democracy, is it really such a good thing?

[davepoth]

Breadvan72 said:

I wasn't disputing what Lincoln famously said; just joshing on the subject of net quotations.

I wasn't really disputing that either; it's quite a nicely written piece if you're a history nerd (as I am).

Back to the original question though - can you really have a proper democracy without a properly educated electorate? Turkeys will probably vote for Christmas if they don't know what the menu will be.

[Asterix]

davepoth said:

Breadvan72 said:

I wasn't disputing what Lincoln famously said; just joshing on the subject of net quotations.

I wasn't really disputing that either; it's quite a nicely written piece if you're a history nerd (as I am).

Back to the original question though - can you really have a proper democracy without a properly educated electorate? Turkeys will probably vote for Christmas if they don't know what the menu will be.

Problem is that in Scotland, the Turkeys were told Swan dipped in honey was on the menu.

[XJ Flyer]

Breadvan72 said:

I would describe what just happened in Scotland as a vindication of democracy rather than an indictment of it.

I would describe what happened in Scotland,just like Ireland,as showing up the inherent flaws in it.IE It's a form of dicatorship based on popular majority which can be swayed to create whatever the dominant agenda happens to be.In this case federalism.

Which then either has to be dealt with in the form of partition along local majority lines.To reflect the views of the different opposing factions where the differences are so great as to be unbridgeable.As in the example of unionism/federalism v the right to self determination leading to the partition of Ireland along Nationalist and Unionist lines thereby reflecting the wishes of the local unionist majority in the North.

Or as in this case majority rule being applied thereby leading to resentment amongst the opposing side.In which the unionist cause obviously isn't so keen on the idea of pluralism and local majority rule when it has the majority.

In addition to which the idea of democracy is wide open to immigrant populations reaching critical mass to the point of being able to overthrow a nation in order to become a colony of the immigrant communities' in question home nation.In which case it's possible to foresee a time when the this country is turned into a colony/ies of any or all of its immigrant communities all done perfectly reasonably under the democratic system.

IE democracy is a flawed outdated ideology based on pre historic Greek government.The surprising thing is how we haven't moved on from it to a system of pluralism which reflects all the different views in society and allows each to hold the same level of power in government regardless of numbers.By allowing everyone to pick and choose which different system of government and thereby legislative powers that they wish to be under and administered by.

The common link being that there is obviously a limit to how far immigration can be taken before it starts tearing apart the actual ethnic base of the nation.In which the differences become so great amongst totally alien communities as to not even be capable of solving by the idea of pluralism let alone democracy.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st September 14:18

[anonymous-user]

And so yet another thread becomes a UKIP thread. Top PH SKILLZ!

How do you achieve your ideal of pluralism? Who chooses the government?

By the way, the last time that I checked, the fifth century BC wasn't in the prehistoric era.

[XJ Flyer]

Breadvan72 said:

And so yet another thread becomes a UKIP thread. Top PH SKILLZ!

How do you achieve your ideal of pluralism? Who chooses the government?

By the way, the last time that I checked, the fifth century BC wasn't in the prehistoric era.

I don't think that UKIP have ever questioned the idea of democracy.

How can there be 'a government that needs to be chosen' as opposed to 'governments' under a 'pluralist',as opposed to a democratic,system.IE plural means more than one.

[davepoth]

I think you've misunderstood the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28politica...

[anonymous-user]

This so called pluralism sounds like some form of apartheid or the sort of thing postulated by Malcolm X and assorted white supremacists in the US*.

How do these multi governments get chosen?




* a democracy mainly composed of immigrants, BTW.

[vanordinaire]

[quote=Breadvan72 What was that about clever people again?

[/quote]
Sorry, I'll give you the dependent/dependant one, I'd missed that then I clicked the send button while editing , the last bit was meant to say 'Any suggestions would be welcome'

Some people can be too clever sometimes though.

[anonymous-user]

How do you qualify as clever? IQ is pretty meaningless.

[Scuffers]

Breadvan72 said:

How do you qualify as clever? IQ is pretty meaningless.

in the absence of another measure, <100 should be banned from voting.

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

I think you've misunderstood the concept.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluralism_%28politica...

I think you missed the bit where it rightly says the possibilities under that system are endless.

[bitchstewie]

Scuffers said:

in the absence of another measure, <100 should be banned from voting.

But they can pay taxes or fight and die for our country and that's OK?

[Tunku]

We could try a benevolent dictatorship, akin to Singapore?

[Scuffers]

bhstewie said:

Scuffers said:

in the absence of another measure, <100 should be banned from voting.

But they can pay taxes or fight and die for our country and that's OK?

actually, that's a good question...

impossible to put numbers to, but I would hazard a guess that 80% of the total income tax take is from the 100+ people...

as for die'ing, when that's a choice thing, if you don't want to, don't join up, also I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of our armed forces are in the <100 club

[XJ Flyer]

Breadvan72 said:

This so called pluralism sounds like some form of apartheid or the sort of thing postulated by Malcolm X and assorted white supremacists in the US*.

How do these multi governments get chosen?

That seems to be the typical federalist socialist view which makes democracy the dictatorship that it is and which pluralism in whatever form is needed to replace it with.IE the federalist system,when combined with democracy,views any type of difference in view point to its personal agenda as a threat that has to be dictated against not allowed to flourish alongside.

As for so called 'apartheid',in the form of recognising and partitioning a localised majority with an opposing viewpoint that's exactly the solution which the UK and Irish governments agreed to in the case of Ireland.No surprise that the federalists seemed happy enough with a pluralist solution when it suited them in that case.

As for how does a pluralist government/s get chosen.In the same way as buying something.All the different choices are already there on the shelf in which case its just a case of the different 'customers' choosing to 'buy' whichever of the different 'products' they choose to take home and live with and if the type of product they want isn't there they ask for it by ordering it/demanding it.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st September 16:31

Edited by XJ Flyer on Sunday 21st September 16:34

[bitchstewie]

Scuffers said:

actually, that's a good question...

impossible to put numbers to, but I would hazard a guess that 80% of the total income tax take is from the 100+ people...

as for die'ing, when that's a choice thing, if you don't want to, don't join up, also I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of our armed forces are in the <100 club

It wasn't intended as a slight against our armed forces, simply pointing out that vast majorities of people contribute to society either financially or in the most meaningful of ways yet somehow you're suggesting that based on IQ (and IQ is no measure of common sense IMO) they shouldn't be allowed to vote - so essentially they should just keep quiet and work and pay taxes to fund a society that they cannot help to shape in any way.

That seems a very slippery slope.

[Scuffers]

I would argue the people that do the most to shape our society has little to do with their voting record?

[bitchstewie]

Scuffers said:

I would argue the people that do the most to shape our society has little to do with their voting record?

Poor choice of words on my part, basically they should have no influence or choice in who the government is but just shut up keep working and pay their taxes because they're a bit dim intellectually?

[craigjm]

As soon as you start moving away from one person one vote you start heading towards a situation where some pigs are more equal than others and that just doesn't work. I was really impressed with the turnout in Scotland and to be honest that is the biggest problem with democracy. The number of people who just don't bother to vote is huge in many elections so you get the majority choice of a minority of electorate. Make it easier and more convenient to vote and that may increase participation. You could even go as far as making it compulsory to vote and maybe issuing a fine to those that don't. Whatever the solution is when it comes to a system based on the voice of the people the voice of the people needs to be consistently loud.

[Scuffers]

bhstewie said:

Poor choice of words on my part, basically they should have no influence or choice in who the government is but just shut up keep working and pay their taxes because they're a bit dim intellectually?

conversely, do you want your typical thick mong having an influence?