This Brexit In-Out thread as got me thinking, and rather than high-jack that thread, thought it might be good to start another on the topic of democracy.

 

For me it's, or should be, very simple - you provide the people of a state/constituency/town etc with as much info. as possible.  You allow experts from both or all sides to put forward their arguments and projections etc.  You encourage critical thinking and freedom of information in all aspects of society.  You educate children about the merits of this but also about alternatives.

 

The people then vote on what they want to happen.  Politicians then put the wishes of the people into action.

 

Simplistic, granted, but what a democracy should look like in my eyes.  In today's world, with technology, allowing more people to vote on all and every decision in the public interest is easier than ever before.

 

All I've seen in my lifetime is politicians promise to do x, y and z and then deliver a, b and c - the turnaround on tuition fees and the lies about Iraq being the final straws for me.

 

I don't feel we have a democracy and this Brexit farce just highlights it more than ever - watching grown men argue about it made me laugh at the absurdity of it all.  A vote in and of itself does not a democracy make.

 

What do others think?  What should a democracy look like and do you think we have one here in Britain?

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by madthatter

I saw a video of 15 people on a US university campus asked "What is the capital of Canada?"

 

The first 14 did not know, or thought they knew but incorrectly, the 15th turned out to be Canadian.

 

(And that was Harvard.)

I saw a video of 15 people on a US university campus asked "What is the capital of Canada?"

 

The first 14 did not know, or thought they knew but incorrectly, the 15th turned out to be Canadian.

 

(And that was Harvard.)

You never know how those pieces are edited Malcolm, they often just show the clips to back up their argument.

I think that's a good idea, remove the franchise from anyone who doesn't know the capital of Canada without Googling or any other consultation.

 

I've still got my vote and probably won't use it.

 

Do you?

 

I've still got my vote and probably won't use it.

 

 

If they gave out free shots of Brasso outside the polling booths you would be there when it opened.

I'd be there and with an empty hot water bottle on a string around my neck secreted under my overcoat.

Democracy is relatively new in real terms, women only got to vote 100 years a go and the common man 100 years before that (UK)

 

Within its short history across the world it's managed to give some right nut cases extraordinary power, Hitler for one

 

I'm not sure it will still be kicking around in another 100 years, not in its current format anyway. Too many people with the right to vote have zero interest in current affairs or politics. Far too many votes can be swayed by completely made up bollocks as they prey on the fact that folk on the whole are a bit bone idle and can't be arsed to check the information

 

I'm not sure what it will look like in the future but some form of aptitude test would be my bet. Nothing that discriminates against race or social class of course.

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by birch-chorley

This Brexit In-Out thread as got me thinking, and rather than high-jack that thread, thought it might be good to start another on the topic of democracy.

 

For me it's, or should be, very simple - you provide the people of a state/constituency/town etc with as much info. as possible.  You allow experts from both or all sides to put forward their arguments and projections etc.  You encourage critical thinking and freedom of information in all aspects of society.  You educate children about the merits of this but also about alternatives.

 

The people then vote on what they want to happen.  Politicians then put the wishes of the people into action.

 

Simplistic, granted, but what a democracy should look like in my eyes.  In today's world, with technology, allowing more people to vote on all and every decision in the public interest is easier than ever before.

 

All I've seen in my lifetime is politicians promise to do x, y and z and then deliver a, b and c - the turnaround on tuition fees and the lies about Iraq being the final straws for me.

 

I don't feel we have a democracy and this Brexit farce just highlights it more than ever - watching grown men argue about it made me laugh at the absurdity of it all.  A vote in and of itself does not a democracy make.

 

What do others think?  What should a democracy look like and do you think we have one here in Britain?

You might want to start with this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

 

I guess its like an undergrad cliche now, but 25 years ago it was revolutionary in the way we think about political discourse and the victory of liberal (in the classic sense) western democracy. It is stil oft quoted and oft argued against. Interesting his thoughts on the EU in the light of what has happened. And I think that is why we are in a very interesting/troubling period, the likes of which we haven't seen since post-modernism took hold. 

 

The rejection of centralised political systems is the biggest upset in the end of history narrative and I think that despite being more connected globally than ever before we are going to see a shift to hyper-localized politics and a rejection of centralised control in the short term.

I saw a video of 15 people on a US university campus asked "What is the capital of Canada?"

 

The first 14 did not know, or thought they knew but incorrectly, the 15th turned out to be Canadian.

 

(And that was Harvard.)

 

Aye - but if democracies really were self-governed it would mean that the majority would have to co-operate and educate to ensure said numpties etc don't get the chance to exact their agendas.

