NationStates Jolt Archive

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

What are you going to do?

Poll following shortly.

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

What are you going to do?

Poll following shortly.

Leave the country.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

Indeed it is. If the government goes along with it, it has sacrificed democratic principles to democratic forms.

That's why we have constitutions.

Flee like a rat from a ship. 'Cause that nation's going down.

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.

:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.
:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

The irony bites... badly.

What are you going to do?


I would take comfort in the fact that constitutional limitations on power and protections of the rights of minorities are well-established concepts in democratic theory. I would recognize that unlimited "tyranny of the majority" cannot be legitimate democratic practice, as one simply cannot have "rule by the people" while simultaneously disenfranchising or persecuting a portion of said people.

The irony bites... badly.

Militant nihilists. Scary people.

Ahhh yes, tyranny of the majority, the buzzword-infested justification for capitalist oligarchy!

Ahhh yes, tyranny of the majority, the buzzword-infested justification for capitalist oligarchy!

Surely capitalist oligarchy would constitute tyranny of a minority, if anything.

Surely capitalist oligarchy would constitute tyranny of a minority, if anything.

No, I am just noting that whenever someone wants to defend minority rule and oligarchy they will usually talk about 'liberty' and the 'tyranny of the majority'. The point however is neither here nor there.

Militant nihilists. Scary people.

Silly scary people. With bad grammar. And no sense of irony whatsoever.

*nods*

since when has "reasoned and rational debate" been supported, let alone promoted, by ANY government, and "xenophobic paranoia" originated from the 'grass roots' up?

i think it IS good to make the point that popular rule DOES NOT guarantee anything. it only gives people something they can do, about less then sane behaiviors of soverigntees otherwise.

but i also thing a bit of honest perspective is needed about intrinsic hierarchal agendas as well. at least and especially, those which claim and hold soverignty, whatever idiologies or anything else they pay lip service to.

i would certainly have to ask WHICH "the people" and where in the hell they ever got that idea into their heads in the first place. dollars to doughnuts, the answer to that, will be a corporate media, serving corporate and usurpatory intrests!

when the corporation usurps the state, corporate media IS state media!

(what would I do? quitely abdicate and get the flock out of dodge immediatly if not sooner)

=^^=
.../\...

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.

:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

Wanker!

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

What are you going to do?

Poll following shortly.


I'd fuck right off, the goverment though has to do what the people demand or face the consequences.

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.

:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

: psyduck :

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

What are you going to do?

Poll following shortly.

You set up that this nation (X) is a democracy, as such it is indeed the will of the people that should prevail, that is, after all, what a democracy is.

Back a while in a chat room (like, a year or two ago), I sought a political debate, and the topic given to me was gay marriage (by my opponent, who also chose his/her own standpoint, they selected 'pro', so I naturally was left with arguing against it, using whatever 'logic' I could to win the argument). I used the argument that: "Each state [at the time, I believed this was universally true, though I'm not 100% sure] has chosen to keep gay marriage illegal, and because America is a democracy [for the most part] it is indeed the will of the people that is rules, rather than for universal 'rightness' "

After I made several good points (because, unfortunatly, my opponent wasn't a very good arguer) the 'mediator' stopped the debate to avoid bitterness, or it turning into an argument, and I had clearly (though without acknowledgement) won the debate, then of course, everyone in the chatroom decided that I was a rabid anti-homophobe (yeah, thats right, for arguing against a stance chosen for me by someone else in a hypothetical debate), and I got kinda dogpiled.

What that story has to do with anything: A democracy hinges on the will of the people, hence we see the root word "demos" and "ocracy", rule by the people, as it were, America has some ability to differ, having a republican element, so that a representative of the people can actually make changes against the democratic will, though not if they want to get re-elected.

I'm not saying that it is morally right to engage in, or enforce xenophobic ideas, not at all, but that is, after all, what a democracy is.

Wanker!

Lol, 'Wanker', good word use.

What are you going to do?
Divert public funding into providing support for people who want to leave. Free transport, free housing elsewhere and enough cash to get people settled in to another country. Basically, doing exactly what the people want me to in a way that they didn't quite intend. By the time they realise what I've done, I'll have taken advantage of the scheme myself.

Fuck 'em. They want to kick people out, they'll pay the price for it.

Sack the advisors who persuaded me that such a poll was a good idea in the firstplace. Fucking stupid idea if you ask me, the racists would be out in force and there'd always be a chance that sane people would think it's such a crazy idea that it had no chance of being approved and not bothered to vote on it.

I'd fuck right off, the goverment though has to do what the people demand or face the consequences.
In this case the right thing to do is to ignore the clearly expressed will of the electorate and face the consequences. The responsibility of the governemnt is to uphold the law, not to cater to the people. If it did the latter, we would have no taxes and complete collapse of the state.
Bottom line: people are, and for a long time will, too stupid for direct democracy. At least in this country.

In this case the right thing to do is to ignore the clearly expressed will of the electorate and face the consequences. The responsibility of the governemnt is to uphold the law, not to cater to the people. If it did the latter, we would have no taxes and complete collapse of the state.
Bottom line: people are, and for a long time will, too stupid for direct democracy. At least in this country.

Is it the goverments job to uphold the law?

Is it the goverments job to uphold the law?
All right, run the country according to the laws of said country.

If the referendum stated that we the government will uphold the people's wishes in the referendum nomatter how crazy they are then the government just needs to be shot for being as stupid as the majority of the populace.

The referendum, presuming the government doesn't want to deport all foreigners , would be worded in such a way that it could legitimately ignore it.

I'd have a military crackdown just like in Fiji!

or possibly make the process of change so unbelievably incompetent that the people will just forget about it (just like the enviromental movement)

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.

:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

Warned for trolling. Also, read your telegrams.

Indeed it is. If the government goes along with it, it has sacrificed democratic principles to democratic forms.

That's why we have constitutions.

^this

Warned for trolling.

that would actually be a very good response for the government to make :p

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.


Majority rule has nothing to do with democracy - they're two distinct things, although not disjuncted.

That's why democracies have constitutions with fundamental, unalienable rights for all citizens (and residents), independently of them being part of a majority or of a minority.

Majority rule has nothing to do with democracy - they're two distinct things, although not disjuncted.

That's why democracies have constitutions with fundamental, unalienable rights for all citizens (and residents), independently of them being part of a majority or of a minority.
It's possible to make constitutional amendments though, or even to rewrite constitutions. All the majority needs to do is to flood government with sympathetic representatives.

Majority rule. A transparent and cleanly conducted referendum in country X has determined that the overwhelming majority of the population would like to round up “foreigners” and have them forcefully deported and that “barbaric” minority religious beliefs should be banned. The people have decided, and this is clearly what they want. All attempts at reasoned and rational debate instituted by the government have failed amidst a media frenzy and xenophobic paranoia.

Commentators, seeing government indecision as to whether or not to honour the referendum are crying that it's a “test of the government's commitment to democratic principles”.

What are you going to do?

Poll following shortly.

absent any other mitigating circumstances i would hold another referendum and if that went the same way, deport foreigners and ban minority religions.

sometimes these extreme things pass a referendum because the "NOs" dont vote in the percentage reflected in the population. the first "yes" vote wakes them up. if the second referendum goes the same as the first, that means it really is the will of the (very stupid) people.

if thats how the county is set up, then you have to do it.

If I were a private citizen in country X, I would agitate like hell for a second referendum (and a third and a fourth, however many it takes to kill this monster), and mobilize the "No" vote as much as I could. If I failed, I'd emmigrate. I'd leave even if I was a member of the approved majority because I agree with Tom Paine that if I want liberty for myself, I must safeguard liberty for everyone, including my worst enemy.

If I were in the government, I would already have done everything I could to stop the referendum from going to ballot, and having failed at that, I would do everything in my power to force more (endless) referendums and otherwise weasel out of carrying out the will of the people in this case. If my political weaseling failed, and my back was up against the wall, I'd force legal review of the referendum on a desperate argument that the will of the people cannot violate the nation's constitutional law and thus the entire thing should be declared moot. And if that kind of tactic failed, I'd resign from the government and emmigrate.

And as an ex-patriot, I would agitate for international condemnation of my nation's new policy, for assistance to oppressed minorities within or forced out of my nation, and constantly urge my former neighbors to change their minds.

But what I would not do is compromise my principles for the sake of going along with the bullying mob.

Run away and then organise a coup, because it'd be pretty much merited in such a situation.

Well if thats what the public wants then thats what they get. The government is there to carry out and govern the people how the people want, well so it should.

Run away and then organise a coup, because it'd be pretty much merited in such a situation.

A coup so a minority can oppress the majority?

I'd fuck right off, the goverment though has to do what the people demand or face the consequences.

Precisely, the government is meant to represent the people, not the interests of those in charge.

A coup so a minority can oppress the majority?
Damn right, if they can do a better job of running the country.

Well if thats what the public wants then thats what they get. The government is there to carry out and govern the people how the people want, well so it should.

Even if it means opressing a group of people who don't actually pose any threat to the country?

I haven't voted in the poll because there's a lack of reasonable options.
what about, protest at this 'referendum'? or some sort of resistance?

Well if thats what the public wants then thats what they get. The government is there to carry out and govern the people how the people want, well so it should.
The NPD wins in Germany. This is inherently good because they are voted in, despite blaming WW2 on the Polish, wanting to kick people out on ethnic grounds and basically being a bunch of Neo-Nazis by any other name, because they were voted in, aye?

Precisely, the government is meant to represent the people, not the interests of those in charge.
The Interests of the people are not necessarily what the people think they are. They're not necessarily what I think they are either, but that point is worth remembering.

Damn right, if they can do a better job of running the country.

Well the right way to rule the country is the way the people want to be ruled. Why else are governments made? If not to serve the people.

Even if it means opressing a group of people who don't actually pose any threat to the country?

Maybe the people do maybe they don't. But the oppression of the few is better than the oppression of the many. Not that Oppression is a good thing.

The NPD wins in Germany. This is inherently good because they are voted in, despite blaming WW2 on the Polish, wanting to kick people out on ethnic grounds and basically being a bunch of Neo-Nazis by any other name, because they were voted in, aye?

Well its good because its what the people want. Why force to people to follow and believe in something they don't want to? (The Nazi's forced people to do/believe things some people didn't want to, will you do the same?)

This is why true democracies do not exist. What we have are Constitutional Democratic Republics.

The Interests of the people are not necessarily what the people think they are. They're not necessarily what I think they are either, but that point is worth remembering.

Well if the people seriously want it, which they do then its in there interested to give the people what they want or risk having the nation collapse into civil war.

The job of the leaders of a representative government is to lead the country in the way they see best fit - not to be beholden to polls.

The job of the leaders of a representative government is to lead the country in the way they see best fit - not to be beholden to polls.

Well the government should represent what the public wants, not what they want.

Well the right way to rule the country is the way the people want to be ruled.
No, it isn't. The right way to run a country is to ensure prosperity and happiness to people in the medium term, because that's about as far as you can go. Doesn't matter if they don't like it at first if it'll pay off for them in the end.
Why else are governments made? If not to serve the people.
Mainly for large-scale trade and military dealings, and to ensure that we can get taxes integrated properly across the country.
Well its good because its what the people want.
Err, no. The economy would be in a total state, Germany would become a pariah state and people would be forced out for being Turkish or Eastern Europe of origin, which is not particularly great for anyone, and would make some areas of large cities, esp. Berlin, into virtual ghost towns, too expensive to maintain and pretty expensive to knock down.
Why force to people to follow and believe in something they don't want to?
Because most people don't know what they want in the first place, and will take up any stupid cause they read in their favourite newspaper or see on their utterly pish news channels?

We don't want mob rule. Mobs are easy to stir up for stupid causes and hard to put down. Not the way to get anything done effectively.
The Nazi's forced people to do/believe things some people didn't want to, will you do the same?
Yep.

On the other hand, the Nazis ruled on racial grounds, which is exactly the kind of thing I would try to eliminate, by force if necessary, messed the economy up completely with the four-year plan of 1936 which essentially put Germany into a war situation in terms of its production and consumption patterns by 1938, and hired and sacked people for their race, which is just ludicrous.

Not the right way to rule a country.

Well the government should represent what the public wants, not what they want.
Most people have absolutely no stake whatsoever in the future of the nation, why should they be listened to instead of the big businesses which are the backbone of any wealthy nation in the world?

Most people have absolutely no stake whatsoever in the future of the nation, why should they be listened to instead of the big businesses which are the backbone of any wealthy nation in the world?
Excuse me for butting in here.

but not all people have little stake in the future of their nation. i mean consider the amount of protests at the Iraq war, or the protests at the violence in Burma?
I'm sure some people still vote, in fact they probably have more power now that there's a general lack of interest in politics than ever before.

I accept that large businesses are important for any nation, however the people should still be able to say what they want, and be offered the best alternative to their choice if not exactly what they ask for.
You also have to remember it's people who make up big businesses, so in a sense they are just part of the rest of the population.

Don't deport them, gas them. Fuck the niggers and the arabs and other monkey people, they have no respect for nothing.

:sniper:

BTW, I'm not being an ironic smart arse or any gay shit like that, I'm serious, fuck em all.

I hope to high heaven nobody reports him. He could be entertaining.

Anyway, the government should pursue whatever course it deems either necessary or consistent to its ideological basis. The democratic majority has not the slightest idea what is of benefit to the long term welfare of their nation, and hence should have no role in determining policy or dictating government.

I hope to high heaven nobody reports him. He could be entertaining.

Anyway, the government should pursue whatever course it deems either necessary or consistent to its ideological basis. The democratic majority has not the slightest idea what is of benefit to the long term welfare of their nation, and hence should have no role in determining policy or dictating government.

Kat dealt with him on page two.

How do you know this? (see bolded part)
I'm sure they have some notion of what is good for them. It's not like everyone except a select few people are braindead.

Excuse me for butting in here.
No worries and all that.
but not all people have little stake in the future of their nation.i mean consider the amount of protests at the Iraq war, or the protests at the violence in Burma?
Look at what came out of that. Nothing.
I'm sure some people still vote, in fact they probably have more power now that there's a general lack of interest in politics than ever before.
Quite. Labour got in last time because of about 25% of the public voting for them.
I accept that large businesses are important for any nation, however the people should still be able to say what they want, and be offered the best alternative to their choice if not exactly what they ask for.
I don't mind people making valid complaints and suggestions to what should be done about them. This is genuinely useful, because people need to be consulted from time to time on The State Of Things, and if they have sensible resolutions to their problems, then that's great.

People whining about the 'draconian' laws on speed limits etc. can fuck off under a bus imo, and another sob story as to why Vera needs a totally unnecessary hip operation because she's a Daily Mail writer's mum supported by a 'send yer stupid complaints to Westminster, post-haste!' campaign will not be tolerated. Full stop.
You also have to remember it's people who make up big businesses, so in a sense they are just part of the rest of the population.
The people who make the choices in big business are a small clique, just like those which are in control of the country politically.

Kat dealt with him on page two.

How do you know this? (see bolded part)
I'm sure they have some notion of what is good for them. It's not like everyone except a select few people are braindead.

They don't. How can one expect the average voter to appreciate global economics, diplomacy and such to the same degree as the advisors employed by government to do so?

They don't. How can one expect the average voter to appreciate global economics, diplomacy and such to the same degree as the advisors employed by government to do so?

well you've got compulsory education, and besides there's the journalists to make pretty stories for people to read, and as long as they don't read tabloids that's fine by me.

If the government were to decide all things by itself, it would probably annoy alot of people and lose it's power very quickly. So it has no choice but to try an listen to it's people and judge the best course of action from there.

as long as they don't read tabloids that's fine by me.
There's yer problem.

Yootopia
No worries and all that.
cool.
Look at what came out of that. Nothing.
apart from giving the government alot of bad press at making such a stupid mistake, and reducing the numbers of people who would vote for it.

Quite. Labour got in last time because of about 25% of the public voting for them.
shame really.
I don't mind people making valid complaints and suggestions to what should be done about them. This is genuinely useful, because people need to be consulted from time to time on The State Of Things, and if they have sensible resolutions to their problems, then that's great.
no complaints here.

People whining about the 'draconian' laws on speed limits etc. can fuck off under a bus imo, and another sob story as to why Vera needs a totally unnecessary hip operation because she's a Daily Mail writer's mum supported by a 'send yer stupid complaints to Westminster, post-haste!' campaign will not be tolerated. Full stop.
Vera?
A little tangenital for me, what are you saying?

The people who make the choices in big business are a small clique, just like those which are in control of the country politically.
yes and look at all those people who like big business, they're hated internationally regardless of what work they may do. Still you make a good point here, it's hard to find a way around this. i hate it when you're right.:)

I hope to high heaven nobody reports him. He could be entertaining.

My thoughts exactly.


I voted no, because I dont believe in majority rules in 9 out of 10 cases, because the majority tends to be uneducted, ignorant, and ruled by a mob mentality hive mind. This is why I support only the educated being allowed to vote. Especially in situations like this. Democracies throughout history get high jacked by the xenophobic ignorant mob and everything goes to hell.

My thoughts exactly.


I voted no, because I dont believe in majority rules in 9 out of 10 cases, because the majority tends to be uneducted, ignorant, and ruled by a mob mentality hive mind. This is why I support only the educated being allowed to vote. Especially in situations like this. Democracies throughout history get high jacked by the xenophobic ignorant mob and everything goes to hell.

only educated people should vote?
i am shocked and appalled, shocked and appalled.

I would like a third option!

Shoot the protesters, ban elections and go dictator for life!

My thoughts exactly.


I voted no, because I dont believe in majority rules in 9 out of 10 cases, because the majority tends to be uneducted, ignorant, and ruled by a mob mentality hive mind. This is why I support only the educated being allowed to vote. Especially in situations like this. Democracies throughout history get high jacked by the xenophobic ignorant mob and everything goes to hell.

This post is disconcertingly similar to my views....one of us is clearly ill.

This post is disconcertingly similar to my views....one of us is clearly ill.

Nah, we're both elitests. Doesnt mean we are elitests that always agree ;). In fact, Ive pretty much come to the conclusion that the only thing we probably disagree on is social programs/economics.

only educated people should vote?
i am shocked and appalled, shocked and appalled.

Take this scenario:

You are in a situation that requires a decision. Three options (A,B and C) are available. You ask a significant number of people which option you should choose.
10% votes option A
20% votes option B
70% votes option C.

Clearly, democratic principles suggest you should go for option C.

However, I will now add two bits of information:
1. The situation you are in is that you are debating if you should have surgery. Option A is "yes, asap", Option B is "not yet" and Option C is "no".
2. Almost all the people with medical knowledge voted for A. A few picked B. Noone with medical knowledge picked C.

Still going for option C ?

Like medicine, making political decisions requires knowledge and expertise. Lots of uninformed people are not better than a few experts.

Take this scenario:

You are in a situation that requires a decision. Three options (A,B and C) are available. You ask a significant number of people which option you should choose.
10% votes option A
20% votes option B
70% votes option C.

Clearly, democratic principles suggest you should go for option C.

However, I will now I add two bits of information:
1. The situation you are in is that you are debating if you should have surgery. Option A is "yes, asap", Option B is "not yet" and Option C is no.
2. Almost all the people with medical knowledge voted for A. A few picked B. Noone with medical knowledge picked C.

Still going for option C ?

Like medicine, making political decisions requires knowledge and expertise. Lots of uninformed people are not better than a few experts.

can you give a real example of when this was the case? in a democracy.

can you give a real example of when this was the case? in a democracy.

About every single time a complex decision needs to be made ?

About every single time a decision needs to be made ?

I repeat, can you give an example?
what i mean is, tie in your example with a real occurance.Just one.

Nah, we're both elitests. Doesnt mean we are elitests that always agree ;). In fact, Ive pretty much come to the conclusion that the only thing we probably disagree on is social programs/economics.

Hahahahaha.:D

I repeat, can you give an example?
what i mean is, tie in your example with a real occurance.Just one.

The teaching of ID in schools ?

And care to provide a counterexample ? Do realise that people voting the exact same as the experts did is just as much a waste of time as the voting in the scenario I just posted. You are after all going to listen to the experts anyway - it is only common sense.

