how self-evident is democracy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

It's not just them getting attention though, there have been one or two slip-ups but nothing that should account fro polling 5% in a bi-election, behind the BNP. They are being hammered because their "party" supporters can't see the Tories as anything other than evil, remember that clod who tore up his membership card on national TV? The public should be lauding Nick Clegg for political heroism, but instead they're throwing rotten vegitables.

This is our democracy in action; Winnie was right.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The Lib Dem party supporters are not economic liberals of the same mold as the Tories are. Big Society is precisely what they do not want. Tuition fee hikes is what they do not want. Trident is what they do not want. So tell me again, why should these people feel that Nick Clegg is doing a terrific heroic job when the issues that they care about they get what they do not want?

Nick Clegg simply isn't doing the job he was elected to do (push through Lib dem views), and the proper response is to mark him down on it by way of the ballot.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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"?

You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does. You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.
Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.

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.

I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

[rory_20_uk]

You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does. You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.
Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.


I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

American Civil War shows what happens when people try to gain their freedom - destruction and transient suspension of habeus corpus. Pretend that things are different over there, but your government is as immovable as ours.

[a completely inoffensive name]

American Civil War shows what happens when people try to gain their freedom - destruction and transient suspension of habeus corpus. Pretend that things are different over there, but your government is as immovable as ours.

Habeus Corpus as written in the Constitution is allowed to be revoked during times of rebellion/insurrection. So your point there fails. Secondly, "gaining their freedom"? That's disgusting man. They rebelled so they could continue to whip slaves to pick cotton for them. If it was a real case of systematic government tyranny, the public would have been more united in their opposition against the government. The bottom line about the Civil War was that it wasn't an insurrection against the government, it was a cultural divide among the populace itself that manifested itself politically and then militarily.

Learn American history, and read about how the Civil War might as well have started with Bleeding Kansas when the public was already slaughtering each other with no governmental forces involved whatsoever.

[Rhyfelwyr]

You have no right. You can't own guns and you have no written constitution that indicates "If the government is being bad, go ahead and overthrow it." like the US does.

Again, you make it sound like the government chooses what rights it grants me. It's the other way around, I choose what powers I give to the government. I do not need the government to tell me I can overthrow it in order to know I have the right to overthrow it.

You have Queen and country and in order to have a "right" to overthrow you basically have to assert it out of nowhere and hope that a backing of a majority of the populace will give credit to it. Otherwise your revolution fails and you are a traitor not a freedom fighter.

Well if we're talking more in theoretical terms, the Queen would simply step down when told by the people that they no longer wish her to govern them, she is their vassal after all. If she refuses to, you fight it out, I don't see how that is any different from what you do when faced with a tyrant.

Your birthright is a joke, you think you are special for having been born on the Isles? I have all the same freedom you do and there is a legal precedent to change things as well if I don't feel like murdering soldiers and citizens who happen to be collateral damage in my path towards dismantling a government.

Don't forget where your own political traditions came from (aimed at the bit in bold)! Anyway, you do not have all the freedom I do, for the reasons stated below...

I'm sorry, did you elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Btw, I asked what is your sovereignty, not hyperbole about sovereignty.

Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

The problem the American and French visions of government is that they see government as being natural, and so comes the whole idea of the social contract that people are just born into, with the superiority of their liberal democracies being seen, as the OP implies, as being "self-evident".

While you see such government as being natural (the whole US Constitutions is shrouded in the language of natural law after all), I see it, in the words of Rutherford, as being "artificial and positive". Why? Because "the way and manner of government is voluntary" (all this is from 'Lex Rex' btw). As such, the people as a whole choose what form of government to place themselves under, be it a democracy, a monarchy, or whatever.

Since my government is artificial, I may remove it at any time. On the other hand, while you may remove particular individuals or parties from power, you cannot lawfully rise up against your own political system, since there is some concept of it being the natural and just government for all mankind, which everyone assents to on merit of being born into it! This is clearly a terrible tyranny, and limits everyones political freedoms within the boundaries of what some people decided are determined by 'natural law'.

As for what I mean by sovereignty, look it up, its a common term in political theory. It is a loftier ideal, its not concerned with who is able to control a territory by force. It is about who has the moral right to rule a territory. As I said earlier, in the Rousseauean tradition which influenced France/the US, people are considered to have signed away their sovereignty to their rulers through the social contract, when they elect them over them to govern in their good. However, in the British tradition going back to the 17th century, sovereignty is considered to remain with the people even when they elect rulers over them. This gives me the moral right to demand that Elizabeth II steps down as soon as I don't like her or her government. You, on the other hand, are obliged to slavishly follow your rulers so long as they rule within the powers you delegated to them.

[Beskar]

Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

I didn't. I am highly opposed to it.

