Chewing Gum Levy

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
Maybe it belongs on the history board. People seem to know what they're talking about there.

...

I realise that you're unlikely to respond to barracking though.

Maybe he isn't, but I'll tell you one thing for sure.....I am incredibly likely to respond to barracking and the general insults you're throwing around like the one above (implying people don't know what they're talking about here).

Only, I'm more likely to respond with bannage then discussion, so you might want to tone your bile down a few notches.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
(implying people don't know what they're talking about here).

No. I meant that people on the history board seem to have a much more detailed knowledge of history than the more common kind of general knowledge some people here (including me) do.

Turnip, wrt government types surely all/most types of government down the ages have improved the lot of the people.

I'm not sure what examples you're referring to. Christianity effectively halted progress in science, art, medicine etc for a very long time for instance. Some periods in China's history make for interesting contrasts I think. But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
What exactly does 'intrangedent' mean?
Google only returns one site with it's use and dictionary.com is clueless as to it's existence!

Upps! My bad - I meant intransigent - typo

Originally posted by Turnip
Democracy could not have been wrested from the aristocrats because they were not democrats to begin with were they? :rolleyes:

So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries, and when it’s pointed out that we’ve really only had democracy over the last century, you change your argument completely.

And I’m evasive... :rolleyes:

Living conditions have improved for humanity for a myriad of reasons. Democratic accountability is one of them, but so are the advances in medicine and science, as well as the gradual expansion of trade.

ColinM

Originally posted by Turnip
But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

I think that's a key point there Turnip, but what you're implying is that all unjust governments are undemocratic. I don't think it has to be that way. I don't see why there shouldn't be very just governments or rulers that make good decisions for the citizens and make the country a great place to live.

So let's assume that battles were fought and democracy was wrested at some stage then. Let's even assume that what we have now is actual democracy (and not some horrible kind of perverted corrupted democracy where it doesn't matter who you vote for because the crooks get into power anyway). Who says democracy is the ideal system of rule? Why is it? Is it ideal because it is guaranteed to make the country as nice a place to live as possible? Look around the place here now - is this some kind of utopia that we can attribute to the wonders of democracy?
(In case you dare answer that one, it is a rhetorical question, and the answer is a distinct no!)

I'll say again that I think you are able to express yourself well, and you demonstrate that you have sought to inform yourself and think about things. You are pro-democracy, so you want everyone to have a say. Why do you want people who are not prepared to do the research to inform themselves and don't have the mental capacity to formulate ideas based on the knowledge they have garnered, to share the decision making with you?

About the Remains Of The Day reference you make - I don't remember whether I've seen the film. I'm certainly aware of it, but I may only have seen bits of it. I may not be aware of something else about the scene that helps to underly your implication that anyone who would think that it would be a good idea to deny the Anthony Hopkins character the right to vote would be wrong. However, if I asked someone's opinion on an "economics" question that affected the country and directly or indirectly its citizens, and their response was that they couldn't care less, I wouldn't think them deserving of a right to a say in the running of the country.

I share your sentiments that the catholic church is a stupid cult, so there is our common ground. I am also delighted that they seem to be on the run, but I am wary of the "spiritual vacuum" that is being left after their demise. These days, I am always mindful of G. K. Chesterton's observation that once a man stops believing in god, he will believe in anything.

You are being very antagonistic when you write, Turnip. You also do use implied and direct insults. I would put this down to the fact that you just must feel passionately about democracy, but you have been insulting on other threads also, so I think it's probably true to say that you need to be more calm in general. Being polite will follow naturally.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Actually, in general, all governments regardless of type usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Democracy is too young to expect this to happen widescale amongst democratic nations....but democracies have failed and will fail again....just live every other form of government.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries, [

Yes.

and when it’s pointed out that we’ve really only had democracy over the last century, you change your argument completely.

Not at all. The process of democratisation has been slow, granted, but the ideas expressed 200 years ago still form the basis of our society. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea.

At what point in history should the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom have been halted?

Living conditions have improved for humanity for a myriad of reasons. Democratic accountability is one of them, but so are the advances in medicine and science, as well as the gradual expansion of trade.

I don't disagree. In fact I said that advances in medicine and science were continually frustrated by anti-democratic elements like the church. The paradox surrounding power is this: the tools created by anti-democrats to retain it are the same ones that are used eventually by democrats to take it.

Turnip

Top 20 countries in the UNDP's human development index, graded according to indicators like life expectancy, educational standards and income.

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then? :rolleyes:

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, in general, all governments regardless of type usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Democracy is too young to expect this to happen widescale amongst democratic nations....but democracies have failed and will fail again....just live every other form of government.

jc

Yes, but excepting external factors like natural disasters and alien invasion, democracies can only fail when they are destroyed by anti-democratic elements, people who think democracy is a bad idea in the first place. They must be guarded against. :ninja:

How long has the Swiss system been going now?

