Is this the start of violent rhetoric in the Dail?

amacachi

What's the point of Ceann Comhairle again?

Laminations

Einhard wrote: »

Of course such decisions can be protsted, but to seek to overturn them through mass protests and campaigns of civil disobedience is fundamentally undemocratic.

Like when black minorities demanded rights?

Soldie

Laminations wrote: »

:rolleyes: Pot. Kettle

Your first post in this thread suggested that libertarians wish to abolish the state. Libertarians do not wish to abolish the state. Do you accept that you were mistaken? If so, then you are (or were) ignorant of what libertarianism is, and my remark is therefore not an insult.

I'll give you the last word; I'm not going to talk about libertarianism in this thread.

Einhard

20Cent wrote: »

An angry crowd can't rescind a policy.
Protest is still legal.

I never claimed it wasn't. It would be simplify things an awful lot if people stopped putting words into the mouths of others. I know it's easier to counter an argument of one's own construction, but it's a tad wearisome for the person you're debating!

An angry crowd can force a government to change policy. That is not democratic. It's the rule of the minority, governance by the most vocal.

Sir Oxman

Einhard wrote: »

Of course such decisions can be protsted, but to seek to overturn them through mass protests and campaigns of civil disobedience is fundamentally undemocratic. Almost two million people voted in some form for Labour and FG- for an angry crowd of 50,000 to force the government to rescind a policy can hardly be called a triumph of the popular will. More like a subversion of it.

You're presuming any such protest(s) would be a success and that the govt is an inherently weak, incoherent and populist one (see FF with the pesnioners and medical cards) and that the 1.23 million or so people who voted for FG and Labour would approve of every policy by that govt.

Peaceful protest is a legitimate mechanism in a democratic state.

The Waltzing Consumer

CokaColumbo wrote: »

That is a completely ignorant view of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting. It had literally nothing to do with the Tea Party and excellently highlighted the bigotry of the left-wing media in the States. Also, vitriolic comments are made across the political spectrum in America.

I think the article is making something out of nothing. The socialists in the Dail, with their non-existent mandate from the people of Ireland, do not pose a credible threat to anybody. I for one support the privatisation of as many government owned companies as possible.

Please read the opening post properly before you discuss or imply things about what I meant. Your first paragraph is completely wrong in what you think I said.

I would agree with your second paragraph but I think not everyone is as civil and logical as you and more easily influenced.

20Cent

Einhard wrote: »

I never claimed it wasn't. It would be simplify things an awful lot if people stopped putting words into the mouths of others. I know it's easier to counter an argument of one's own construction, but it's a tad wearisome for the person you're debating!

An angry crowd can force a government to change policy. That is not democratic. It's the rule of the minority, governance by the most vocal.

50,000+ at the ICTU march Gov didn't change policy, millions marched against the Iraq war in the US it still went ahead. Marches, protest and lobbying are all part of democracy.

Einhard

Laminations wrote: »

Like when black minorities demanded rights?

The sentiments of the US at the time were overwhelming pro-rights for black majotities. So it wasn't a case of the tail wagging the dog. However, I concede there are exceptions to every rule, but we aren't discussing civil rights here, and to compare the overt discrimination of white supremacists to democratically mandated water charges is facile.

What would you reaction be, for example, if the English Defence League forced the British government's hand on pilicy issues through a campaign of mass protest and civil disobedience. To protest is legitimate; to refuse to obey the law because one disagrees with is a form of force.

The Waltzing Consumer

gambiaman wrote: »

Peaceful protest is a legitimate mechanism in a democratic state.

I can't remember a protest by FF,FG or Labour that has not been peaceful. I can think of a lot of protests involving the ULA parties which has attacked Gardai and not been peaceful at all. If the ULA are going to engage in peaceful protests, that is great and good luck.

Einhard

gambiaman wrote: »

Peaceful protest is a legitimate mechanism in a democratic state.

I never claimed it wasn't. However, refusing to obey the law of the land is not peaceful protest.

invinciblePRSTV

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I can't remember a protest by FF,FG or Labour that has not been peaceful. I can think of a lot of protests involving the ULA parties which has attacked Gardai and not been peaceful at all. If the ULA are going to engage in peaceful protests, that is great and good luck.

Really? can you give some examples where ULA parties participated in attacking Gardai? this i gotta hear.

Laminations

Soldie wrote: »

Your first post in this thread suggested that libertarians wish to abolish the state. Libertarians do not wish to abolish the state. Do you accept that you were mistaken? If so, then you are (or were) ignorant of what libertarianism is, and my remark is therefore not an insult.

I'll give you the last word; I'm not going to talk about libertarianism in this thread.

Demolish is the word I used, as in knock down, cut back, the same word used in reference to the hard left agenda. And the state as it currently stands would be demolished under a libertarian system, constrained by the constitution to issues of defence. Also I can't be ignorant of the meaning of a word as meaning is socially constructed and subjective and your meaning of libertarianism varies from the next libertarian as we've seen from previous threads.

