 |
|  |
 |
|
Lawrence of Arabia
|
 |
of the Gulag Archipelago
Apr 2001 time: 06:25
|
|
quote:
Not if you consider the vote as a rather unimportant thing, whose main purpose is to make sure the rulers don't step out of line.
|
well thats exactly what i want. 1. keep the rulers in line, and 2. give the power to the people.
quote: It's somewhat odd that a Libertarian like you support a political system that is likely to get more things done, and more radically (direct democracy) than liberal democracy |
well, i dont know about that. i think it all depends on the voters. if people are naturally conservative, there will be less forward movement. if people are naturally apathetic to voting, then less will get done.
quote: But indeed, it's a conception of democracy that emphasizes much more the "freedom from the State" aspect than the "power to the people" aspect. |
yeah. je m'en fouts du gouvernement.
quote: No, this is you modifying the term to suit your personal agenda |
right, as if you dont do that. as if the greeks didnt do that.
quote: Democracy is exactly what it was in Greece thousands of years ago. |
oh yeah, democracy ONLY means vote by the rich male property owners. i see.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002 time: 05:25
|
|
The Articles of Confed were the first time citizens we allowed to vote in their head of state. Thats a good start.
Although I agree with Oerdin that its worth mentioning that most colonial assemblies were highly democratic, suffrage aside.
I know in 17th century Mass. almost every position was up to a vote, things like judges, sherrifs, clerks, etc...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
well thats exactly what i want. 1. keep the rulers in line, and 2. give the power to the people. |
I'm much closer to #2 myself (remember: what I described was not what I support. I think the "power to the people" part is much more important than the "freedom from the State" part, which has to do with the fact that my political culture is not Anglo-liberalism)
quote: well, i dont know about that. i think it all depends on the voters. if people are naturally conservative, there will be less forward movement. if people are naturally apathetic to voting, then less will get done. |
There's a natural tendency for conservatism in the truest sense of the word, i.e. the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. For people to mobilize in order to change a political problem, something serious has to be going on, unless they're politics junkies. At least in France (and I suspect pretty much everywhere else except in Netherlands), there are quite a few progressive policies that would have never passed if the rulers hadn't challenged the majority opinion: abolition of death penalty, abortion, gay marriage...
Don't get me wrong, I'd have preferred the people to be in charge of deciding about it, despite an outcome that I'd loathe. But the people are far more likely than politicians (at least in liberal democracies) to support the encroachment of other people's rights*. I understand that Libbies are no more identical between each others than Commies are, but I thought the "leave me the heck alone" was one of the most important points of libertarianism.
quote: yeah. je m'en fouts du gouvernement. |
Yep, I think it's quite bad to give as little importance to the people's sovereignty. This is why I stroongly support a more direct democracy (and incidentally, that's why I sympathize with Pekka's anger so much at him not being polled for the EU Constitution)
However, a purely direct democracy is unpractical to the point that it cannot happen. There are so many decisions to be taken that even a full-time job lawmaker can't prsonally grasp them all. Since most people don't have the dedication of a professional lawmaker, and since they have work to do, you can't expect the whole population to take the bulk of decisions. The people should be directly consulted about important issues, and such consultations should indeed happen more often than in most countres but Switzerland.
Since a pure direct democracy is unpractical to the point of being unrealistic, I strongly support "mandatory democracy" (don't know the word for it in English) where the elected parties are forced by law to deliver the policies they promised. This way, elections will be more based on platform than today, and the püeople will have more of a say on their collective fate.
*For a study about such attitudes in Germany, you may want to check the English-speaking book: Rohrschneider, Rohrschneider, Robert 1999: Learning Democracy: Democratic and Economic Values in unified Germany. New York: Oxford University Press. Esp Chapters 6 and 7.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Geronimo
|
|
st cloud USA
Jan 1970 time: 05:25
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Yes, so? |
Accepting such definitions would make promoting 'democracy' a worthless cause. That would be a genuine shame.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25. Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|