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.
how self-evident is democracy?
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.
We do not sow.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.Originally Posted by The Stranger
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
Supremacy with respect to what? Many people today probably see democracy as an end in itself, not a means to an end.
Runes for good luck:
[1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
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.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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
There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford
My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.
I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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...
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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...
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
We do not sow.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
....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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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?
Last edited by The Stranger; 03-09-2011 at 19:56.
We do not sow.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
Still maintain that crying on the pitch should warrant a 3 match ban
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.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.
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.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.
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 monarchyTry 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"!
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
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 03-09-2011 at 20:50.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
Supreme Court members can be impeached. This is in the Constitution and there is nothing the Supreme Court can do about that.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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!
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.
Indeed, there's nothing worse than an absolute monarch!
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.
Read my posts more carefully please. I am a republican (with a small 'r', before gaelic gets too excited)
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.
Last edited by Rhyfelwyr; 03-09-2011 at 22:08.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
hmm I cant think where it was someone actually did that, and they ended up in a Union or summit
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.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.
Gimme some one who has a bit of fear of his electorate any day
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 03-10-2011 at 02:33.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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?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.
Wtf is your sovereignty when you have no say in your government besides how big you gun/sword is?Read my posts more carefully please. I am a republican (with a small 'r', before gaelic gets too excited)
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.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?
Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity Recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
"If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."
[IMG]https://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4917/logoromans23pd.jpg[/IMG]
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
lol. Well I'm not going to defend imperialism, since it goes against everything I'm arguing for here.hmm I cant think where it was someone actually did that, and they ended up in a Union or summit
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"?
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.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 03-10-2011 at 15:56.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
An enemy that wishes to die for their country is the best sort to face - you both have the same aim in mind.
Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings.
"If you can't trust the local kleptocrat whom you installed by force and prop up with billions of annual dollars, who can you trust?" Lemur
If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.
The best argument against democracy is a five minute talk with the average voter. Winston Churchill
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.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.
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.
Last edited by gaelic cowboy; 03-10-2011 at 16:17.
They slew him with poison afaid to meet him with the steel
a gallant son of eireann was Owen Roe o'Neill.
Internet is a bad place for info Gaelic Cowboy
Re: how self-evident is democracy?
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.
At the end of the day politics is just trash compared to the Gospel.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks