NationStates Jolt Archive

This is a sort of political theory thread, where I was hoping we could discuss a few possible forms of democracy besides those widely in practice, go over their merits and flaws, and so on.

I'll throw out the first one: Pyramid-style democracy. In this, every 10,000 people (that number can be changed, but should be small enough that a representative can actually meet with most of their constituency.) elect a representative. These representatives vote on referendum style legislation and elect the next tier of government, by county. This proceeds up the line, by province, and then by region, until you reach the highest tier, with 4 or 5 representatives who must agree on immediate courses of action and who set the majority of policy.

Elections divided into regions are unfair, someone who gets 51% of the votes in 51% of the regions wins with only 26% of the votes (which equals support from what, 13-18% of the population?). Someone who gets 49% of the votes in all states will count as having gotten 0 votes. While those are the most extreme numbers it does show that there is a lot of room for unrepresentative results.

If you elect a representative that in turn votes on your behalf in an election it gets even worse in theory as the representative could vote for someone else then promised. But in reality this should be rare as the representative would lose all credibility by doing so.

However, in the past before people could read or drive cars that system while unfair would at least be more realistic then trying to organize a modern election. You'd have to split up the nation into areas small enough that the people can travel to a common meeting and back on foot (unless you're sure everyone can afford horses) in a day. Each meeting would only be able to send one or a few representative(s) on the long journey to a central meeting in another part of the country. Exactly what you said.



How about Diggocracy. Anyone can post a proposal/petition on a government web site. If some people dig the proposal it ends up on the front page of the government website for a while. If enough people dig it it's a yes, if enough people bury it it's a no.

Holy carp I was just thinking about this idea.

well November 5th coming up so how about we blow up parliament and have a more natural form of democracy ;)

There's the kind where people resort to violence: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/south_asia/7051804.stm

There's the kind where people resort to violence

pfft there is so much money in terrorism they practically buy the fear

True democracy is about harmony and mutual cooperation, not petty competition, people like Plato and Aristotle knew this, they knew that a 'two camps' state would eventually divide itself. 'Liberal' and 'Democracy' are two contradicting terms when used together, liberalism is about the individual and it's exclusive selfish rights, while democracy is about the entirety of the community as one, working towards unity.

True democracy is about harmony and mutual cooperation, not petty competition, people like Plato and Aristotle knew this, they knew that a 'two camps' state would eventually divide itself. 'Liberal' and 'Democracy' are two contradicting terms when used together, liberalism is about the individual and it's exclusive selfish rights, while democracy is about the entirety of the community as one, working towards unity.

Exactly.

And of the two, liberalism is infinitely morally superior.

Fascism. The next best thing.

Exactly.

And of the two, liberalism is infinitely morally superior.

In your opinion. See, that's a phrase that really should be in a lot of your posts, Charlie Brown, because you constantly act as if you're God or something else that DECIDES and act as if your word is law, when it's simply your opinion.

Frankly though I would like to combine the individual and the community. Yes, the community is important, but so is the individual. A proper blending must be achieved, I think.

liberalism is about the individual and it's exclusive selfish rights

Only when "liberalism" is an excuse for power over others.

Ridiculously enough, you're adopting the false dichotomy of your opponents. Real equality is impossible without individual freedom, and democracy is incomplete and violates its own principles without it.

Only when "liberalism" is an excuse for power over others.

Ridiculously enough, you're adopting the false dichotomy of your opponents. Real equality is impossible without individual freedom, and democracy is incomplete and violates its own principles without it.

Indeed. However, I would say that the proper balance between the individual and the community has yet to be fully achieved, at least in the United States. Both sides ignore many of their responsibilities and duties...the individual their responsibility to vote effectively, and the community's responsibility to fulfill the obligations of that vote is just one example.

I think the basic Westminster parliamentary system isn't even that bad, if it wasn't for political parties.

If we were to just vote for our local guy who then presents our local view on issues, that doesn't seem that bad. It's just that the guy we elect doesn't do that - he simply toes a party line decided by people we didn't elect to decide it.

I think the basic Westminster parliamentary system isn't even that bad, if it wasn't for political parties.