Hahahahaha.:D

I dont know if thats agreement or mockery:D

Take this scenario:

You are in a situation that requires a decision. Three options (A,B and C) are available. You ask a significant number of people which option you should choose.
10% votes option A
20% votes option B
70% votes option C.

Clearly, democratic principles suggest you should go for option C.

However, I will now add two bits of information:
1. The situation you are in is that you are debating if you should have surgery. Option A is "yes, asap", Option B is "not yet" and Option C is "no".
2. Almost all the people with medical knowledge voted for A. A few picked B. Noone with medical knowledge picked C.

Still going for option C ?

Like medicine, making political decisions requires knowledge and expertise. Lots of uninformed people are not better than a few experts.

But that's not really connected to the rationale for allowing pretty much everyone to vote.

The teaching of ID in schools ?

And care to provide a counterexample ? Do realise that people voting the exact same as the experts did is just as much a waste of time as the voting in the scenario I just posted. You are after all going to listen to the experts anyway - it is only common sense.

that really happened? damn.
What about, the minimum wage brought in, or the equal pay act in UK? i'm sure these had the public support and expert support.

But then you have the experts in control, sure they might have greater knowledge, but should they go flaky on some bizzare idealic human race idea there wouldn't be the power for the rest of the public to restrain them.
And there would be nothing stopping them from making the country to their own criteria. you have to have the option for the public to vote, it's just a shame sometimes they get it wrong.

apart from giving the government alot of bad press at making such a stupid mistake, and reducing the numbers of people who would vote for it.
Seeing as the only real opposition party to Labour also voted for Iraq, nothing was going to change.
shame really.
It could have been the Conservatives (eugh), or the Lib Dems (can't run a piss-up in a brewery).

Hopefully Labour will realise that it's no longer welcome and will call an early-ish election so we can have 5 years of the Conservatives in power just to prove to everyone exactly why they shouldn't be in power until the Old Guard are dead and buried.
Vera?
A little tangenital for me, what are you saying?
Bit of a random anti-tabloid rant there, sorry.
yes and look at all those people who like big business, they're hated internationally regardless of what work they may do. Still you make a good point here, it's hard to find a way around this.
Big business is hated but needed, just like taxes, condoms etc.
i hate it when you're right.:)
That's ok, I hate it when I'm wrong :p

The teaching of ID in schools ?
Was this actually voted in by referendum?

My thoughts exactly.


I voted no, because I dont believe in majority rules in 9 out of 10 cases, because the majority tends to be uneducted, ignorant, and ruled by a mob mentality hive mind. This is why I support only the educated being allowed to vote. Especially in situations like this. Democracies throughout history get high jacked by the xenophobic ignorant mob and everything goes to hell.

It'd be a step in the right direction, IMHO. I think there needs to be mre checks and balances on the electroal system as a whole, ever since the Commons started trying to hijack the Lords.

Quite frankly, I do not support democracy in the first place, as I find it to be nothing more than an institutionalized argumentum ad populum. The only thing that the majority would have indicated in this scenario is that they are extremely stupid, and not that taking such actions is in any way valid (which they never prove anyway.)

Quite frankly, I do not support democracy in the first place, as I find it to be nothing more than an institutionalized argumentum ad populum.


Argumentum ad populum occurs where claim X is presumed to be objectively true because many people believe it to be true.

Democracy, however, simply posits that the best means for determining what people want is to ask said people. The statement "This group of people wants to eat Italian food for dinner tonight, so it should go to an Italian restaurant" isn't an argumentum ad populum because it deals with a matter of subjective taste, not objective truth. It would be silly to conclude that the group shouldn't go to an Italian restaurant simply because they are a group.

This is also why the market system of supply and demand is not an example of argumentum ad populum. "Most consumers demand Product, therefore producers should supply Product." Again, we have a matter of subjective taste, not objective truth. Thus, citing the mass of consumers as a reason for taking a particular action does not constitute argumentum ad populum.

Also, concepts found within democratic theory like constitutional limitation of power and protection of individual and minority rights exist exactly because that very democratic theory rejects the notion that a given action is the objectively/morally/ethically correct thing to do simply because a majority says so. Democratic theory has long ago rejected the very argumentum ad populum you cite.