View Full Version : Democracy.
As regular readers of this forum will know, I'm no cynic and rumours to the contrary are just that, rumours. But why oh why are we trying to impose democracy on those , largely, ungrateful citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Look at it logically, what examples can we hold up to demonstrate that our idea of democracy (or any of our forms of government) are better for their average citizen than ours? Surely not Westminster with it's expenses scandal etc., etc., surely not Brussels with ditto and racketeering etc., etc., and surely not Washington, in cahoots with, and largely under the control of, big business, particularly the oil industry and G. Dubya's cronies.
If you were offered our governmental system and looking at it impartially from the outside, would you be in favour?
The next consideration is what governmental regime has survived long term after being imposed from above? - I can't think of one, can you - so why should anyone believe that what we are trying to impose on Iraq and Afghanistan is likely to survive long term. The only system of government with any track record of longevity is one that is imposed from the bottom upwards - can you think of another, 'cos I can't. Some might say, and I wouldn't argue to vehemently, that even when imposed from the bottom upwards, systems of government don't always survive long term, the Russian revolution being one. I would argue that one top downwards system of government was merely replaced by another. IMHO the same thing did happen and will happen in future in China.
True democracy just doesn't exist anywhere in the world IMHO. What the powers that be like us to believe is democracy (government of the people by the people for the people), is just a sham to keep the population docile.
Roll on the revolution - discuss.
Dave Cawley
30-09-2009, 22:23
All forums have two taboo subjects, politics and religion. If this forum peruses either them I'm out for good. Please do not discuss this, just remove the thread.
Dave
The Grand Wazoo
30-09-2009, 22:44
Dave,
I've got to agree with Dave on this.
..............and...... (he said, neatly sidestepping several cans of worms) .........that applies to both of you.............
Dave Cawley
30-09-2009, 22:45
Thank you!
Dave (worm free right now...)
All forums have two taboo subjects, politics and religion. If this forum peruses either them I'm out for good. Please do not discuss this, just remove the thread.
Dave
Dave,
Who's hijacking who's thread now?
I'll happily take that from 'Management' but not from you. If you don't like it, don't read it and don't contribute. I'm sure that the forum will survive without either or both of us, IMHO.
Chris,
As above, so I'm quite happy for you, as a duly authorised member of 'Management', to pull the plug on this thread with my blessing and my apologies if I have broken any taboos, written or unwritten - don't remember seeing anything about taboo subjects though.
Peace and no hard feelings to anyone.
Cheers,
The Grand Wazoo
30-09-2009, 23:02
Dave,
I'm no duly authorised member of anything, me old mucker & as such I couldn't pull the plug even if I knew where it was!
Seriously though, I'd love to discuss politics with you in person, but (I suspect), like Dave C, I've seen it lead all sorts of unpleasant places on the internet & it's often just best left unsaid.
Let's have some respectful and constructive debate then on this sensitive subject of the standard we all expect here on AoS :)
I should point out though that the discussion will be receiving close moderation.
Marco.
I hope this doesn't mean Dave C "is out of here for good".
My words to Marco in appealing the decision to lock the thread were, "civilised debate", - if that pre-requisite cannot be met, don't post.
Cheers,
Spectral Morn
02-10-2009, 13:30
HI DaveK
Your thread starting post raises some good questions and if this thread can develop with everyone keeping their cool and being respectful then I think there is much to learn and debate. If Dave Cawley wants to take part he's welcome equally, if he does not want to take part then fair enough. There is nothing in the AOS Ethos which says that debates on politics or religion can't take part on AOS. However the spirit of the debate must be in accordance with the ethos. Other forums it is true do not encourage or blanket ban such discussions, but AOS is not other forums.
Let the debate continue or not as the members decide.
Regards D S D L
Hi Chris,
I'm with you 100%.
I'll throw another pebble or two into the pond:
Tony Blair being eased into the new role of President of Europe is an insult to the true meaning of democracy, as was the appointment of Mandy (I will not call him Lord!!) as the de facto Deputy Prime Minister. IMHO both appointments are (or will be) obscene in the true sense of the word.
I am aware that the thread is being closely monitored and realise this may be construed as being too personal - your call, mods. :) .
Cheers,
Steve Toy
02-10-2009, 14:11
Nowt wrong with that Dave. I even agree.
Nowt wrong with that Dave. I even agree.
Nah then Steve, can't have that - not sure I can handle you agreeing with me so much - let's get back to talking Speaker Placement and normality :lolsign: .