If we were to just vote for our local guy who then presents our local view on issues, that doesn't seem that bad. It's just that the guy we elect doesn't do that - he simply toes a party line decided by people we didn't elect to decide it.
So would you advise dissolving political parties entirely in favor of full Independent MPs?

In your opinion.
No, it's not.

Nothing is ever a matter of opinion.

That liberalism is infinitely morally superior to democracy is an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

See, that's a phrase that really should be in a lot of your posts, Charlie Brown, because you constantly act as if you're God or something else that DECIDES and act as if your word is law

No, I don't.

I have never said "I say it's true; therefore, it's true."

It would still be true even if I totally rejected it. That's what "objective" means.

I simply choose to ACCEPT its truth; its truth is inherent to the Universe. It is something I have discovered, not something I have dictated.

Only when "liberalism" is an excuse for power over others.

Ridiculously enough, you're adopting the false dichotomy of your opponents. Real equality is impossible without individual freedom, and democracy is incomplete and violates its own principles without it.

No, real equality is impossible without economic equality.

So would you advise dissolving political parties entirely in favor of full Independent MPs?
Yeah. There might be some kinks to be ironed out in the process, and the powers of the head of government would probably have to be significantly reduced in favour of the parliament and some (directly elected?) head of state, but that way parliament would be much more directly answerable to the public.

No, it's not.

Nothing is ever a matter of opinion.

That liberalism is infinitely morally superior to democracy is an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.



No, I don't.

I have never said "I say it's true; therefore, it's true."

It would still be true even if I totally rejected it. That's what "objective" means.

I simply choose to ACCEPT its truth; its truth is inherent to the Universe. It is something I have discovered, not something I have dictated.
Bull. Shit.

You keep claiming this "principles of the Universe" crap but you never prove where it comes from. What makes you the arbiter of the "universe"? How have you come to know these ideals as somehow being applicable to the entire Universe? What makes you think they are actually applicable to the entire Universe and not just your opinion?

Yeah. There might be some kinks to be ironed out in the process, and the powers of the head of government would probably have to be significantly reduced in favour of the parliament and some (directly elected?) head of state, but that way parliament would be much more directly answerable to the public.

Indeed. Question is...how would we achieve such a system? I really don't think any political party is going to go for that idea.

No, real equality is impossible without economic equality.

The two are not mutually exclusive. To a certain degree they are mutually reinforcing.

Again, you're adopting the false dichotomy of your opponents. I don't know why--it only makes you sound absurd and authoritarian.

I think the basic Westminster parliamentary system isn't even that bad, if it wasn't for political parties.

If we were to just vote for our local guy who then presents our local view on issues, that doesn't seem that bad. It's just that the guy we elect doesn't do that - he simply toes a party line decided by people we didn't elect to decide it.

How can one get rid of political parties without destroying liberty? Even if parties aren't given official sanction it would seem likely that people would band together under some organization to increase the likelihood of achieving their aims. Eventually most election winners will come from these voluntary organizations.

Theirs also the problem of special interests and the coherency of law. Strong parties insulate individual MPs from interest groups of their districts, of course at the party level it cements national interest groups. I'm unsure which is worse, hmmmmm...

With MPs being individually accountable to their district rather than collectively accountable to the nation as a whole their is little incentive to make effective coherent legislation unless the effects of said legislation are immediate and visible. Or in other words if legislation os poorly created its someone else's fault.

Nothing is ever a matter of opinion.

Since I think the kids are ready for it now...
Um...?

How can one get rid of political parties without destroying liberty? Even if parties aren't given official sanction it would seem likely that people would band together under some organization to increase the likelihood of achieving their aims. Eventually most election winners will come from these voluntary organizations.
Unfortunately. All I know is that right now I've got "Michael Johnson" sending me letters about voting for him, and there is not one concrete thing he can do for me. All his letter talks about is Howard's policies, because Michael Johnson can't do jack but do whatever Howard tells him.

What's the point of a parliament if all we do with it is pick some authoritarian guy who can rule unimpeded for the entire term? I mean we have "debates" in parliament that are nothing but people shouting abuse at one another for a little while and then everyone votes like their party tells them to. The outcome is already a given, in effect it's just a stage performance.