 

If they didn't then, well, you get what you deserve.  At least folk would know they had the chance to do things differently!  As it stands it's basically "OK you can vote for dictator no.1, 2 or 3 - none of which are guaranteed to do what you want or what they promise"

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by madthatter

democracy will be pointless sooner or later because the politicians will have no power as the banks / money men get it all, they may think they do, and they may make us think they do, but they won't

 

kent knows

You might want to start with this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man

 

I guess its like an undergrad cliche now, but 25 years ago it was revolutionary in the way we think about political discourse and the victory of liberal (in the classic sense) western democracy. It is stil oft quoted and oft argued against. Interesting his thoughts on the EU in the light of what has happened. And I think that is why we are in a very interesting/troubling period, the likes of which we haven't seen since post-modernism took hold. 

 

The rejection of centralised political systems is the biggest upset in the end of history narrative and I think that despite being more connected globally than ever before we are going to see a shift to hyper-localized politics and a rejection of centralised control in the short term.

 

Good link and post - thanks, I will take a look

 

The last bit would be a good solution in my eyes.  A start to allowing smaller communities (relatively) govern and share out their resources accordingly.

I think that's a good idea, remove the franchise from anyone who doesn't know the capital of Canada without Googling or any other consultation.

 

I've still got my vote and probably won't use it.

 

Do you?

 

  No, it's pointless.

democracy will be pointless sooner or later because the politicians will have no power as the banks / money men get it all, they may think they do, and they may make us think they do, but they won't

 

kent knows

 

Some crazies may argue that's already happened . . .

Good link and post - thanks, I will take a look

 

The last bit would be a good solution in my eyes.  A start to allowing smaller communities (relatively) govern and share out their resources accordingly.

One of the issues with that is the recreation of almost smaller, individual states and as history shows generally, over the long term it is better to centrally control for nations to flourish.

 

I'm not syaing I agree with everything Fukuyama writes - he is after all (or was) a neocon but its clear that western liberalism is still the grounding for what humanity sees as successful governance.

Democracy is relatively new in real terms, women only got to vote 100 years a go and the common man 100 years before that (UK)

 

Within its short history across the world it's managed to give some right nut cases extraordinary power, Hitler for one

 

I'm not sure it will still be kicking around in another 100 years, not in its current format anyway. Too many people with the right to vote have zero interest in current affairs or politics. Far too many votes can be swayed by completely made up bollocks as they prey on the fact that folk on the whole are a bit bone idle and can't be arsed to check the information

 

I'm not sure what it will look like in the future but some form of aptitude test would be my bet. Nothing that discriminates against race or social class of course.

 

As I understand it Hitler was 'allowed and encouraged' to rise to his power as the German elite saw him as the perfect antidote to the rising communist ideals at the time.

 

I think to say they underestimated him is a bit of an er understatement  

 

I get your point though

 

I would argue that the latter point would be very different if our education system, press and hence social aspirations were different.  It's fairly easy to convince a nation that killing other human beings is justifiable.  So it shouldn't be too hard to convince people that their vote, education and say in society has value and importance.  Just depends whose agenda is being pushed imo.

Some crazies may argue that's already happened . . .

 

the process has certainly began

One of the issues with that is the recreation of almost smaller, individual states and as history shows generally, over the long term it is better to centrally control for nations to flourish.

 

I'm not syaing I agree with everything Fukuyama writes - he is after all (or was) a neocon but its clear that western liberalism is still the grounding for what humanity sees as successful governance.

 

Heading off into the geopolitical stratosphere here when I believe the madman was simply asking what does 'democracy' mean. At the base level - one man, one vote and you abide by the will of the people. Something that those obnoxious recalcitrants who brought this case should be forced to write on a blackboard a million times in chalk.

 

They'd be in The Tower for mine. Treacherous bastards.

One of the issues with that is the recreation of almost smaller, individual states and as history shows generally, over the long term it is better to centrally control for nations to flourish.

 

I'm not syaing I agree with everything Fukuyama writes - he is after all (or was) a neocon but its clear that western liberalism is still the grounding for what humanity sees as successful governance.

 

That is a very subjective term though.  I may consider, for e.g., happy, family based communities that are moving towards, or have achieved, self-sufficiency and an eco-balance as flourishing.  

 

Many would see that as moving back to the dark ages and would only consider being the richest, most powerful, techo-advanced and military savvy nation on Earth as flourishing.

 

It's why to me education and a commitment to truth, equality and freedom are essential for a 'true' democracy to work.  When politicians openly lie, cheat and whatever else it's hard to have any faith.

 

As an aside - what do you think allowed human beings to become the dominant animal on the planet?  Was it individualism or co-operation?  I would argue it was the latter, with the former being quite destructive and counter productive to our advancement and survival.

 

Capitalism for me is an embodiment of individualism and is damaging to our species - and being a child of the 80s I can attest that having more, getting more etc has been the doctrine served to me through school, work, media and even the arts to a degree.  That doesn't mean it's right though but most would not even think to question where they get their motivations from. 

