democracy, is it really such a good thing?

[bitchstewie]

XJ Flyer said:

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.

Which other countries work like this?

Genuine question as I don't know.

[XJ Flyer]

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.

Which other countries work like this?

Genuine question as I don't know.

I'd guess that the idea is something that is still only its very early evolutionary stage from the obvious limitations and flaws which,as I've said,arguably apply in the democratic system.Its also probably predictable that such an evolution would start somewhere out of necessity.

http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article...

[davepoth]

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.

Which other countries work like this?

Genuine question as I don't know.

None, because it wouldn't work.

Let's say, following the example above I am a Muslim and upset about paying for non-halal meat being served aboard our navy's submarines. Would I be allowed to only not pay for that specific line item?

[bitchstewie]

davepoth said:

None, because it wouldn't work.

Let's say, following the example above I am a Muslim and upset about paying for non-halal meat being served aboard our navy's submarines. Would I be allowed to only not pay for that specific line item?

Never mind that, let's say you've got a really nice lawn mower and I'm upset that I can't afford one - can I just nick yours because I've opted out of the "paying for stuff" bit of society?

[XJ Flyer]

davepoth said:

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.

Which other countries work like this?

Genuine question as I don't know.

None, because it wouldn't work.

Let's say, following the example above I am a Muslim and upset about paying for non-halal meat being served aboard our navy's submarines. Would I be allowed to only not pay for that specific line item?

As I've said there is probably a point where immigration of totally alien ethnic bases makes the running of the country impossible.

In your example its probably more likely that the immigrant vote would eventually get large enough and powerful enough as to refuse to contribute to this country's defence budget at all.In preference to sending its money back to the home country in addition to calling for greater 'involvement' of the home country in the 'adopted' country's affairs.Just like the issues in Eastern Ukraine.Not under a pluralist system but under the existing democratic one.

[anonymous-user]

So is it votes are OK but not for nasty foreigners?

[XJ Flyer]

bhstewie said:

davepoth said:

None, because it wouldn't work.

Let's say, following the example above I am a Muslim and upset about paying for non-halal meat being served aboard our navy's submarines. Would I be allowed to only not pay for that specific line item?

Never mind that, let's say you've got a really nice lawn mower and I'm upset that I can't afford one - can I just nick yours because I've opted out of the "paying for stuff" bit of society?

I don't think we are talking about an opt out in regards to criminal offences like theft.On that basis there would obviously always be cross party support.If we're going to use total breakdown of civilised society as an issue in which criminality becomes an accepted societal norm then surely there's no guarantees against that under the democratic system either.

[XJ Flyer]

Breadvan72 said:

So is it votes are OK but not for nasty foreigners?

The question is what happens under either a pluralist system 'or' a democratic one when the the ethnic base of a country changes to a local or national immigrant majority.In this case a situation like Eastern Ukraine for example.

[bitchstewie]

XJ Flyer said:

I don't think we are talking about an opt out in regards to criminal offences like theft.On that basis there would obviously always be cross party support.If we're going to use total breakdown of civilised society as an issue in which criminality becomes an accepted societal norm then surely there's no guarantees against that under the democratic system either.

No I know, just the stuff you don't agree with. Happy to pay more taxes to pay for votes pretty much every day or week on these things I take it?

[XJ Flyer]

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

I don't think we are talking about an opt out in regards to criminal offences like theft.On that basis there would obviously always be cross party support.If we're going to use total breakdown of civilised society as an issue in which criminality becomes an accepted societal norm then surely there's no guarantees against that under the democratic system either.

No I know, just the stuff you don't agree with. Happy to pay more taxes to pay for votes pretty much every day or week on these things I take it?

Unlike the combined democratic and federalist system,as in the case of the Scottish independence no vote,there would be no need to 'pay for votes' because there would be no 'votes' because we would just choose which different government policy we like.

However its only criminals who'd want to opt out of laws like theft.In which case that choice would obviously be viewed just like under any other civilised system of government.

IE there's a difference between choice of reasonable government policies as opposed to anarchy.

[bitchstewie]

XJ Flyer said:

Unlike the combined democratic and federalist system,as in the case of the Scottish independence no vote,there would be no need to 'pay for votes' because there would be no 'votes' because we would just choose which different government policy we like.

However its only criminals who'd want to opt out of laws like theft.In which case that choice would obviously be viewed just like under any other civilised system of government.

IE there's a difference between choice of reasonable government policies as opposed to anarchy.

So I can choose the policies which benefit me and in turn cost the most but might also choose the one that lets me contribute the least?

[alock]

XJ Flyer said:

In this case you'd vote by choosing which rules you want to be governed by not by putting a bit of paper in a box and then having to live with someone else's choice because more people chose something different than you did.

What do you think the average person will decided when handed their tax bill for £5k+ at the end of each year?

I would chose to pay no tax and claim every benefit going just like 99% of the population. Society works because it is not a free for all. There is a common framework of rules that we all abide by and in return everyone else abuses by them.