I seem to recall that back in the 18th and early 19th century British MPs actually debated things, actually tried to convince one another and establish facts to try and make good policy for their constituents. We have lost that, and I think it's got to do with party politics.

With MPs being individually accountable to their district rather than collectively accountable to the nation as a whole their is little incentive to make effective coherent legislation unless the effects of said legislation are immediate and visible. Or in other words if legislation os poorly created its someone else's fault.
Well, what do I get if they're accountable to "the nation"? I'm not voting for the nation, I'm voting for myself. That's the way democracy is meant to prevent me from being ruled with an iron fist.

But the conflicts may be there, I admit as much. That's why, I guess, we'd elect smart people as our MPs who can balance one with the other.

The two are not mutually exclusive. To a certain degree they are mutually reinforcing.

Again, you're adopting the false dichotomy of your opponents. I don't know why--it only makes you sound absurd and authoritarian.

Know idea what your point is, but my point is that individual liberty at it's most literal interpretation is completely in contradiction to the principles of egalitarianism embodied in universal suffrage. To start off, total individual freedom requires total independence from need, because the moment you need someone you do not have, you are immediately beholden to those who can exchange you this need, and they can exploit the situation for their own gains, in short 'in need, freedom is latent'.

This of course point to that we live in an exchange society, social capital if you, if based on time-served, and your labor exchange values (measured in legal tender) can be exchanged at various rates. A 'society' is based on everything we have in 'common', if we had nothing in common, we wouldn't be a society, we would be divided essentially between the 'haves' and have nots'.

True libertarianism, that is total freedom and independence from a outside force regulating the social obligatory contract, within the context of an 'interdependent' exchange economy, would result in elites gaining control of the means of production and real economic and political power, because they can exploit the exchange economy to make everyone beholden to the, they become the monopoly. So libertarianism creates elites not out of intention, but because of the realities and practical effect.

So basically, to keep society intact, that is to make sure we continue to all have 'common' aspects, we need a outside force, ie a central government, to ensure the social exchange is not manipulated by anti-social forces to exploit and therefore create greater wealth disparity, thereby reducing the 'common' aspect of society. The important point to make is this, we do not live in an economy, we live in a society, meaning social. Economic equality, or at least something close, must be sought in order to maintain social coherency. Libertarianism fails because we cannot live independently, we require each other to survive, we must specialize in different areas (eg farmer for food, shoemaker for shoes etc etc), we must live interdependently.

So the conclusion is simple: Either libertarianism really thinks it can create independence (absolute liberty) - in which case it is false. Or libertarianism knows it can't create independence (absolute liberty) yet puts it's policies into effect because it knows it's policies (limited government) will create an economic and political elite which will control everything is a government cannot regulate the social exchange.

Yeah. There might be some kinks to be ironed out in the process, and the powers of the head of government would probably have to be significantly reduced in favour of the parliament and some (directly elected?) head of state, but that way parliament would be much more directly answerable to the public.

The problem is that the most likely "kink" one will need to deal with would be the complete collapse of effective democracy. Within the contemporary state, there are simply too many people and too many various interests. The most vital function of the political party is to collect these people into groups who then take advantage of collective organization to more effectively aggregate and communicate their interests. Thus, if one removes political parties, one removes the ability of individuals to effectively communicate with their government. At the very least, one will end up with government even more ineffective, wasteful, and out of touch with the people than it already is. At the very worse, one gets groups of people who try to get the attention of the political system by any means necessary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_terrorism). This second contingency is actually quite common among those less developed "democratic" polities that have yet to establish an effective party system.

This isn't to say that party systems cannot be improved; "first past the post" electoral systems and the two party systems that they result in, as in the United States, are particularly broken. But arguments for fixing the problem by throwing the whole thing in the trash fail to consider the vital role that political parties actually play. To the extent that political parties organize people around common ideals and platforms, they do make the legislature more accountable to the public.

You know, if I wasn't already a communist-anarchist, I think Linus and Lucy alone would be enough to drive me straight to here, if for no other reason then spite.

You keep claiming this "principles of the Universe" crap but you never prove where it comes from.


Religious people don't have to prove anything. Like Abraham's God, A just is.


Indeed. Question is...how would we achieve such a system?


Restructure the political system so large scale organization and collective action is no longer necessary in order for people to effectively communicate their varying interests to the political system.

In other words, limit the size of your society to that were the members there of have 99.999999....% of their interests in common 99.99999...% of the time. Anything over 20 people is probably too big.

We have lost that, and I think it's got to do with party politics.


It probably has more to do with the introduction of mass media (especially television) which has driven the development of personality politics. Which political parties have nothing to do with. Political parties, like the rest of the political system, have been infected by the disease, but are not the disease themselves.


Well, what do I get if they're accountable to "the nation"? I'm not voting for the nation, I'm voting for myself. That's the way democracy is meant to prevent me from being ruled with an iron fist.


See, what's most interesting about your position is that you seem to be arguing for the elimination of the most effective means for individuals to communicate their interests (political parties), based on a desire to more effectively communicate your individual interests.

The collective effort of an entire national organization designed to champion your interests, and the interests of those who agree with you, is probably the most powerful element keeping you from being ruled by an iron fist (by "iron fist" I assume we mean genuine totalitarianism, not just "boo hoo I lost a vote" :) )

How about Totalitarian Democracy?

Think about it. Every so often (20 years, perhaps?), the people will vote for a ruler. This ruler will be nearly absolute. He will make all the decisions, but will still be subject to recall from the people.

Assuming you get a good ruler, this form of democracy could work out quite well.

So basically, to keep society intact, that is to make sure we continue to all have 'common' aspects, we need a outside force, ie a central government, to ensure the social exchange is not manipulated by anti-social forces...


At least until the "anti-social forces" take control of said central government.


Oops.


Of course, this danger exists because your overall argument is based on a nonsensical conception of individual liberty ("individual liberty at it's most literal interpretation"). Individual liberty cannot be taken to the extreme described ("true libertarianism") exactly because doing so would eliminate the obligation of all to respect the liberty of others. But this alone does not justify strong centralized government exactly because strong centralized government also poses a direct threat to the liberty of all and others.

This all or nothing conception of individual liberty, upon which your own argument seems to be based, is the false dichtomy to which Soheran refers. This conception creates situations at both ends ("total freedom from any obligation" and "total obligation to the state") which destroy individual liberty. This is why your position and that of the "true libertarians" are indeed just the two sides of the same absurd coin.

At least until the "anti-social forces" take control of said central government.


Oops.


Of course, this danger exists because your overall argument is based on a nonsensical conception of individual liberty ("individual liberty at it's most literal interpretation"). Individual liberty cannot be taken to the extreme described ("true libertarianism") exactly because doing so would eliminate the obligation of all to respect the liberty of others. But this alone does not justify strong centralized government exactly because strong centralized government also poses a direct threat to the liberty of all and others.

This all or nothing conception of individual liberty, upon which your own argument seems to be based, is the false dichtomy to which Soheran refers. This conception creates situations at both ends ("total freedom from any obligation" and "total obligation to the state") which destroy individual liberty. This is why your position and that of the "true libertarians" are indeed just the two sides of the same absurd coin.

No, my point is that the idea 'individual liberty' fails because it fails to recognize the interdependence of human civilization. The stance that 'central government threatens liberty' is a false notion because individual liberty cannot exist while humans are interdependent, the idea the someone can have political independence while ignoring economic independence reveals the internal contradiction of the liberal premise. The innate interdependency upon which society thrives and survives. Libertarianism breeds anti-social and exploitative attitudes dangerous the common society, it gives the idea that one can enrich themselves through the exploitation of others and contribute nothing to society. Libertarians fails, as my last post put it, because it cannot recognize that for an individual to become rich using this 'liberty', they MUST exploit others to do so, either directly or indirectly, 'individual freedom' in reality creates disparity and is corrosive to society, and creates monopolies of power.

It's the great contradiction, how can you have political equality yet not have economic equality? The answer is simple, liberal democracy was created by the capitalist class so they could placate the masses with universal suffrage, yet retain economic control so they control the means of production and thus the political system.

The conclusion is simple, democracy is egalitarian and literally gives '1 value for 1 person' to each member of society, but for true democracy to exist, 'universal equality' must be extended from the political to the economic realm, so that everyone gets an equal political say.

No, my point is that the idea 'individual liberty' fails because it fails to recognize the interdependence of human civilization.


In order for individual liberty to exist in the first place, each individual must respect the liberty of others. This respect is the essense of "interdependence" in society.

Again, you seem to have a need to equate "individual liberty" with extreme "Libertarianism." This equation is false. It is also the same equation that the extreme "Libertarians" make themselves. Why do you insist on falling for their nonsense?


...individual liberty cannot exist while humans are interdependent...


This is exactly what a capitalist libertarian would say in order to reject the sort of collectivism you seem to advocate. The irony continues.


the idea the someone can have political independence while ignoring economic independence reveals the internal contradiction of the liberal premise.


What of all the anarchists, socialists, social democrats, and other liberals who advocate individual liberty and economic interdependency/egalitarianism?

"Libertarianism" does not represent the entirety of liberal ideology.


Libertarianism breeds...


So what? "Libertarianism" is not the entirety of liberal ideology.

Elections divided into regions are unfair

1. Your example is a situation where you elect only 1 person or decide the majority party

2. Regional votes are good if there's more than a few candidates of which several go through to represent their region.

For example here, in parliamentary election in an average constituency you got 10 candidates going through representing 5 parties.

This gives the voter a much bigger degree of freedom of being able to choose a candidate and the party line that suits you better which has a realistic chance of passing than in any 1 candidate/area system.

That liberalism is infinitely morally superior to democracy is an objective fact, provable from the first principles of the Universe.

Hic Gordius, hic salta. Prove it now, or fail utterly. Of course, you will also have to prove that the principles of the Universe are exactly what you will claim to be such.


I have never said "I say it's true; therefore, it's true."

Unless you prove what you said, it's what you just did.


I simply choose to ACCEPT its truth; its truth is inherent to the Universe.
If you can choose to accept its truth, it's subjective, because it means that you can also choose not to accept it. Objective reality has nothing to do with accepting or not.

Election by lottery.

I think Switzerland has a pretty good working direct (or close to) democracy. Getting 100,000 signatures seems hard work to start a referendum but on big issues it wouldn't be so hard, and it's a step away from the apathetic big-business dominated 'democracy' we seem to have.

See, what's most interesting about your position is that you seem to be arguing for the elimination of the most effective means for individuals to communicate their interests (political parties), based on a desire to more effectively communicate your individual interests.
Find me a party that communicates my interests to anyone, and we'll talk. We're talking about government here, that is people with guns who can do whatever they please to me and probably will once I earn enough for them to find it worth their time. Compromising isn't in it, to be honest.

There may be a libertarian party out there somewhere but it's a pointless exercise. So do I support the Liberals? The people who think foreigners deserve to be locked up in desert camps until they commit suicide? Or Labor, who think rich people don't need tax cuts by virtue of being rich?

As a person, in a democracy I'm not being listened to. Do you really think that by shouting louder, but shouting something that has little to nothing to do with me I'm making a difference?

Granted, that's a problem with the system itself and not having political parties doesn't really solve it...but don't tell me I'm doing well with the system as it is. Don't tell me it serves me in any way whatsoever. From my perspective, you can't think of a single positive thing about democracy, you can just argue for it in terms of minimising negatives.

So what would be the real negative of having a local MP that actually represents me rather than a party headquarters somewhere? Parties aren't accountable to anyone, not even their members. They trade by virtue of their name and public image, and what they actually do seems to have little impact on it. The MP might at least be a little careful if his actions will directly impact his chance of reelection.

I think Switzerland has a pretty good working direct (or close to) democracy. Getting 100,000 signatures seems hard work to start a referendum but on big issues it wouldn't be so hard, and it's a step away from the apathetic big-business dominated 'democracy' we seem to have.
Right now they have a campaign dominated by two things: a guy who has little qualification for his job but is being talked about by everyone all the time, and cheap populism.

To start off, total individual freedom requires total independence from need, because the moment you need someone you do not have, you are immediately beholden to those who can exchange you this need, and they can exploit the situation for their own gains, in short 'in need, freedom is latent'.

Right.