Heading off into the geopolitical stratosphere here when I believe the madman was simply asking what does 'democracy' mean. At the base level - one man, one vote and you abide by the will of the people. Something that those obnoxious recalcitrants who brought this case should be forced to write on a blackboard a million times in chalk.

 

They'd be in The Tower for mine. Treacherous bastards.

 

  ha ha!  That;s tickled me!

Heading off into the geopolitical stratosphere here when I believe the madman was simply asking what does 'democracy' mean. At the base level - one man, one vote and you abide by the will of the people. Something that those obnoxious recalcitrants who brought this case should be forced to write on a blackboard a million times in chalk.

 

They'd be in The Tower for mine. Treacherous bastards.

 You wonder why no one listens to you round here?

Human nature is as much about individualism as co-operation.

Some will aspire to lead others to follow.

All aspects of functional society require both.

No point trying to educate people in the way you say, when at times we're struggling to get fundamentals across. Not everyone will be that bothered.

 

When I worked at the uni some Muslim fanatic put up a poster slagging off the west etc and its freedoms as a result of its actions against al qeada. From a cunt studying here.

 

I was incensed and put my own up alongside it saying "freedom is the ability to put up posters like this without fear of reprisals". I guess a democracy is something similar.

Democracy is relatively new in real terms, women only got to vote 100 years a go and the common man 100 years before that (UK)

 

Within its short history across the world it's managed to give some right nut cases extraordinary power, Hitler for one

 

I'm not sure it will still be kicking around in another 100 years, not in its current format anyway. Too many people with the right to vote have zero interest in current affairs or politics. Far too many votes can be swayed by completely made up bollocks as they prey on the fact that folk on the whole are a bit bone idle and can't be arsed to check the information

 

I'm not sure what it will look like in the future but some form of aptitude test would be my bet. Nothing that discriminates against race or social class of course.

 

I'm curious as to when you think the 'common' man got the vote in the UK. It was not until after 1918.

 

And a large part of Hitler's appeal to voters in his early days was in opposition to the extremely onerous terms Germany faced in the Treaty of Versailles.

Human nature is as much about individualism as co-operation.

Some will aspire to lead others to follow.

All aspects of functional society require both.

No point trying to educate people in the way you say, when at times we're struggling to get fundamentals across. Not everyone will be that bothered.

 

When I worked at the uni some Muslim fanatic put up a poster slagging off the west etc and its freedoms as a result of its actions against al qeada. From a cunt studying here.

 

I was incensed and put my own up alongside it saying "freedom is the ability to put up posters like this without fear of reprisals". I guess a democracy is something similar.

 

Good point and I was going touch on that but thought it would get a little convoluted.  I agree about individualism being important but disagree that it's as important and beneficial to our nature as co-operation.  Although granted, coercion can be confused with co-operation at times . . .

 

Yes, some people need to be herded.  Sad, but true.  But there's being herded blindly and being herded voluntarily.  I would argue that today most think we live with the latter when it's really the former, imo.  

 

Re. education.  It's a good point again but perhaps this is where I may be overly idealistic and optimistic of human nature;  possibly as i  have seen how impressionable and generally good-natured young children are.  

 

We live in a world of fear and hate.  The West encourages this as much, if not more than, the 'Middle East' imo, just in much more subtle ways.  So a natural consequence is extreme views on both poles.  You have you Ray Guns here and your Kill the whities there (and here   What a lot of people don't realise is that some people benefit massively from all this hate.  That could be different though, which is what I'm alluding to.  But yes, you will always get mentalists, but would they be the majority?

 

I read recently that the thing that British kids fear the most is terrorism.   So, we are at 'War with Terror'.   Now is it me or is perpetuating and highlighting the destructive effects of terrorism, that whilst not being unreal, are unlikely to directly effect most of our lives, counter productive?  i.e. haven't the terrorists won if our children live in fear?  Who controls that or could influence it?  It aint the bad men living in the desert . . .

 

Love the poster btw  

If Trump gets elected the idea of democracy is a failed experiment.

 

There again not much better if Hilary wins.

If Trump gets elected the idea of democracy is a failed experiment.

 

There again not much better if Hilary wins.

 

I'd argue we've never really had it.

 

 - someone correct me here but even if a decision/policy is put through parliament does it not then go the house of Lords who basically yay or nay it?

 

I know that they are not elected but appointed so how is that democratic in any way, shape or form?  Always thought it was madness but folk just seem to accept that's the way it is.   I know that's an over simplification and they serve a kind of 'critical friend' type role but still . . . One man one vote for me is the only true democracy.   

 

My vote means fook all!

Edited November 4, 20169 yr by madthatter