Cheers,
Spectral Morn
02-10-2009, 14:20
The European project is certainly a system which excludes democracy from its core rulers. You can vote for your MEP's but not for those who pull the shots behind the scenes.
The situation Ireland finds its self in today is a case in point. The people voted NO to the constitution....democracy in action and yet the EEC unhappy with that ask for another election. I am not surprised in that happening and unfortunately with Ireland owing much if not all of the Celtic Tiger times to European money, they can't really stand up to them and say NO means NO.
Be aware that the EEC rules most of what the UK parliament does, we hang onto our Sovereignty by our finger tips and no more. The UK will get pulled into this constitution still. Will we get a vote on it ?...unlikely.
The EEC is set on a course to creating an unaccountable super state.... It is amazing that all those who died in the 2nd world war will have died for nothing as the New Europe is very much like what Hitler was after. "And they laid down their Sovereignty (Crowns) to the Beast".
Regards D S D L
Beechwoods
02-10-2009, 17:14
I'm no fan of what passes for democracy in this country or many others for that matter. We are however lucky to live as we do with relative feeedoms - and even our botched version of democracy is better than the lawless states some people suffer under. And I include the warlord governed state of Afganistan in that assessment.
There are very worrying erosions to our basic civil liberties but for the most part we have the right to dissent, to protest, to strike, to worship or not...
It was an Englishman, Thomas Paine, who wrote the blueprint for our modern democracy, influencing both the French and American revolutions, and it's probably time we refocussed on those values, and what they really meant. The passing of time hasn't diminished their worth. Poor implementation not poor design!
Democracy (as widely defined) was invented in Athens. Unfortunately, it didn't last for long. It was quickly replaced by oligarchy (rule by a small elite).
A lot of early governmental systems were derived from casts' merging (thus pure oligarchy), while gradually granting wider rights to the many in an attempt to reach social stability.
But Oligarchy prefers being called "Democracy". The reason is that democracy includes some of the most stable social/governmental structure mechanisms (on the long term) ever invented. Any system seeking for stability will call itself "democracy", and try to implement some basics (you know: "freedom","equality" that kind of concepts). ;)
Funny, eh ?
It was an Englishman, Thomas Paine, who wrote the blueprint for our modern democracy, influencing both the French and American revolutions, and it's probably time we refocussed on those values, and what they really meant. The passing of time hasn't diminished their worth. Poor implementation not poor design!
Alas, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions ....
The French Revolution was followed by the Reign of Terror, which involved the murder of tens of thousands of people, then by 20 years of warfare and the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
It could be argued that the British, incremental approach to increasing democracy was better than the revolutionary way.
The next consideration is what governmental regime has survived long term after being imposed from above? - I can't think of one, can you
Yes. The post-WW2 governments of Germany and Japan.
Revolutions are like having a child.
You know who you are, but you don't know what you'll get.
(I'm in a philosophic mood, sorry for digressing)
A Sane Revolution
D H Lawrence
If you make a revolution, make it for fun,
don't make it in ghastly seriousness,
don't do it in deadly earnest,
do it for fun.
Don't do it because you hate people,
do it just to spit in their eye.
Don't do it for the money,
do it and be damned to the money.
Don't do it for equality,
do it because we've got too much equality
and it would be fun to upset the apple-cart
and see which way the apples would go a-rolling.
Don't do it for the working classes.
Do it so that we can all of us be little aristocracies on our own
and kick our heels like jolly escaped asses.
Don't do it, anyhow, for international Labour.
Labour is the one thing a man has had too much of.
Let's abolish labour, let's have done with labouring!
Work can be fun, and men can enjoy it; then it's not labour.
Let's have it so! Let's make a revolution for fun!
Alas, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions ....
It could be argued that the British, incremental approach to increasing democracy was better than the revolutionary way.
It could, I agree to some extent, but what about the subsequent and still current (IMHO) incremental approach to decreasing democracy, given a substantial boost by our 'friends' in Brussels?
It could, I agree to some extent, but what about the subsequent and still current (IMHO) incremental approach to decreasing democracy, given a substantial boost by our 'friends' in Brussels?
A Bad Thing, IMO. I'd have us out of the EU tomorrow if I was in charge!
Good one Joe - I wasn't aware of this work by Mr Lawrence - written with tongue slightly in cheek I suspect, so as not to cause too many ripples.
Cheers,
Yes. The post-WW2 governments of Germany and Japan.
Good point Joe - I readily concede, (for the moment while I dig a little deeper :) ).
Well said that man!
Cheers,
Beechwoods
02-10-2009, 21:34
Alas, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions ....
