NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

maybe you should make the poll a 1-10 scale, as that is the poll title. That is more in-depth than just a yes or no

Well?

I'd say this is the political equivalent of one of those "Can we live without men" books that all the angry lesbians buy.

I'd say this is the political equivalent of one of those "Can we live without men" books that all the angry lesbians buy.

What do you mean?

What do you mean?

I mean that I think the right are important, that this question is a rather silly one and my guess is that it has been written by a leftist.

I think he means this is an obvious question. It's obvious that political rights are important, just as it is that the human race cannot survive without both genders, maybe?

I mean that I think the right are important, that this question is a rather silly one and my guess is that it has been written by a leftist.

I mean the concept of 'political rights', not the orientation of 'politically right'.

I'm asking how important it is for the citizen to take part in government.

I think they are very important, personally. Political rights provide a necessary stabilizing element to the political process and help to protect the people from abuses by their leaders and provides a recourse to remove them from power without the devastation or suffering caused by a civil war.

At the same time, they also act as a filter; political rights give people a say in the process but generally don't give the people the right to make the decisions. This helps to temper the whims of the majority, protecting against democratic tyranny but at the same time gives the people the power to shape the general outlines of what they see as desirable from the country.

Political rights help temper both extremism and irrationality along with oppression and corruption; that's why they are so important because societies without political rights often have a combination of the problems of autocracy as well as the creation of an environment conducive to extremism.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I rank them as a Yes.

I mean the concept of 'political rights', not the orientation of 'politically right'.

I'm asking how important it is for the citizen to take part in government.

Lol - My apolgies, I misread, it's very late over here and I've had a long day.

VO - first you have to explain what you take to be political rights, before we can discuss how important they are.

If there is, for example, a right to elect the judiciary - is that a political right or a legal right?

Are you referring to the right to vote, and if so, for whom - everyone? or just those that meet a certain set of criteria?

Extremely important. Human beings have the right to rule themselves and to control their lives. It follows that decisions that affect large numbers of people should be decided upon by those people. Anything else would be tyranny, and however allegedly benevolent or efficient it is, such tyranny should be abolished.

Can you guess how I voted?

humans don't have the right to anything...

in the sense of the dictionary definition "Something that is due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or nature."

by nature we have the right to nothing...if our supposed inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc.) can be taken away...that doesn't exactly make them inalienable...we can easily be murdered and imprisoned. Property can be taken away, etc.

So by that, I do not believe political rights to be important.

I think they are very important, personally. Political rights provide a necessary stabilizing element to the political process and help to protect the people from abuses by their leaders and provides a recourse to remove them from power without the devastation or suffering caused by a civil war.

At the same time, they also act as a filter; political rights give people a say in the process but generally don't give the people the right to make the decisions. This helps to temper the whims of the majority, protecting against democratic tyranny but at the same time gives the people the power to shape the general outlines of what they see as desirable from the country.


In response, think of our situation in congress for one. Can you name every single congressman or parliament member, and give an in-depth description of each and every one of their political platforms? Can you trust people to vote on issues and not a face? Yes, a good amount of political rights do allow for stabilization, but it can easily go down the toilet because people just don't care enough about their political freedoms. Because people will vote for a face, and not an issue, we've got politicians abusing their power anyway.

Eh...I forgot what else I was going to say...um...bye-a

Political rights are highly important as they help to allow people to defend their other rights from encroachment.

by nature we have the right to nothing...if our supposed inalienable rights (life, liberty, etc.) can be taken away...that doesn't exactly make them inalienable...we can easily be murdered and imprisoned. Property can be taken away, etc. To violate someone's rights is not the same as taking their rights away.

VO - first you have to explain what you take to be political rights, before we can discuss how important they are.

If there is, for example, a right to elect the judiciary - is that a political right or a legal right?

Are you referring to the right to vote, and if so, for whom - everyone? or just those that meet a certain set of criteria?

By political rights, I am referring to all rights that allow the citizen to influence or take part in his/her government. The most obvious example is the right to vote, but open access to government processes and operations, eligibility for office holding, and politically oriented speech would also apply.

The central question is whether government must be "of the people", or if it must simply be just in its actions.

1) Human beings have the right to rule themselves and to control their lives. 2) It follows that decisions that affect large numbers of people should be decided upon by those people.

First support the first statement, and then show why the second follows.

By political rights, I am referring to all rights that allow the citizen to influence or take part in his/her government. The most obvious example is the right to vote, but open access to government processes and operations, eligibility for office holding, and politically oriented speech would also apply.

The central question is whether government must be "of the people", or if it must simply be just in its actions.

The only real advantage to the democratic process is that it allows me, or people who think like me, a remote chance of becoming dictator for a period of time. Ok, two advantages: it also allows peaceful transfer of the office of dictator.

Other than that, democracy serves only to legitimize the unnecessary expansion of power and the abuse thereof. There is absolutely nothing rational or reasonable about the idea that a given person or law rules justly because 50% + 1 say so. If only one person in a given political system advocates the objectively correct position, then that person knows truth and the rest are simply wrong (no, I am not an Objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_%28Ayn_Rand%29), but, rather, an objectivist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)).

By political rights, I am referring to all rights that allow the citizen to influence or take part in his/her government. The most obvious example is the right to vote, but open access to government processes and operations, eligibility for office holding, and politically oriented speech would also apply.

The central question is whether government must be "of the people", or if it must simply be just in its actions.

On this central question: I do agree with several previous speakers. A government without a powerful limiting forces is practically guaranteed to abuse it's power. One of the strongest limiting forces on those who would seek government office is the constant threat of losing that power. Democracy provides that threat without the need for violent revolution, so I strongly support democratic rights as a concept.

People are often morons, and many of them don't deserve political rights of any kind. However, the fact that it's so hard to weed out competent from incompetent leaves providing them to all, equally, as the lesser of the evils.

On this central question: I do agree with several previous speakers. A government without a powerful limiting forces is practically guaranteed to abuse it's power. One of the strongest limiting forces on those who would seek government office is the constant threat of losing that power. Democracy provides that threat without the need for violent revolution, so I strongly support democratic rights as a concept.

I think that you are holding democratic governments to a lower standard than totalitarian governments. Just how great of a threat does a democratic government have of being tossed aside? Certainly individual office holders are accountable, but they will be replaced by someone who will be different in the most miniscule of ways.

I would say that democratic governments need catostrophic implosion to be removed, even if a large portion of the population is dissatisfied.

Ok, two advantages: it also allows peaceful transfer of the office of dictator.

This is the statement that I want to concentrate on, because even with the transfer of office, the office doesn't actually change, and the individuals filling it are almost completely interchangeable.

Certainly individual office holders are accountable, but they will be replaced by someone who will be different in the most miniscule of ways.

I would say that democratic governments need catostrophic implosion to be removed, even if a large portion of the population is dissatisfied.

Well, the threat still exists for the individual elected members. And the idea of actual change of policy is less important than the threat of change in people.

It doesn't matter to a member of one party if another party is similar to their own. As long as it's not them in power, the threat is still hanging over their head... I think that Americas two-party system is less effective than a multiparty system for this, but even for you guys there is this check on government power.