[davepoth]

XJ Flyer said:

davepoth said:

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

I've already said that IQ is irrelevant in applying freedom of choice in government.While allowing an opt out for non believers in the global warming cause obviously also means allowing an opt in for those who do believe.Which certainly isn't a case of 'freedom when it suits'.

Which other countries work like this?

Genuine question as I don't know.

None, because it wouldn't work.

Let's say, following the example above I am a Muslim and upset about paying for non-halal meat being served aboard our navy's submarines. Would I be allowed to only not pay for that specific line item?

As I've said there is probably a point where immigration of totally alien ethnic bases makes the running of the country impossible.

In your example its probably more likely that the immigrant vote would eventually get large enough and powerful enough as to refuse to contribute to this country's defence budget at all.In preference to sending its money back to the home country in addition to calling for greater 'involvement' of the home country in the 'adopted' country's affairs.Just like the issues in Eastern Ukraine.Not under a pluralist system but under the existing democratic one.

OK, you don't like immigrants then. Change the Muslim for a Vegan. What do you do now?

[XJ Flyer]

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

Unlike the combined democratic and federalist system,as in the case of the Scottish independence no vote,there would be no need to 'pay for votes' because there would be no 'votes' because we would just choose which different government policy we like.

However its only criminals who'd want to opt out of laws like theft.In which case that choice would obviously be viewed just like under any other civilised system of government.

IE there's a difference between choice of reasonable government policies as opposed to anarchy.

So I can choose the policies which benefit me and in turn cost the most but might also choose the one that lets me contribute the least?

The relevant bit is 'the freedom to choose' which government policy you want to live under just as you can do exactly the same thing under the democratic system.The difference being that no one has the right to then remove that 'choice' just because there are a greater number who choose one policy as opposed to less people who choose another.

[XJ Flyer]

alock said:

XJ Flyer said:

In this case you'd vote by choosing which rules you want to be governed by not by putting a bit of paper in a box and then having to live with someone else's choice because more people chose something different than you did.

What do you think the average person will decided when handed their tax bill for £5k+ at the end of each year?

I would chose to pay no tax and claim every benefit going just like 99% of the population. Society works because it is not a free for all. There is a common framework of rules that we all abide by and in return everyone else abuses by them.

Exactly which political party is offering a blanket £5,000 pa tax regime let alone one which offers a zero tax and benefits free for all.

[bitchstewie]

XJ Flyer said:

The relevant bit is 'the freedom to choose' which government policy you want to live under just as you can do exactly the same thing under the democratic system.The difference being that no one has the right to then remove that 'choice' just because there are a greater number who choose one policy as opposed to less people who choose another.

So could I have the freedom to choose the policy which benefits me the most whilst having the freedom to reject the policy that costs me the most?

How would you balance the books?

[XJ Flyer]

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

The relevant bit is 'the freedom to choose' which government policy you want to live under just as you can do exactly the same thing under the democratic system.The difference being that no one has the right to then remove that 'choice' just because there are a greater number who choose one policy as opposed to less people who choose another.

So could I have the freedom to choose the policy which benefits me the most whilst having the freedom to reject the policy that costs me the most?

How would you balance the books?

The choices between all the policies of all the different parties are there anyway regardless under the democratic system.As I've said what gives anyone the right to remove the choice of which of those anyone prefers just because there are more people who choose one type of policy as opposed to less who choose another.

[otolith]

Ideas about restricting the franchise by IQ - democracy isn't about getting the "right " answer, it's about ensuring that everyone's interests are represented. Or more cynically, ensuring that everybody believes that to be the case.

Personally, I'm in favour of the democratic right to vote to go to Hell in a hand basket if that's what the electorate chooses.

[steveatesh]

There's a look at our current system of democracy at the Harrogate Agenda, promoted by Dr Richard North from EU Referendum fame;

http://harrogateagenda.org.uk

I'm not saying I agree with it but it's a different approach from the Demos part of democracy ( the people) rather than just fiddling at the margins.

I'm not sure it's democracy that is the problem at the moment, it's centralization and out of touch politicians of all political persuasions in my opinion. Maybe this post should have had a vote on it?

[davepoth]

XJ Flyer said:

bhstewie said:

XJ Flyer said:

The relevant bit is 'the freedom to choose' which government policy you want to live under just as you can do exactly the same thing under the democratic system.The difference being that no one has the right to then remove that 'choice' just because there are a greater number who choose one policy as opposed to less people who choose another.

So could I have the freedom to choose the policy which benefits me the most whilst having the freedom to reject the policy that costs me the most?

How would you balance the books?

The choices between all the policies of all the different parties are there anyway regardless under the democratic system.As I've said what gives anyone the right to remove the choice of which of those anyone prefers just because there are more people who choose one type of policy as opposed to less who choose another.

Because the alternative is anarchy, and then whoever has the biggest stick will get their way.