The French Revolution was followed by the Reign of Terror, which involved the murder of tens of thousands of people, then by 20 years of warfare and the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.
It could be argued that the British, incremental approach to increasing democracy was better than the revolutionary way.
My point wasn't in favour of revolution - Paine's two works 'Common Sense' and 'The Rights Of Man' were not revolutionary except in that they set out an argument for the basic rights that we now take for granted as cornerstones of modern democracy - long story short, he was one of the authors of the American Declaration of Independence, and heavily influenced the early Constitution so you can see the kind of things he was getting at.
My point was that democracy is fundamentally very 'British' - and were it not for the downright fear amongst the English ruling classes watching what had happened in France, and America, more progressive movements such as The Chartists in this country, may not have had such influence, and bought about the less bloody acceptance of universal suffrage, abolition of the property qualification to stand for parliament, and so on, which we now take for granted.
My main gripe is Party Politics - there is nothing democratic about the Three Line Whip - but taking all things into consideration, there is still no finer kingdom in the world, and I am glad - and proud - to be British. I'm no great authority on politics (well, only office politics!) so I doubt I will contribute much more to this thread, but the biggest problem is that our politicians are human, and make human errors - (or is that the greatest strength?) No system will ever be perfect - but we're closer than a lot, if not all.
The Vinyl Adventure
02-10-2009, 23:02
Normally I'd put my 2 sence in a thread like this ... But I think I have expressd my veiws aplenty previously... I have also had a git of a week and this is just the sort of thing that would stress me right out!
there is nothing democratic about the Three Line Whip .......... but the biggest problem is that our politicians are human, and make human errors -
or succumb to human temptation - power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutley.
I've posted here sometime ago exactly the same thought about Three Line Whips. All it needs for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing, as someone more famous than me once said.
Bit brief and perhaps a little OTT but it's past my bedtime and I haven't properly thought my way through my reply :) - perhaps a little clearer expression tomorrow.
Night-night all.
Hi Guys,
Looks as though this thread has died the death it probably deserves and, being as the "Why Hi-Fi Doesn't Work" spat looks as though it's going to be all boring and peaceful on here again, I thought I'd better start another stimulating conversation on "Religion and Other Lies".
Relax Dave (and everybody), stay put - only joking :lolsign: :lolsign: .
Cheers,
The Grand Wazoo
04-10-2009, 23:15
I thought I'd better start another stimulating conversation on "Religion and Other Lies".
Dave, Dave, Dave!!!
It's too much for me to stand. I'm laughing like a bastard over here!
Sir Patrick Moore is 86, and has been presenting The Sky At Night for 52 years - he joined the Flat Earth Society as an ironic joke. I wonder what hifi he has, if any. Can you believe someone who is still alive and working today has met both Albert Einstein and Orville Wright. I think I would like a monocle in later life, if I need it.
I wonder what someone who must clearly be approaching the end of his innings who has studied the "heavens" for most of his life thinks about religion...
The Grand Wazoo
04-10-2009, 23:44
I wonder what someone who must clearly be approaching the end of his innings who has studied the "heavens" for most of his life thinks about religion...
Well, I can guaran-damn-tee that he never saw a single thing that made him want to jump on a camel and ride to some old barn in the desert cos someone just had a baby...........
You can read what you want into that statement!
Well, I can guaran-damn-tee that he never saw a single thing that made him want to jump on a camel and ride to some old barn in the desert cos someone just had a baby...........
You can read what you want into that statement!
Now who's making people "laugh like a bastard"! :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
DanJennings
05-10-2009, 09:40
Sir Patrick Moore is 86, and has been presenting The Sky At Night for 52 years - he joined the Flat Earth Society as an ironic joke.
I met him a couple of times actually, nice chap... I went to a xylophone concert of his once.... very talented.
He's also huge... he seemed to tower over everyone
Hi Guys,
Looks as though this thread has died the death it probably deserves and, being as the "Why Hi-Fi Doesn't Work" spat looks as though it's going to be all boring and peaceful on here again, I thought I'd better start another stimulating conversation on "Religion and Other Lies".
Relax Dave (and everybody), stay put - only joking :lolsign: :lolsign: .
Cheers,
Damn! I was looking forward to that thread, too.
I think he was going to entitle it: 'The Pope's a poof and the Queen's got saggy tits', so nothing too contentious.
Marco.
I think he was going to entitle it: 'The Pope's a poof and the Queen's got saggy tits', so nothing too contentious.
Marco.
Indeed. Now, 'DSP smells of poo' or 'Big old Tannoys suck' would really get the keyboards going. Off to the blank canvas room!
Sir Patrick Moore is 86, and has been presenting The Sky At Night for 52 years - he joined the Flat Earth Society as an ironic joke. I wonder what hifi he has, if any. Can you believe someone who is still alive and working today has met both Albert Einstein and Orville Wright. I think I would like a monocle in later life, if I need it.
I wonder what someone who must clearly be approaching the end of his innings who has studied the "heavens" for most of his life thinks about religion...
AFAIK most scientists are either atheists or agnostics, possibly because they require the sort of evidence for their beliefs that religion just doesn't provide.
Indeed. Now, 'DSP smells of poo' or 'Big old Tannoys suck' would really get the keyboards going. Off to the blank canvas room!
Don't forget 'Techie's are tosh', too!
Marco.
'Breathed-on valve amps are for gays'
You're gettin' the hang of this fast!!
Marco.
The Grand Wazoo
05-10-2009, 19:40
AFAIK most scientists are either atheists or agnostics, possibly because they require the sort of evidence for their beliefs that religion just doesn't provide.
Well, you'd think so wouldn't you?
However, I've worked with and known several people with a deep belief in their religion (one of them a Jehova's Witness, another a devout Catholic) who are also extremely talented scientists, with minds that otherwise demand that theories should be proved with empirical evidence.
I don't understand this at all & have always been shy of having the conversation in case I offend someone.
Hi Chris,
Yes, I know like people but you should not be shy about asking questions. Actually, they will welcome your inquiry.
Regards,
Greg
Well, you'd think so wouldn't you?
However, I've worked with and known several people with a deep belief in their religion (one of them a Jehova's Witness, another a devout Catholic) who are also extremely talented scientists, with minds that otherwise demand that theories should be proved with empirical evidence.
I don't understand this at all & have always been shy of having the conversation in case I offend someone.
Discussing religion is like discussing death, I suppose.
Discussing religion is like discussing death, I suppose.
Sorry, maybe I'm being more thick than normal but I don't see the connection :scratch: .
Sorry, maybe I'm being more thick than normal but I don't see the connection :scratch: .
Religion represents (from the personal point of view) one's relationship with the concept of death. As such, it's a bit delicate to discuss on an individual basis.
Which has nothing to do with the social position of religion, which is represented by church.
Religion represents (from the personal point of view) one's relationship with the concept of death.
Hi Dimitri,
If the word 'personal' above relates to your personal point of view I can't argue, but if you are saying everyone's religion represents their relationship with death, I've got to disagree with you. Certainly ain't the case with me.
Cheers,
Well, then, I will put it otherwise:
These, for whom, religion represents (from their personal point of view) one's relationship with the concept of death (and they are many), they find it a bit delicate to discuss on an individual basis.
For all the others (equally many), it is easy for them to discuss religion.
Is that better ? ;)
(I am part of the second category)
Well, then, I will put it otherwise:
These, for whom, religion represents (from their personal point of view) one's relationship with the concept of death (and they are many), they find it a bit delicate to discuss on an individual basis.
For all the others (equally many), it is easy for them to discuss religion.
Is that better ? ;)
Hi Dimitri,
Yes it's better in the sense that I fully understand your point of view but no, it's not better in the sense that I still don't agree with you, sorry :( .
There may well be many whose religion represents there relationship with death, (I just don't know, so I can't agree or disagree with you), but I suspect that those that do have that view probably won't discuss their relgion because of it, but more because their religion, by definition almost, is an act of faith and it is difficult to discuss the subject with someone who just doesn't subscribe to views held, not on the basis of evidence, but on an unprovable faith, IMHO.
Sorry for the long sentence :) .
Cheers,
As a long-lapsed Roman Catholic, I enjoy discussing religion with people of every faith and none. But it was a no-go area with my mother, who took a very narrow view of the subject!
The Vinyl Adventure
05-10-2009, 22:36
I too, as someone with views, love to talk about religion! Having recently enjoyed (and not yet finished (I shall come back to it when I have fully digested the comments made)) with an undisclosed member, am unsure (in agreement with said other member) of how stable a forum thread could be whilst discussing such things!?!
Maybe a new thread on the stating of ones views with, with the proviso of no mockery, might provide an interesting insight in to some of our fellow members.. I for one, would be relativly happy to state my veiw on such a proviso!
The Vinyl Adventure
05-10-2009, 22:39
I'm fairly certain that was either realy good or bloody aweful grammer...
No comment ;)
:lol:
Marco.