Tangent over, not that I saw it as off topic, I think it's appropriate to point out the hypocrisy of one staunch ideology knocking another

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

RobbieTheRobber

Einhard wrote: »

I never claimed it wasn't. However, refusing to obey the law of the land is not peaceful protest.

If i staged a peaceful protest in china it probably wouldnt be legal, so peaceful and legality dont always go hand in hand.

The Waltzing Consumer

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

Really? can you give some examples where ULA parties participated in attacking Gardai? this i gotta hear.

Eh, last year members of SWP attacked Gardai after they hijacked the student protest against fees. They occupied government offices.

That was particularly annoying as the SWP reps in Maynooth University lied to students about their planned conduct at the march and it made the march a complete disaster for students and just a publicity coup for SWP.

Sir Oxman

Einhard wrote: »

I never claimed it wasn't. However, refusing to obey the law of the land is not peaceful protest.

That would be civil disobedience, which can be non-violent.

Dyr

Einhard wrote: »

Of course such decisions can be protsted, but to seek to overturn them through mass protests and campaigns of civil disobedience is fundamentally undemocratic. Almost two million people voted in some form for Labour and FG- for an angry crowd of 50,000 to force the government to rescind a policy can hardly be called a triumph of the popular will. More like a subversion of it.

"Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stone-washed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the library. And — since women are a majority of the population — we'd all be married to Mel Gibson."

PJ Rourke

Einhard

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If i staged a peaceful protest in china it probably wouldnt be legal, so peaceful and legality dont always go hand in hand.

This is boards.ie not boards.cn

Monty Burnz

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

I can't remember a protest by FF,FG or Labour that has not been peaceful. I can think of a lot of protests involving the ULA parties which has attacked Gardai and not been peaceful at all. If the ULA are going to engage in peaceful protests, that is great and good luck.

Old Marxist dogs can learn new tricks, it seems.

Einhard

Bambi wrote: »

"Imagine if all of life were determined by majority rule. Every meal would be a pizza. Every pair of pants, even those in a Brooks Brothers suit, would be stone-washed denim. Celebrity diet and exercise books would be the only thing on the shelves at the library. And — since women are a majority of the population — we'd all be married to Mel Gibson."

PJ Rourke

Funny.

Imagine if all life were determined by minority rule. We'd all be living in Burma. Not so funny.

RobbieTheRobber

Einhard wrote: »

This is boards.ie not boards.cn

If i blashemped god would i be in breach of the peace or in breach of the law?

sollar

Healy Rae needs to get the old number one cut on that head. Its not turnip shaped like his fathers so drop the old comb over michael.

CokaColumbo

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Please read the opening post properly before you discuss or imply things about what I meant. Your first paragraph is completely wrong in what you think I said.

I would agree with your second paragraph but I think not everyone is as civil and logical as you and more easily influenced.

You clearly suggested that the Giffords shooting occurred as a result of the Tea Party's rhetoric. How else can your comment possibly be interpreted?

Dyr

Einhard wrote: »

Funny.

Imagine if all life were determined by minority rule. We'd all be living in Burma. Not so funny.

Point being there's always a place for minorities to defend their interests. Thats why we have groups like the IFA and IBEC.

Einhard

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

If i blashemped god would i be in breach of the peace or in breach of the law?

That's just silly. Can we focus on the matter at hand, instead of referencing China and blasphemy? It's not conducive to democracy for a small minority to impose their will on the majority. I find it difficult to understand how people think that it is.

BluePlanet

Einhard wrote: »

That's just silly. Can we focus on the matter at hand, instead of referencing China and blasphemy? It's not conducive to democracy for a small minority to impose their will on the majority. I find it difficult to understand how people think that it is.

The PD's represented only 3% of the vote, yet had huge legislative input during the last 10 years.

Denerick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, come on. Were I in the Dáil I wouldn't wear a suit either. Its un-necessarily stuffy and too associated with the world of business. Ordinary people do not wear suits. When I have to wear a suit for an interview or for a wedding, something small inside of me dies.

20Cent

Einhard wrote: »

That's just silly. Can we focus on the matter at hand, instead of referencing China and blasphemy? It's not conducive to democracy for a small minority to impose their will on the majority. I find it difficult to understand how people think that it is.

But they can't impose their will undemocratically.

IBEC, the Farmers, Multinationals, pensioners etc all these lobby and protest and have their input into what they think should happen and so they should in a democracy. But when the average worker or the unemployed do it then its socialism or communism and something very bad. Double standard imho.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Soldie wrote:

Ming wearing the same lucky shirt he wore when he was elected.

cokacolumbo wrote:

Gotta love the sweat patches..

I was unaware that clothes actually did make the man. Considering the rather famous haberdashery a certain former Taoiseach bedecked himself in, we should still be in a Golden Age.....

Einhard

BluePlanet wrote: »

The PD's represented only 3% of the vote, yet had huge legislative input during the last 10 years.

Yes, but they only had that influence because the larger party took it on board. And in 2002 at least, the people voted knowing that a FF/PD coalition was likely. Democracy is obviously never clear cut, always messy, but there's a difference between forcing an agenda through mass protests and civil disobedience, and having one's agenda accepted by the majority party.

