presently is by statutes designed to protect fundamental human rights, does not protect fundamental rights as comprehensively as do constitutional guarantees and conventions on human rights"- 1986 - Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, Sir Anthony Mason
There are numerous other Constitutional changes that we need, but this is the second most important (Right after the Republic...).
:shocked: You want a republic!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
Are one of those who wants a republic system that is basically identical to the system we have now or one of those ones who wants a complete overhaul of our current system. In the first case I would argue that it will be exactly the same, so why bother. And in the second case... ARE YOU NUTS!?!?!? You would have the final authority in the land be a *shudders* politician?
Sure, the governor general will only remain the head of state so long as she doesn't actually try to run the country (yeah I know, us Aussies are weird :sweatdrop:) but its a hell of a lot better that the head of state being a bloody pollie.
Historically, there have been at least two republics that turned into dictatorships, Rome and Weimar, a republic isn't a guarantee for anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Winter
I want an elected representative at the head of my country. I trust myself to choose the right person. On the other hand I do not trust politicians to post the most competent person to the job...Quote:
Originally Posted by miotas
This is as bad as banning books. If I were to write a letter to those ministers, I would remind them that Germany has a history of banning books that lasted until 1989 (remember the GDR) and that banning video games is merely an extension of same in cyberspace.
Why isn't there a protest movement burning games (if only in effigy) on the steps of the various Landesparlamente? Big palls of smoke and cries of 'Grand Theft Auto, I commend thee to the flames' would rattle some brains at least.
Two things:Quote:
nd we can always have a good monarch who raises his kids well or a good dictator who makes a wise choice as to who shall be his successor. There is nothing about democracy that means there will be a competent candidate at all. All it means is that a bunch of easily influencable people will vote on who promises them the most.
1 - As far as I know, most authoritarian monarchies (as in 'power belongs to the king') ain't doing very well at the moment. The cambodian royal family is a joke, Nepal faced several murders among members of the royal family and a revolution caused by incompetence, most african kingdoms turned into orwellian playgrounds for their leaders, and I'm not even talking about Saudi Arabia and other arabian monarchies.
2 - A republic works according to a few assumptions. Firstly, people who play a role in politics (vote, chose, rule, whatever) are supposed to be enlightened. Note that this might only concern a few elites or the whole nation.
Now, this assumption is clearly misled in the case of a liberal democracy. Though you can expect a council of nobles or the richest and upper class of citizens to be somewhat educated, the same cannot be said about a nation composed of million of people with various sociological backgrounds.
Secondly, a republic assume that people who are concerned by politics can change things by gaining power. If you think the leader is an absolute moron, you can try to 'overthrow' him through peaceful means. You think all candidates are incompetent? Then make your own party and try to get elected.
(Of course that's only a theory, Joe the plumber could hardly create a party and get elected. But in the case he somehow finds a way to do it, nobody will prevent him from doing so - In short, I prefer a theory that allows for change over one that does not).
Even though most people don't know their belly buttons from a hole in the ground, they recognize a moron when they see one and will vote him out of office. Put in less raucous terms: most citizens are unable to govern a country, yet they are the only ones who can legitimately appoint others to do it for them. Anyone who challenges this principle is hereby invited to take a one-way ticket to Tehran and gather some vox pop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Meneldil