Now, obviously, we can't be totally independent from need. But we can have societies that lessen the degree of necessary dependence on others for economic goods. And more importantly for this particular discussion, we can have societies that democratically control, or abolish entirely, the conditions put on the distribution of needed goods.

As you say, since we are dependent on the owners of needed goods they have it within their power to deny us freedom... unless we ourselves are the owners. That is socialism. That is perfectly consistent with, indeed, required by, freedom.

This of course point to that we live in an exchange society, social capital if you, if based on time-served, and your labor exchange values (measured in legal tender) can be exchanged at various rates.

Yes, we have a social economy with a high degree of interdependence.

For the reason I just pointed out, in such an economy individual freedom is best guaranteed through socialism... because only in a socialist economy are the people, instead of the class of owners, meaningfully in control of their own lives.

A 'society' is based on everything we have in 'common', if we had nothing in common, we wouldn't be a society, we would be divided essentially between the 'haves' and have nots'.

Yes, and something like this is what Marx means when he says "The workers have no country."

Only you have the causal relation reversed. Because we live in a class society where economic and political power is concentrated in the hands of a minority, where the different social classes have manifestly different interests, there is a disingenuousness to speaking of "the national interest" or "the common interest" or anything of the sort: it tends to merely justify the continued pursuit of the profits of the rulers. For the same reason, it is reasonable to be highly suspicious of the expansion of state power: those who control it will use it for their own benefit, not for ours.

True libertarianism, that is total freedom and independence from a outside force regulating the social obligatory contract,

But "true libertarianism" is not "freedom and independence from an outside force" at all--keeping to capitalist libertarianism, anyway.

"True libertarianism", in both its minarchist and anarcho-capitalist forms, supports the use of organized violence to protect the property of the owner class. That is the foundation of capitalism.

within the context of an 'interdependent' exchange economy, would result in elites gaining control of the means of production and real economic and political power, because they can exploit the exchange economy to make everyone beholden to the, they become the monopoly.

Yes, that is the result of the use of organized violence to defend capitalist property rights.

I don't see what the connection is with individual freedom--at least with real individual freedom, the kind of substantive individual freedom that is threatened by dependence on the economic elite as well as by the power of the state narrowly conceived.

Economic equality, or at least something close, must be sought in order to maintain social coherency.

Maybe, but this is, at most, a subsidiary reason.

So the conclusion is simple: Either libertarianism really thinks it can create independence (absolute liberty) - in which case it is false.

Right.

So, in fact, we do not have a contrast between democracy and individual freedom. We have a contrast between democracy and a false, bankrupt conception of individual freedom.

Is real, substantive, meaningful individual freedom also opposed to democracy? I don't think so. To the contrary, I think people tend to seek individual freedom... and under conditions of equality under law, where their capacity to take away other people's rights but not their own is limited, we can expect that real democracies will maximize individual freedom, not do away with it.

Unfortunately. All I know is that right now I've got "Michael Johnson" sending me letters about voting for him, and there is not one concrete thing he can do for me. All his letter talks about is Howard's policies, because Michael Johnson can't do jack but do whatever Howard tells him.

What's the point of a parliament if all we do with it is pick some authoritarian guy who can rule unimpeded for the entire term? I mean we have "debates" in parliament that are nothing but people shouting abuse at one another for a little while and then everyone votes like their party tells them to. The outcome is already a given, in effect it's just a stage performance.

I seem to recall that back in the 18th and early 19th century British MPs actually debated things, actually tried to convince one another and establish facts to try and make good policy for their constituents. We have lost that, and I think it's got to do with party politics.

All I know is that your ideal has a strong resemblence to the US's government with its weak political parties. Its hardly an example of reasonable debate to establish facts and good policy.

Well, what do I get if they're accountable to "the nation"? I'm not voting for the nation, I'm voting for myself. That's the way democracy is meant to prevent me from being ruled with an iron fist.

But the conflicts may be there, I admit as much. That's why, I guess, we'd elect smart people as our MPs who can balance one with the other.

You'd get a more accountable government all around. The contrast to accountibility to the nation as a whole is not the individual its the distict. You do vote for yourself now, correct?

