Lizard Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 (edited) Shit we've got SO much in relative democratic terms when compared to others countries. Go live in Palestine,next door to Israel,the South Africa of the Middle East and have them turn your lands into ungovernable isolated Bantustans. hmmmm ever stop to consider that these places are so rough because of our wonderful political system and the shit it's inflicted upon the world ? Edited August 2, 2007 by Lizard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Culchi Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 "Shit,at least Britain ain't America..............................................yet! rofl.gif " Still, you have to admit, life in Britain ain't great, is it? But it's all we've got for now. But it doesn't sound promising when you live on an island coast and someone says the tide's coming in and it's 3 miles high thanks to global-warming - (ban heating now). "You can please (fool?) most of the people some of the time and some of the people most of the time, but you can't please (fool?) all of the people all of the time." There's always room for improvement. Still, could be worse... We live in Hope. Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dr rockster Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 hmmmm ever stop to consider that these places are so rough because of our wonderful political system and the shit it's inflicted upon the world ? That's not a political system inflicting shit,its America inflicting it,a right wing ideology that has nothing to do with democracy but merely a doctrine of guaranteeing energy and materials at all costs. She says one thing and does another. But our Eurocentric politics ain't the best,ain't all that pretty,but its better than a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lizard Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 That's not a political system inflicting shit,its America inflicting it,a right wing ideology that has nothing to do with democracy but merely a doctrine of guaranteeing energy and materials at all costs. She says one thing and does another. But our Eurocentric politics ain't the best,ain't all that pretty,but its better than a lot. well to be fair most of the trouble in the mid east and africa is a direct result of british ( and european ) colonialism even America and all the shit is causes is a direct result of that. I really do get the feeling that modern politics is a carefully choreographed charade designed to make us proles believe we play a part in it all when infact we've never been more powerless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HvyFuel Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 So what is? Nothing, yet. True democracy has never existed. If you bothered to read what I'd already written instead of taking the piss out of anyone who dares to disagree with you as usual, you'd notice that I said democracy means everyone, who wishes to, being able to vote on every issue. I've also said that we now have the technology to be able to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boojum Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 In answer to one of the things gert was asking (I think, I kinda got a bit lost in the hyperbole) regarding what it would take to call something a democracy, there are a number of things. First off would be a level playing field, with all parties limited to using the same amount of money to campaign with (and no party permitted to raise funds for campaigning in addition to the initial amount), and the media banned from any political bias during the election campaign, that may result in something a little more democratic than the current choice of two (realistically, lib dem aren't a serious choice because they are perceived not to be a serious choice, nobody votes for them because nobody thinks they can win, which is in itself a rather undemocratic attitude on the part of the British public, one should vote how one's politics lead, not for who you think is gonna win anyway). That would be a start. Further than that, beyond the whole idea of party politics, democracy means one man one vote - not one man one vote to vote in a government, but one man one vote on every single issue. In that sense at least Athenian democracy was more a true democracy than ours, everyone had the right to propose new policies and everyone had the right to vote on them, not just a selected few 'elected representatives'. As Hvy says, we now have the technology to make that happen, if we truly wish to call ourselves a democracy then get rid of the houses of parliament & lords, get rid of the politicians and create a truly democratic system in which everyone who wants to can have a say on any matter they choose. An extension to that is a point I made earlier, party politics leads to personality politics, you can't really consider the UK a true democracy when a large proportion of the electorate don't have the first bloody clue about policies and treat the elections as nothing more than popularity contests - THAT is NOT democracy, it has fuck all to do with politics (sure, politics has become all about media image & personality, but that doesn't make it right OR democratic). Oh, and gert, nowhere in this post have I said anything along the lines of "guvinmunt iz all cuntz" Nor did I in my previous post. In fact I can't see anyone having written that, I've seen a few intelligently argued points (and yours aren't among them, as usual your points are one part pedantry to three parts veiled personal insult and ridicule), which you have conveniently chosen to ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted August 6, 2007 Author Share Posted August 6, 2007 i suppose the idea i was trying to get across (quite apart from the problems with our form of democracy, as to wether its truly representative) was wether ya can really have a democracy when the opinions of the majority are shaped by a very few people? well, i spose ya can have a democracy, but its really a dictatorship by proxy, it seems to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirBob Posted August 6, 2007 Share Posted August 6, 2007 Still, you have to admit, life in Britain ain't great, is it? It's not that bad either though, is it? we live without threat of invasion, civil war, famine or major disaster (and i live in gloucestershire, the floods weren't that bad!) we have nationwide electricity, water and sewage disposal, broadband internet and 3G mobile phones we have one of the best standards of living, a top 10 GDP, our infant mortality rate is one of