[Cute Wolf]

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.

ultimately this is the truth, all who live in a shady "democratic" country knows that monarchy will give something that politicians can't ruin easily

if not because politician's activities are blame their oppositions and vice versa

[The Stranger]

I didn't. I am highly opposed to it.

but in that case neither did the people as whole in a democratic country have chosen to be governed by a democratic system, because there there are also individuals who are opposed to it.

also should we be looking at ideal forms of government? or at the form of government which thrives best in "reality". should we change the people to suit the government or should the government adapt to the people?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Beskar]

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

[HoreTore]

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...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Again, you make it sound like the government chooses what rights it grants me. It's the other way around, I choose what powers I give to the government. I do not need the government to tell me I can overthrow it in order to know I have the right to overthrow it.

I don't recall saying the government chooses my rights. The difference between my gov and yours is that the early US politicians felt that the natural rights that we all have (including overthrowing a tyrannical government) should also be enshrined in the legal construction of the government itself to prevent any abuses of those rights. I think I see a miscommunication.

Excuse me when I said "You have no right." I meant to say, "You have no legal right, but I do, which means that your assertion that your sovereignty is somehow greater than mine is false."

Well if we're talking more in theoretical terms, the Queen would simply step down when told by the people that they no longer wish her to govern them, she is their vassal after all. If she refuses to, you fight it out, I don't see how that is any different from what you do when faced with a tyrant.

Here the emphasis is on a national pride in the rule of law where when a separation of powers is implemented you won't find yourself in a situation where a "tyrant" will hold out against the will of the people. If a president decides to not step down, he is going to be gone pretty soon because theoretically (since this hasn't happened before) his opposing faction and the opposing branches of government are still loyal to the oath of the Constitution and not themselves or another man.

Don't forget where your own political traditions came from (aimed at the bit in bold)! Anyway, you do not have all the freedom I do, for the reasons stated below...

Why should I care where (geographically) my political traditions came from? I respect the men who thought of them but I am not so Eurocentric as to think that these ideas would have never formed but in the minds of Brits and Greeks before them.

Did I elect Elizabeth II into her royalty? Actually, I did. Well not personally, but the people as a whole chose to be governed by monarchs.

The problem the American and French visions of government is that they see government as being natural, and so comes the whole idea of the social contract that people are just born into, with the superiority of their liberal democracies being seen, as the OP implies, as being "self-evident".

While you see such government as being natural (the whole US Constitutions is shrouded in the language of natural law after all), I see it, in the words of Rutherford, as being "artificial and positive". Why? Because "the way and manner of government is voluntary" (all this is from 'Lex Rex' btw). As such, the people as a whole choose what form of government to place themselves under, be it a democracy, a monarchy, or whatever.

Since my government is artificial, I may remove it at any time. On the other hand, while you may remove particular individuals or parties from power, you cannot lawfully rise up against your own political system, since there is some concept of it being the natural and just government for all mankind, which everyone assents to on merit of being born into it! This is clearly a terrible tyranny, and limits everyones political freedoms within the boundaries of what some people decided are determined by 'natural law'.

As for what I mean by sovereignty, look it up, its a common term in political theory. It is a loftier ideal, its not concerned with who is able to control a territory by force. It is about who has the moral right to rule a territory. As I said earlier, in the Rousseauean tradition which influenced France/the US, people are considered to have signed away their sovereignty to their rulers through the social contract, when they elect them over them to govern in their good. However, in the British tradition going back to the 17th century, sovereignty is considered to remain with the people even when they elect rulers over them. This gives me the moral right to demand that Elizabeth II steps down as soon as I don't like her or her government. You, on the other hand, are obliged to slavishly follow your rulers so long as they rule within the powers you delegated to them.

How is government not natural? A government is a social construction characterized by an organization in leadership among a populace. There have been "governments" since before civilization. A leader of a tribe is a dictator when everyone follows his word. Tribes that decided collectively to chase the wildlife across the Bering Strait from Asia into North America were proto democratic I guess you could say. I am very weak when it comes to biology but I can't recall a single species that contains a capacity for social interaction and doesn't show signs or notions of very basic leadership among members within that species. The more complex the social interaction, the more complex the leaderships become culminating in humans which have the most capacity for inter species interaction, highlighting a tremendous capability for various methods of leadership structures.

No government is artificial, only the method in which it is implemented. Government itself is natural and will always occur. I'm sorry if I have offended any anarchists out there.

To be fair I can completely see your point of the social contract being tyrannical, but you still have a few things wrong imo (I'm not super knowledgeable in political theory, I'm a chemist). The whole point of leadership of any sort is a submission of a person to another person (to a degree). Complete sovereignty of a public with a lack of the rule of law (in the way you describe it) would make for an ill society and a weak country. It is a mob rule, because if the government has no authority to stem the tide of public backlash, then the government cannot even function properly. If the citizens of Wisconsin simply decided to burn down the state capital and hang all the politicians, would this really be a good idea? Absolutely not. Even if 99% of them disagreed to the bill proposed, the goal is to follow the rule of law and respect the authority to which the representatives were granted and then kick them out at the next legal opportunity.