The contrast to accountibility to the nation as a whole is not the individual its the distict.
Yes. The hope is that it still means greater accountability to me, because I may be a more important part of my district than I would be of the nation or some political party.

You do vote for yourself now, correct?
Well, to be perfectly honest, I don't get to vote because I'm not a citizen. It's taxation without representation, really.

Yes. The hope is that it still means greater accountability to me, because I may be a more important part of my district than I would be of the nation or some political party.

The problem being that the government as a whole isn't accountable to anyone. In the US you have most people liking their Congressmen but disliking Congress. There is little incentive to make coherent legislation, unlike in strong disciplened parties where party heads can impose discipline on their MPs.

Hic Gordius, hic salta. Prove it now, or fail utterly. Of course, you will also have to prove that the principles of the Universe are exactly what you will claim to be such.
I already have in other threads. Search.


If you can choose to accept its truth, it's subjective, because it means that you can also choose not to accept it.
Wrong. That which is objectively true is true whether or not I accept it as true; if I reject its truth then I am objectively wrong.

Objective reality has nothing to do with accepting or not.

Correct; its truth is independent of my acceptance of it. That does not change the fact that I still must choose whether or not to accept it as true; if I choose to reject it then I am wrong.

Um...?

What I know to be true is a subset of what actually is true.

There is an objectively correct answer to the question "Are my band kids ready for me to pull out all the stops?"

I think the answer to that is yes, but right now I don't know for sure. That doesn't mean that there's not an objectively correct answer out there waiting to be discovered; it only means that I just don't know with certainty what it is yet, which means that I might be wrong.

That doesn't mean that there's not an objectively correct answer out there waiting to be discovered; it only means that I just don't know with certainty what it is yet, which means that I might be wrong.That doesn't mean there is an objectively correct answer out there either.

*cough* Russel's Teapot *cough*

Put up or shut up, Charlie Brown.

Consensus seems to be falling gradually towards the position that 'true' democracy (not this representative garbage we pretend works) is untenable as a political system considering how large and varied national populations are.

So instead of doing the utmost to salvage some resemblance of humanity from these super-sized nations, why don't we just create smaller nations. A point was already made about the Swiss having the ability to create referendums by popular support. That is a VERY rare event in most 'western liberal democracies'. Switzerland happens to be a small nation with a fairly high level of social cohesion and harmony.

If the federal government of Canada or the United States (as examples) can't develop laws and policies that satisfy the entire nation, and not just 30% of it (a technical majority via how we elect today very often), then clearly the concept of a large federal government is flawed. Make smaller nations or governments, and they do not have to mirror currently existing lines, especially in the USA. Ever see the joke maps with the USA split up into Jesusland and California and New England as separate entities? Something like that, but with serious deliberation.

Bring democracy down to a human level again and you will see a lot more civic engagement and effective politics because people can actually get involved and make a difference. Who has the impetus to devote themselves to an impersonal and faceless monstrosity of an organization? Most people could care less about it all because it all could care less about them.

Furthermore there is a lot to be said about how smaller and more interdependent communities and 'nations' can develop sustainable and decentralized economic activity.

*cough* Russel's Teapot *cough*

Put up or shut up, Charlie Brown.

We've been over this before.

I'm not going to waste any more time on your intellectually dishonest mind.

True democracy is about harmony and mutual cooperation, not petty competition, people like Plato and Aristotle knew this, they knew that a 'two camps' state would eventually divide itself.

The essence of democracy is negotiation and (peaceful) political conflict among various factions and views.

Various interests butt heads, horse trade, and come to a consensus that everyone can live with.

I've seen you post on this topic before- your view of democracy in no way reflects the meaning of the word. Like your idol Fidel Castro, you love dictatorship whored up to look like democracy.

We've been over this before.

I'm not going to waste any more time on your intellectually dishonest mind.

You're wrong. It's true because it's true.

Trilby63;13148544']It's true because it's true.

So much is said with this phrase. It's burning my mind.




I always saw democracy as a stepping stone, until we become more enlightened, and are capable of using a system, such as facism, without it turning against us. Totally algebraic I know, and since I'm not adding anything to the discussion, I would just like to say: I'm enjoying this thread greatly, please continue.