the lowest in the world. We have the NHS, where we can get free healthcare! we provide a modest living to people who are unable to work, even a modest living to people who can't be arsed to work! a-level students are getting higher and higher results (i love the way most people blame this on the 'tests getting easier' without any evidence) university placements have risen despite the introduction of tuition fees. We live in one of the best countries in the world IMO, there are places that are a lot more hostile to live than here! I do agree however that our country is in recession with things like civil liberties, corruption within politics and the police force and many other aspects that govern our day-to-day lives. The illusion of a two party system is very interesting, because it is the very idea of it that keeps it in place. We can vote for whoever we want to, so why do we* vote for Tory or Labour? *we meaning population of UK or US Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 was wether ya can really have a democracy when the opinions of the majority are shaped by a very few people?well, i spose ya can have a democracy, but its really a dictatorship by proxy, it seems to me. Hi, kt, I think I see what you're driving at, but then would you only allow those people who "have shaped their own opinions" to participate in a democracy? Apart from the obvious difficulty of WHO is going to be the judge of that, isn't what you are describing more like meritocracy, aristocracy (in the old sense) or elitism? I mean, I doubt that 95% of the world's population would even be capable of shaping their own opinions, where does that leave your vision of "democracy"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 7, 2007 Share Posted August 7, 2007 True democracy is where the people have the power and not jumped up tofts who think they can control and tell us what to do such as present day polotics UK_BB, do you really think it would be democracy if (as some suggested) everybody's opinion counted? That's a genuine question, BTW! Some people have said that all you'd have then is a lynch mob, basically, since most people are incapable of not being influenced by media, propaganda, etc. Look at all this Reefer Madness going around, for example. Do you think a genuine, democratic vote would go in favour of cannabis? And if the vote of the masses was against weed, would you respect that "democratic" result and stop toking? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) ok gert, im not saying that we should have a democracy where only those judged to have defined their own opinions can participate, im just asking is it democracy when the opinions of those who participate are shaped by very few is really democracy? can ya really say this is a democracy when most people dont even have the information to make their own decisions? im not saying that we should have such and such of a system, but asking wther this system that we do have is a democracy Edited August 8, 2007 by kilgore trout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 im just asking is it democracy when the opinions of those who participate are shaped by very few is really democracy?can ya really say this is a democracy when most people dont even have the information to make their own decisions? Why not? The information IS there. People just excercise their "democratic" right not to be arsed about it. Why would that make it any less democratic, or even undemocratic? It's the peoples' choice, but that's democracy for you. You're supposed to learn from your mistakes. im not saying that we should have such and such of a system, but asking wther this system that we do have is a democracy Well, you'd have to define what YOUR requirements are, for something to be called a democracy, and then we can check them against the current system, to see if it qualifies as a "democracy" or not, by your definition. That's why I asked you whether you'd exclude non-free thinkers from your democratic model. Frankly, I never saw anything in ANY description of democracy that says people have to be informed, smart, clever or anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kilgore trout Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Why not? The information IS there. People just excercise their "democratic" right not to be arsed about it.Why would that make it any less democratic, or even undemocratic? well i suppose my question is answered to my satisfaction. laying aside arguments about the specific system, its still a democracy wether those participating are given the "full story" or not. i suppose ya could call it a "manipulated choice" that people make, but its a choice just the same, its effect may be the same as a dictatorship, but it is still a democracy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gert Lush Posted August 9, 2007 Share Posted August 9, 2007 (edited) i suppose ya could call it a "manipulated choice" that people make, but its a choice just the same, its effect may be the same as a dictatorship, but it is still a democracy Yup, that's pretty much my view, which is also why I think democracy is - shall we say - a tad overrated. At the end of the day, it's just names. Who cares whether the current system is called "democracy", "anarchy", "new feudalism" or whatever. It's still by FAR the best system we've ever had, even if it is crap (I'm not arguing with that ) Under our current system, if you really want to do something, you can almost always find a way to do it. And that's what really counts at the end of the day, innit? I think freedom and liberty are far more important than "democracy", anyway. Democracy is OK, I guess, but I wouldn't want to sacrifice either of the former for the latter. Hitler, remember, was democratically elected. Edited August 9, 2007 by Gert Lush Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Father McPot Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 I used to vote liberal democrat but as soon as they had the idea of been more conservative i fucked every party off. fuck labour fuck conservative and fuck liberal democrat. if we want true freedome we have to take the necicarry steps to let the cunt government know that we are not happy. 1 perfect example is the housing in england. this country is shit and we do have to worry about terrorism, invasion and occupation it would be naieve to say not to worry Yes, but you are better off voting for the lesser of 3 evils. That being the Liberal Democrats(imo). Here are some parties, according to "politicalcompass.org"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now