Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Could you give up your democracy for a lifetime of luxuries
- Thread starter Ricochet J
- Start date
For starters i would attempt to look up what that phrase means
And here is one of the great problems of trying to debate with you. Instead of answering his question, you try and be a smart Alec about it to try and score points.
How about addressing what you know he wants addressed and further the discussion instead of being pathetic and try and 'get one over' someone?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
There's clearly been a misunderstanding here. I have no idea what the phrase "carte blanche" means, and a quick google didn't really help.
You have full rein to say what you think about what you feel constitutes elected government.
Whilst I'm not sure what the translation is in French it is a common term in International Law. Whilst both Moses and I are versed in Int. Law it isn't a phrase that is uncommon in general speech and I would expect someone like you to know what it means.
I am truly amazed you don't know what it means. If that's truly the case, then I take back my above comment in relation to this thread though I reckon you're backtracking.
Last edited:
Pfft.....a 'quick google' gives you a raft of options that give you the definition of the phrase.....
Admit you were being a nobber and move on and answer the question.
You know that's almost an unanswerable question though - especially within the interest levels on a forum as you'd have to define the entire ethos of democracy before being able to determine what roles the particular agencies would have. Though, it will be interesting to see his response.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Well, with that out of the way...
*clears throat*
Ladies and gentlemen, i have been invited here today to give a talk about what exactly constitutes an elected government. A subject i am far from qualified to define absolutely, but one i will have several wild stabs in the dark at nevertheless. At the most basic level it would seem that an "elected government" is a group of people chosen by another group of people to rule over a group of people larger than the first group of people. In most of the modern world the differences in the definition of 'elected' are basically a matter of how large the group of people that gets to decide the group of people that rules over the large group of people is. Best case scenario is that the small group of people has been chosen by at least half of the large group of people, but that is a very rare occurrence. There are several reasons for this, but it seems that they are all sub-issues of the main issue here, which is that modern democracy doesn't do what it says on the tin. It sets out to create a system of governance which best represents the wishes of it's people, in a fair and honest way. It ends up giving people a choice between two or three morally and physically reprehensible candidates (or figureheads) rather than a range of philosophies from which you can pick the one which best reflects your own beliefs, under the basic assumption that they aren't all lying through their teeth. If you vote then you either vote because you feel obligated to, you think the difference between the candidates is actually worth justifying the effort for or you're genuinely under the illusion that 'this candidate really speaks to me'.
And in relation to an earlier point, it seems to me that the very idea of a government existing to 'rule over' a population is absurd, and little more advanced than the idea of a monarchy or theocracy. The purpose of a government should not be to rule, but to serve. To help shape a society, push it in a direction that it's people want it to go in and to be responsible for it's actions. Not to go completely against campaign promises, say to a population 'sorry, can't do that any more, and there's nothing you can do about it for another five years' all whilst making executive decisions on behalf of everybody with the backing of nobody, hiding secrets from them and telling them what they can and can't do. It is my belief that a 'true' democracy would be one consisting of many local committees on a regular rotor, with say a group of eight people delegated (not through elections where candidates stand, but on the merit of their contribution - after all, nobody who is capable of putting themselves in a position of power should ever be allowed to) to represent a group of approximately 150 others (based on the theoretical maximum number of people a human can actually know at any one time). This committee (not necessarily the whole thing) would attend regular meetings with a limited number of other local committees, reporting on concerns or wishes and coming up with an agenda. This agenda is then taken back to each committee's group for comment and criticism, taken back, improved and then presented to representatives from progressively larger groups of communities where the process is repeated until as many people as possible are happy. This is a sort of decentralized model, where everybody participates and nobody rules. As the proposals get progressively higher and higher in terms of total number of people involved and behind it the system will meld into a central bureau. It's this that could be considered to be your 'elected government'. If clear conflicts arise between certain areas or end goals then obviously we wouldn't copy the same system now and impose one point of view on everybody, we would split resources and 'laws' as best we could in the hope that everybody gets what they want as far as is possible. It seems that the natural progression of such a system is that if the divides are large and clear enough, and are unable to be satisfied any other way then splits would occur. Hopefully through understanding and compassion these splits will not lead to any significant social changes on a personal level. These groups wouldn't be static.
This leads to the question of the state of the public as it stands. Could we be trusted to use such a system without merely asking for 'more good stuff, less bad stuff' without giving a second's thought to the consequences that would have on the rest of the system? I doubt it. But is that down to human nature or education? If education, is it to do with the current state of education or the system we're using as a whole? If it is the system then is it an intentional ploy by those with power to stop such a thing from happening, or to dumb people down so they can best serve their purposes in this society, as 'tools' to get work done? All very important questions that i for one don't have nearly enough time to even begin to guess at right now, but ones that would need to be answered regardless.
An elected government could be considered simply to be one that has simply been chosen by at least one person not part of that government. But it is a title that holds a huge amount of responsibility, something that simply isn't recognized in the vast majority (if not all) of the world at the minute, in favor of doing what the person who can give you the most money tells you to do. That's not right, that's not fair and that's definitely not demographic. Clearly, above any form of 'law' or 'regulation' the citizens have a power, a right to do something about it. Something that i think will happen at some point. I think that it's inevitable. When or how, though, are questions that for now at least are out of my grasp.
In conclusion, giraffes are awesome. Goodnight.