Secondly, I am not obliged to slavishly follow my rulers so long as they rule within the power I delegated to them. Let's not talk bull here, in the US the sentiment that you can overthrow the government anytime you want even if they are following "the rules" is alive and well. If we are going to start talking about anti-government sentiment between the US and the UK I'm not afraid to whip out my long list of right and left wing militias within the US and compare it to yours. However, from my understanding of early US philosophy (that the framers followed), it was important that such actions should not be the main tool for instituting a change in government, which I think was the whole point of the structure of the government. Great Britain allowed an elected parliament but the king was still the king no matter what.

But whatever, I recognize I am not as well read on the subject as you are (I have not read "Lex Rex"), but don't make a silly assertion that US citizens are more complacent with tyranny or undergo more tyranny than you do. This isn't some extreme comparison of Ghadaffi and Washington here.

[Greyblades]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

If you read my argument, I don't necessarily think that government is only present in mankind, ours is just more advanced, more complex.

[The Stranger]

ideally, shouldnt the master selcet his own heir? he knows the job the best and should know who is best suited for the job. i know that inreality this will lead to corruption and friends first kinda things, but everything has flaws in reality.

[Viking]

He might recognise people that would rule somewhat like he did; but whether he chooses the one who is "best" suited for the job, means we first need to establish what is the "best" society or rule.

It is also clear that, even when establishing the fact that the present ruler and his ways are "decent", there may still be even better ways to rule.

[Greyblades]

If you read my argument, I don't necessarily think that government is only present in mankind, ours is just more advanced, more complex.

Hmph If it took the time to read every wall of text I see on this board insted of skimming it I'd be stuck here untill the next ice age.

[Viking]

Artificial means not of nature and most people consider man-made things not of nature, seeing as a goverment is man made I think it's a safe bet governments are artificial.

If humans are of nature, then all their creations are of nature. If humans are not of nature, then none of their creations will be of nature anyway, leaving the talk of "natural" human aspects as mere drivel. QED.

It might thus seem more fruitful to talk about the inherency of government; in the sense of its probability to occur.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If humans are of nature, then all their creations are of nature. If humans are not of nature, then none of their creations will be of nature anyway, leaving the talk of "natural" human aspects as mere drivel. QED.

It might thus seem more fruitful to talk about the inherency of government; in the sense of its probability to occur.

When people use that term in political theory I think they mean "natural to the human condition". So probably the same thing as what you said with it being "inherent".

Anyway, I'll reply later ACIN, this debate is getting too big!

[gaelic cowboy]

Primates display traits of politics in how they manage there troops in the jungle so therefore I would say government is of Nature.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Primates display traits of politics in how they manage there troops in the jungle so therefore I would say government is of Nature.

So would Samuel Rutherford:

"We teach that government is natural, not voluntary; but the way and manner of government is voluntary".

The problem is the US/French tradition makes it out like their liberal democracies are the only natural form of government, the one tailed to man's natural rights. As such, anything else is an abberation. On the other hand I say like Rutherford that the manner of government is voluntary, and like a true free man, can choose any one I like.

The US/France social contract/natural rights view is pretty stupid IMO. The fact is their liberal democracy that they see as being the only "natural" form of government never really existed before the 17th-century. Of course, at the time they thought otherwise, because they believed the mythology of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution.

As for whether government is natural or not, it is hard to tell how much is natural to the human condition, and how much is created by socio/political/economic structures etc. Cicero was certainly wrong in saying early humans had no connections with each other, but Aristotle may be closest to the mark is saying early man was a social, rather than a political, creature.

I mean, when you are talking about primates etc, we are talking about maybe a head alpha male that governs through personal relations. It comes more under social relations like with man as the head of the family that Aristotle talked about. It's a different matter from political leaders that rule through institutions etc, that seems less natural and I'm not sure if I would say it is inherent to mankind to live that way.

[Pannonian]

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.

Can we have a poll please?

[The Stranger]

He might recognise people that would rule somewhat like he did; but whether he chooses the one who is "best" suited for the job, means we first need to establish what is the "best" society or rule.

It is also clear that, even when establishing the fact that the present ruler and his ways are "decent", there may still be even better ways to rule.

but the same thing can be said about democracy. and while we keep electing people to represent people no real thought is given by the people of how we can improve the "system"

[Viking]

Well, I have not actually uttered anything in defence of democracy; only countering your point.

[rory_20_uk]

but the same thing can be said about democracy. and while we keep electing people to represent people no real thought is given by the people of how we can improve the "system"

Have you see Yes Prime Minister "Power to the People"?

The system is designed to serve itself. Protests might get some minor changes at the edges, but nothing to alter what it does.