Digital Democracy or Democratic Dictatorship?

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
I disagree. In capitalist liberal democracies, for the most part, you get out what you put in. If someone works harder than me then they're entitled to make more money than me. Fair play to them.

What is the definition of harder? I mean personally I think that a dustbinman works a hell of a lot harder than I do - but I get paid more. Hell, there are different definitions of 'work' so I don't think things are so cut and dried as the capitalist ideals.

If for example, you base earning on intelligence, why should a more intelligent person be allowed less freedom in their pursuit of change than someone who is more intelligent? We could even move this debate to the poor state of the education system which is no longer about education and more about 'training' so pidgeon-holing people from an early age and steering them along a lower income or higher income pathway - and the person who gets the higher income pathway need not be the smarter since the exams that everything is based on are bulls*** - based on how well a person can sit and learn by rote - which says NOTHING about their capability at deciding for themselves on political matters BUT as a result could effect their ability to effect change in political matters, no?

I'm sorry if that is a little confusing, but I was writing quickly.

ColinM

Originally posted by Turnip
"Law is the expression of the general will. Every citizen has a right to participate personally, or through his representative, in its foundation. It must be the same for all, whether it protects or punishes. All citizens, being equal in the eyes of the law, are equally eligible to all dignities and to all public positions and occupations, according to their abilities, and without distinction except that of their virtues and talents."

That is a very powerful statement Turnip, and I welcome input like this from you. I suppose that I would whole-heartedly agree with that. I also suppose that a summation of all I have been saying so far is that I would like to put the emphasis back on the "without distinction except that of their virtues and talents" part.

Also, it would be boring if everone agreed with everything everyone says here, and we would have no debate at all if this was the case.

With regard to the state of the "free-press" in America at the moment, I would strongly urge you and everyone else who takes an interest in these matters to read the article to be found at the link below in its entirety. It may open your minds, as it has done mine: http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

Turnip

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What is the definition of harder? I mean personally I think that a dustbinman works a hell of a lot harder than I do - but I get paid more. Hell, there are different definitions of 'work' so I don't think things are so cut and dried as the capitalist ideals.

Have you not worked hard to get a good education though? And that enables you to get a well paid skilled job.

If for example, you base earning on intelligence, why should a more intelligent person be allowed less freedom in their pursuit of change than someone who is more intelligent?

I'm of the opinion that many unemployed people are merely lazy and prefer to sit on their arses and make 200 a week or whatever it is on collecting dole and rent cheques instead of taking a 300 a week job. Why should someone who has invested a lot of time and energy into their education get paid the same as someone who hasn't?

I sort of agree with the education thing, On the one hand, it needs to be overhauled to teach students how to be critical, hard working responsible citizens. It should be more democratic in other words. But on the other hand, many courses are utterly useless. I know arts and philosophy students who answer phones for a living.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Turnip
Have you not worked hard to get a good education though? And that enables you to get a well paid skilled job.

Well no, I sat on my ass and did as little as possible - but because I was in a grammar school with excellent facilities, this still got me what I needed to get into a good Uni which also had excellent facilities, allowing me to continue to sit on my ass.

The point remains though that this binman does work harder than I do, might have worked harder than I did at school but failed his exams because, for example, he doesn't have a great memory for facts and figures or because he dropped out of school as may have been customary in the area in which he lived; there are a whole range of social factors which affect education and grades and therefore income - but should not affect the amount of say the unfortunate have in their political system, but it does - which is my point.

As for lazy people with no jobs, well I'm inclined to disagree that all unemployed people are lazy (and anyway, the example I am using above is based on someone for whom a binman was the only thing he could get) but before you go calling me a bleeding heart liberal (which I am certainly not lol), I do understand that social welfare is oft abused, at least in the UK - though I firmly believe that social welfare coupled with a government employment scheme (which might require, god forbid in this age of laissez faire, a state enterprise) would probably solve the problem - at least to a fair degree.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
I was referring to the far right elements here who despise the "mob mentality" (democracy) and want to replace it with a system that demands blind obedience and replaces the "mob" with a flock of sheep, but are too lazy or cowardly to do anything practical to bring it about.

You should prove that assertion. Otherwise it is simply invention or fantasy.