The Vinyl Adventure
05-10-2009, 22:53
I recon if all of you could have 5 mins face to face chat with me, my posts would make more sence... I type as I talk
Stratmangler
05-10-2009, 22:59
I too, as someone with views, love to talk about religion! Having recently enjoyed (and not yet finished (I shall come back to it when I have fully digested the comments made)) with an undisclosed member, am unsure (in agreement with said other member) of how stable a forum thread could be whilst discussing such things!?!
Maybe a new thread on the stating of ones views with, with the proviso of no mockery, might provide an interesting insight in to some of our fellow members.. I for one, would be relativly happy to state my veiw on such a proviso!
I'd suggest that no such thread starts - it'll only end in tears.
Chris
The Vinyl Adventure
05-10-2009, 23:17
I'd suggest that no such thread starts - it'll only end in tears.
Chris
i think that there is a good chance ou are right.. but if there is a forum it coud work it would be thus one!
after ferther thought im not a 100% sure i would want to post my thoughts on the subject my self ... ... ...
Stratmangler
05-10-2009, 23:30
i think that there is a good chance ou are right.. but if there is a forum it coud work it would be thus one!
after ferther thought im not a 100% sure i would want to post my thoughts on the subject my self ... ... ...
In this instance I'd suggest you keep your thoughts to yourself. It'll be a train wreck if you don't.
Chris:)
The Vinyl Adventure
05-10-2009, 23:39
shame really... the recent convo i have had has certainly been one of the most thought provoking on this forum.. both in terms of my own expression as well as reading the thoughts of the other person.
The Grand Wazoo
06-10-2009, 06:58
Chris' suggestion of it all ending in tears is (I fear) 100% accurate.
Well, to my point of view, as each one's convictions about religion don't usually interfere with my everyday life, I do not discuss such matters. Moreover, being agnostic, I'm not particularly interested in discussing these matters.
I find it much more interesting discussing the history of church and its relationship with the state and society through the ages.
I too, as someone with views, love to talk about religion! Having recently enjoyed (and not yet finished (I shall come back to it when I have fully digested the comments made)) with an undisclosed member, am unsure (in agreement with said other member) of how stable a forum thread could be whilst discussing such things!?!
Maybe a new thread on the stating of ones views with, with the proviso of no mockery, might provide an interesting insight in to some of our fellow members.. I for one, would be relativly happy to state my veiw on such a proviso!
Being a mouthy Scouser, I'll state my views even without such a proviso.
Spectral Morn
06-10-2009, 19:32
And that may well be the problem.
Can I suggest we get back on topic Democracy.....
Regards D S D L
Fair play.
Universal suffrage; is it always A Good Thing or does it lead inexorably to bribery of the electorate by political parties?
Universal suffrage; is it always A Good Thing or does it lead inexorably to bribery of the electorate by political parties?
IMHO (if needed)
Universal suffrage is a weapon and "the hand" needed to use it is called education.
Education ... oh well, we all know how it is produced. The only unknown (x) ingredient in education is "information". Information is controlled through mass media. ;)
The one who wants to have some kind of control on education, needs to have some kind of control on information.
If we need to know whether the electorate can be bribed by political parties, then we need to analyze how much of the mass-media is actually controlled (indirectly) by these political parties.
(it's a bit too simple to be true, I know) :scratch:
As to whether "universal suffrage" is a good thing: I think, yes. Anything that gives you the slightest increase in probability to avoid arbitrary (thus: highly uncertain) decisions, is a good think.
Steve Toy
06-10-2009, 21:22
Being a mouthy Scouser, I'll state my views even without such a proviso.
Mouthy Scouser aside, I know some very decent people from the Liverpool area. Perhaps they could teach you some manners.
:p
shame really... the recent convo i have had has certainly been one of the most thought provoking on this forum.. both in terms of my own expression as well as reading the thoughts of the other person.
Hi Hamish,
I wonder if it is against any unwritten law for such a thread to be conducted by PM? If so, no innocent bystanders would be offended and no colateral damage would be inflicted.
Just a thought, or is that exactly what you have been doing?
Cheers,
If so, no innocent bystanders would be offended and no colateral damage would be inflicted.
:lolsign: :sofa:
Stratmangler
06-10-2009, 21:44
Hi Hamish,
I wonder if it is against any unwritten law for such a thread to be conducted by PM?
That would make it correspondance by private mail, not a thread, and as such a far better option than being in the public domain.
Chris;)
Spectral Morn
06-10-2009, 22:09
Can we get back on topic please. the nature of or contents of private messages are just that private and have nothing to do with Democracy.
Thank you D S D L
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.