*clears throat*
Ladies and gentlemen, i have been invited here today to give a talk about what exactly constitutes an elected government. A subject i am far from qualified to define absolutely, but one i will have several wild stabs in the dark at nevertheless. At the most basic level it would seem that an "elected government" is a group of people chosen by another group of people to rule over a group of people larger than the first group of people. In most of the modern world the differences in the definition of 'elected' are basically a matter of how large the group of people that gets to decide the group of people that rules over the large group of people is. Best case scenario is that the small group of people has been chosen by at least half of the large group of people, but that is a very rare occurrence. There are several reasons for this, but it seems that they are all sub-issues of the main issue here, which is that modern democracy doesn't do what it says on the tin. It sets out to create a system of governance which best represents the wishes of it's people, in a fair and honest way. It ends up giving people a choice between two or three morally and physically reprehensible candidates (or figureheads) rather than a range of philosophies from which you can pick the one which best reflects your own beliefs, under the basic assumption that they aren't all lying through their teeth. If you vote then you either vote because you feel obligated to, you think the difference between the candidates is actually worth justifying the effort for or you're genuinely under the illusion that 'this candidate really speaks to me'.
And in relation to an earlier point, it seems to me that the very idea of a government existing to 'rule over' a population is absurd, and little more advanced than the idea of a monarchy or theocracy. The purpose of a government should not be to rule, but to serve. To help shape a society, push it in a direction that it's people want it to go in and to be responsible for it's actions. Not to go completely against campaign promises, say to a population 'sorry, can't do that any more, and there's nothing you can do about it for another five years' all whilst making executive decisions on behalf of everybody with the backing of nobody, hiding secrets from them and telling them what they can and can't do. It is my belief that a 'true' democracy would be one consisting of many local committees on a regular rotor, with say a group of eight people delegated (not through elections where candidates stand, but on the merit of their contribution - after all, nobody who is capable of putting themselves in a position of power should ever be allowed to) to represent a group of approximately 150 others (based on the theoretical maximum number of people a human can actually know at any one time). This committee (not necessarily the whole thing) would attend regular meetings with a limited number of other local committees, reporting on concerns or wishes and coming up with an agenda. This agenda is then taken back to each committee's group for comment and criticism, taken back, improved and then presented to representatives from progressively larger groups of communities where the process is repeated until as many people as possible are happy. This is a sort of decentralized model, where everybody participates and nobody rules. As the proposals get progressively higher and higher in terms of total number of people involved and behind it the system will meld into a central bureau. It's this that could be considered to be your 'elected government'. If clear conflicts arise between certain areas or end goals then obviously we wouldn't copy the same system now and impose one point of view on everybody, we would split resources and 'laws' as best we could in the hope that everybody gets what they want as far as is possible. It seems that the natural progression of such a system is that if the divides are large and clear enough, and are unable to be satisfied any other way then splits would occur. Hopefully through understanding and compassion these splits will not lead to any significant social changes on a personal level. These groups wouldn't be static.
This leads to the question of the state of the public as it stands. Could we be trusted to use such a system without merely asking for 'more good stuff, less bad stuff' without giving a second's thought to the consequences that would have on the rest of the system? I doubt it. But is that down to human nature or education? If education, is it to do with the current state of education or the system we're using as a whole? If it is the system then is it an intentional ploy by those with power to stop such a thing from happening, or to dumb people down so they can best serve their purposes in this society, as 'tools' to get work done? All very important questions that i for one don't have nearly enough time to even begin to guess at right now, but ones that would need to be answered regardless.
An elected government could be considered simply to be one that has simply been chosen by at least one person not part of that government. But it is a title that holds a huge amount of responsibility, something that simply isn't recognized in the vast majority (if not all) of the world at the minute, in favor of doing what the person who can give you the most money tells you to do. That's not right, that's not fair and that's definitely not demographic. Clearly, above any form of 'law' or 'regulation' the citizens have a power, a right to do something about it. Something that i think will happen at some point. I think that it's inevitable. When or how, though, are questions that for now at least are out of my grasp.
In conclusion, giraffes are awesome. Goodnight.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
Do some people still not believe in the separation of the church and the state? Nor that age is completely unreliable measure of maturity?
Hmmmm....Moses was describing the UK Govt as an example of how to describe a democratic system concisely.
Not as an example (which it may or may not be) of a 'perfect' form of democracy.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
If people miss that post because it was the last post on the last page i'm going to be ****ed 
If people miss that post because it was the last post on the last page i'm going to be ****ed
what post?
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2009
- Posts
- 16,234
- Location
- Newcastle/Aberdeen
How about either live in luxury under the yoke of a dictator or live in squalor under the yoke of a dictator?
No offence, but you sound like one of these people who criticise communism without understand what it actually is.
I think you've been watching too many 80's American action films.
No true Scotsman fallacy.
"Freedom" is not at all intrinsically linked to financial freedom or money in any way.
Do you think humans were enslaved before money was invented?.
In the system described by the OP, I don't think you would have money at all.
People need to let go of the fallacy that we either have "Freedom & Money" or "No Freedom & No Money" - this is a false dichotomy which should not even be entertained as an intelligent point of view.
Indeed, I've always personally been in favour of a form of Technocracy - as decisions should always be in the hands of those with the best training & most suited to understanding the problems.
As you very rightly pointed out, what we have is a popularity contest, one in which actual skill/experience & knowledge plays second fiddle to personality & popularity.
I fail to see how we will ever overcome society's problems if we only elect people who's only concern seems to be to maintain power/get re-elected instead of solving social issues.
If a problem takes more than 4 years to fix, then a solution for it's not going to win votes.
Unfortunately most of our social problems will take longer than 4 years, which kind of makes our democracy redundant.
No it's not that fallacy, but well done on trying to be dolph, try Latin next time it makes you look Really smart.
also not because i did not say money, before there was money people traded the fruits of their labour for the fruits of others, in a fully socialist system they do not have this ability.
if i get paid (or i make something) i can trade that money/object for whatever the hell i want, in a socialist system i am not able to do this, i am given set amounts of things.
i was not talking to the op.
er no you have freedom and choice or well freedom and much much less choice.