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
How long has the Swiss system been going now?

Since 1848....which technically makes Switzerland younger than the US as a nation.

Its system is actually a "refinement" of the US implementation, incidentally....

And it gives the Extremists as much of a voice as they choose to exercise democratically.....so its not impervious by any means. :ninja:

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Not at all. The process of democratisation has been slow, granted, but the ideas expressed 200 years ago still form the basis of our society.

But that’s not what you said. You said:

Considering the improvements in the standard of living in Ireland over the last couple of hundred years, I'd say democracy has worked quite well.

Implying that the improvements over the last few hundred years were as a result of democracy, even though this did not realistically incarnated until a century ago.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea.

I did not proffer one because:

1. It was off topic to this thread
2. You seemed happy just to fling insults
3. You had already managed to illustrate one flaw in democracy without my help

At what point in history should the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom have been halted?

Should children be given the right to vote? Should the electorate be given licence to vote and debate every individual law? Should we ban political party whips, as they are fundamentally undemocratic? Or just ban political parties altogether? If a town, suburb, street, or even an individual, decided to succeed from a democratic State, should they be allowed to do so? Should we have the individual freedom to do as we wish? Even if affects another? Even if we don’t believe that it affects another?

The list to where democracy and individual freedom are halted is endless.

I don't disagree. In fact I said that advances in medicine and science were continually frustrated by anti-democratic elements like the church. The paradox surrounding power is this: the tools created by anti-democrats to retain it are the same ones that are used eventually by democrats to take it.

What’s that got to do with the point I made?

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then? :rolleyes:

Again I would point to progress in medicine, science and trade as factors in life expectancy, educational standards and income. To assume that the reason that some countries are higher than others in the UNDP's human development index because of democracy, is just an assumption on your part.

Remember: Correlation does not imply causation.

One could use the same list - which with the exception of Japan is entirely composed of racially European dominated nations - as a proof for European racial supremacy.

Add to this Hong Kong (26th) and Singapore (28th), neither Western democracies, come in on the list shortly after your cut-off point, way above many democratic countries such as Brazil (65th), Turkey (96th) or India (127th).

Hence your argument does not really bare scrutiny.

Yes, but excepting external factors like natural disasters and alien invasion, democracies can only fail when they are destroyed by anti-democratic elements, people who think democracy is a bad idea in the first place. They must be guarded against.

Is that one of those points where the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom should be halted? :rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries,

Originally posted by Turnip
Yes.

Then how did the countries of central and eastern Europe develop so much in the period 1500-1990 in the near complete absence of democracy? Most went from monarchies to dictators to pseudo democracy to communism. Admittedly not as much as others, but more than most.

echomadman

Top 20 countries in the UNDP's human development index, graded according to indicators like life expectancy, educational standards and income.

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then?

on a side note (this thread cant get anymore off-topic) i would like to compare and contrast this with with suicide and depression statistices

Utopias... pfft


I HATE CHEWING GUM (back on topic)

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Implying that the improvements over the last few hundred years were as a result of democracy, even though this did not realistically incarnated until a century ago.

I didn't imply it, I said it. Democracy did not pop out of thin air and it was not granted to the people by venal landgrabbing aristocratic scum out of the goodness of their little hearts. It had to be argued and fought for.

I did not proffer one because:

1. It was off topic to this thread
2. You seemed happy just to fling insults
3. You had already managed to illustrate one flaw in democracy without my help

Yet more evasion and patronising comments. I can just assume that either you don't actually have an alternative and don't think before you post your ill-formed opinions or else you hold some pretty unpopular and thoroughly discredited political views and you're too cowardly to stand by them when challenged.

Should children be given the right to vote?

Children don't have the vote, but thanks to democracy, neither are they expected to be shoved down mines or sold for the amusement of bored aristocrats. Children are encouraged to get involved in political issues anyway.

Should the electorate be given licence to vote and debate every individual law?

I would like to see greater participation in the decision making process, down to the lowest level possible. Why not? Political systems based around consensus building rather than simple majority rule produce more stability.

Should we ban political party whips, as they are fundamentally undemocratic? Or just ban political parties altogether?

No need to ban anything. You're the one who claims that democracy is [/b]fundamentally[/b] a bad idea remember? Since you refuse to explain your position, that can be taken many ways. I take it to mean that you oppose the very principles of democracy, things like votes for women (and anyone else you might object to), equal electoral districts, vote by secret ballot, and the abolition of the property qualification to stand for election. Or you could just be an unreconstructed fascist or a monarchist, who knows.

