how self-evident is democracy?

**Rhyfelwyr** · 03-11-2011, 12:31

Originally Posted by Beskar

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** · 03-11-2011, 13:34

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

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** · 03-11-2011, 15:17

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** · 03-11-2011, 15:29

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 03-11-2011, 15:41

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

**Beskar** · 03-11-2011, 15:55

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

**HoreTore** · 03-11-2011, 21:02

Originally Posted by Beskar

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...