If a town, suburb, street, or even an individual, decided to succeed from a democratic State, should they be allowed to do so? Should we have the individual freedom to do as we wish? Even if affects another? Even if we don’t believe that it affects another?

What is it exactly that you want to do that our tyrannical democratic system stops you from doing? Even a child knows that he can't get everything he wants and understands why. But if you want to give up your responsibilities to the state then why should the state afford you any legal protection or property rights?

The list to where democracy and individual freedom are halted is endless.

If you have problem with any aspect of democracy then run for election. Heck, you might even get elected, end up holding the balance of power and be in a position to bring in some wacky reforms.

Again I would point to progress in medicine, science and trade as factors in life expectancy, educational standards and income.

So it was purely a coincidence that progress in those areas coincided with the development of democratic ideals then. Ok.

One could use the same list - which with the exception of Japan is entirely composed of racially European dominated nations - as a proof for European racial supremacy.

One could but one would be wrong. The Irish are not anglo saxons for a start. But is that how you prefer to see it then?

Add to this Hong Kong (26th) and Singapore (28th), neither Western democracies, come in on the list shortly after your cut-off point, way above many democratic countries such as Brazil (65th), Turkey (96th) or India (127th).

Some democracies are more democratic than others and their systems are at different levels of sophistication. However, Brazil and India will undoubtedly emerge as the economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

Hence your argument does not really bare scrutiny.

At least I have an argument. You continue to be evasive.

Is that one of those points where the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom should be halted? :rolleyes:

Well, in democracies we can't just round up and shoot, gas, or torture anyone who expresses an opinion no matter how stupid or dangerous it might be.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
I didn't imply it, I said it. Democracy did not pop out of thin air and it was not granted to the people by venal landgrabbing aristocratic scum out of the goodness of their little hearts. It had to be argued and fought for.

Then, as has been pointed out by others, how did democracy improve in the standard of living over the last couple of hundred years if it was not in a position to do so for the majority of that time?

Yet more evasion and patronising comments. I can just assume that either you don't actually have an alternative and don't think before you post your ill-formed opinions or else you hold some pretty unpopular and thoroughly discredited political views and you're too cowardly to stand by them when challenged.

You can hold all the assumptions you like about me. Assumptions appear to be the only thing of consistency in your argument.

Children don't have the vote, but thanks to democracy, neither are they expected to be shoved down mines or sold for the amusement of bored aristocrats. Children are encouraged to get involved in political issues anyway.

That has nothing to do with my point. You asked about limits on democracy I gave you a few. Get off the soapbox.

I would like to see greater participation in the decision making process, down to the lowest level possible. Why not? Political systems based around consensus building rather than simple majority rule produce more stability.

Sorry, but weren’t you challenging the halting of the “ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom”? So, you’re saying that limited democracy is preferable?

No need to ban anything. You're the one who claims that democracy is fundamentally[/b] a bad idea remember? Since you refuse to explain your position, that can be taken many ways. I take it to mean that you oppose the very principles of democracy, things like votes for women (and anyone else you might object to), equal electoral districts, vote by secret ballot, and the abolition of the property qualification to stand for election. Or you could just be an unreconstructed fascist or a monarchist, who knows. [/B]

“I don’t have a clue what you stand for, so I’ll just assume something instead”.

What is it exactly that you want to do that our tyrannical democratic system stops you from doing? Even a child knows that he can't get everything he wants and understands why. But if you want to give up your responsibilities to the state then why should the state afford you any legal protection or property rights?

You’re contradicting yourself again. See above.

If you have problem with any aspect of democracy then run for election. Heck, you might even get elected, end up holding the balance of power and be in a position to bring in some wacky reforms. ?

And you accuse me of evasion? :rolleyes:

So it was purely a coincidence that progress in those areas coincided with the development of democratic ideals then. Ok.

Of course it could. Prove otherwise.

One could but one would be wrong. The Irish are not anglo saxons for a start. But is that how you prefer to see it then?

Stop trying to twist the point, so that you can accuse me of racism rather than address what I’ve said. The logic of your point was built on sand and could have been used to back up any hair-brained theory, as with the racist one I demonstrated, or your democratic one.

Some democracies are more democratic than others and their systems are at different levels of sophistication. However, Brazil and India will undoubtedly emerge as the economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

So the regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore are more democratic than those in Brazil or India then?

At least I have an argument. You continue to be evasive.

You’re looking for an alternative not an argument from me, and I’ve none to give you, I’m afraid. You on the other hand, in your constant need to answering questions with unrelated points, are being the evasive one.

Well, in democracies we can't just round up and shoot, gas, or torture anyone who expresses an opinion no matter how stupid or dangerous it might be.

Again nothing to do with the point I made.

bonkey

This is getting out of hand, and is hopelessly off-topic.

Locked.

jc