Einhard

20Cent wrote: »

But they can't impose their will undemocratically.

IBEC, the Farmers, Multinationals, pensioners etc all these lobby and protest and have their input into what they think should happen and so they should in a democracy. But when the average worker or the unemployed do it then its socialism or communism and something very bad. Double standard imho.

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I have no problem withgroups agitating for their own agenda, be they the Unions, IBEC, the IFA or the ULA. However, I do have a problem with trying to force one's will through civil disobedience, mass disruption of daily life, and actions which generally contravene the law. I object the farmers doing so, to Shell to Sea doing so, and I'll object if the ULA seek to do so. There's absolutely no double standard on my part.

Monty Burnz

BluePlanet wrote: »

The PD's represented only 3% of the vote, yet had huge legislative input during the last 10 years.

But they were in government.

20Cent

Einhard wrote: »

Again you're putting words in my mouth. I have no problem withgroups agitating for their own agenda, be they the Unions, IBEC, the IFA or the ULA. However, I do have a problem with trying to force one's will through civil disobedience, mass disruption of daily life, and actions which generally contravene the law. I object the farmers doing so, to Shell to Sea doing so, and I'll object if the ULA seek to do so. There's absolutely no double standard on my part.

So you are just getting offended in advance of any protest.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware that clothes actually did make the man. Considering the rather famous haberdashery a certain former Taoiseach bedecked himself in, we should still be in a Golden Age.....

Certain people I'm sure would think that one should display their credentials and assert their authority and superiority by means of a sharp suit. They learnt from Gordon Gecko on how one should establish ones 'power'

Laminations

What's this hyperbole about violent overthrow of the state? Who has suggested that? Are the left (while I don't agree with all of their points and lament their lack of realistic alternatives) are suggesting protest, they are not saying they will forcefully achieve their policies such as wealth redistribution by physically robbing money from people. It's a pity I get infracted for misrepresenting a poster when some are allowed spread lies about violent rebellion...

Soldie

Nodin wrote: »

I was unaware that clothes actually did make the man. Considering the rather famous haberdashery a certain former Taoiseach bedecked himself in, we should still be in a Golden Age.....

I was making an observation, not a criticism.

Laminations

Einhard, do you disagree with the right to protest?
I dont think you do.
You disagree with violent protest, as do I, but I see it as necessary in certain circumstances - e.g. Against fascist totalitarian restrictive brutal regimes.
Do I think violent protest is legitimate for our circumstances?
No.
But I agree with civil disobedience, uncooperativeness and the right to protest, and I'd expect arrests if violence occurs but I cannot see how you think the left through protest could enforce their will on the country

Monty Burnz

Laminations wrote: »

What's this hyperbole about violent overthrow of the state? Who has suggested that? Are the left (while I don't agree with all of their points and lament their lack of realistic alternatives) are suggesting protest, they are not saying they will forcefully achieve their policies such as wealth redistribution by physically robbing money from people. It's a pity I get infracted for misrepresenting a poster when some are allowed spread lies about violent rebellion...

The loony left in the Dail, as represented by Joe and his party, are - as I understand it - believers in the Marxist doctrine that the overthrow of the state and its replacement with a dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable. Apologists make noises about Sweden being a socialist state, as if that is what Joe and co. are looking for, but it's not, is it? Sweden is still a capitalist country.

So the overthrow of the state is a given - the only question is the level of violence involved. This is difficult to determine, but previous socialist/communist/marxist revolutions seem to indicate that plenty of bloodshed would be involved.

Einhard

20Cent wrote: »

So you are just getting offended in advance of any protest.

It's quite remarkable how you've managed to misconstrue practically everything I've posted thusfar. I object to the stated means through which the ULA hope to achieve some of their aims, just as I object when the IFA states that it will physically occupy property and obstruct daily life in pursuit of theirs.

Laminations wrote: »

Einhard, do you disagree with the right to protest?
I dont think you do.
You disagree with violent protest, as do I, but I see it as necessary in certain circumstances - e.g. Against fascist totalitarian restrictive brutal regimes.
Do I think violent protest is legitimate for our circumstances?
No.
But I agree with civil disobedience, uncooperativeness and the right to protest, and I'd expect arrests if violence occurs but I cannot see how you think the left through protest could enforce their will on the country

I think we're pretty much in complete agreement so!

However, the minority voices have, in the very recent past, forced the political hand in this country. When pensioners took to the streets and achieved a reversal of minor cuts, they represented a tiny minority of the electorate, yet the government caved in to them. Before that, hysterical protests outside the Dail, orchestrated by Joe Duffy, saw the introduction of fundamentally unfair laws, discriminating against boys. Farmers, again representing a minority of the electorate, have had a significant voice in previous administrations precisely because of the forcefulness of their actions.

In light of this, in light of the the campaigns by Byrne and Higgins to oppose bin charges, and in light of their professed desire to lead campaigns of civil disobedience, I fear that we may once again see the tail wagging the dog. Even if the government stands firm, and it doesn't come to pass, I still object to the notion in principle. I don't see how one can call oneself a democrat when, immediately upon the election of a government with divirgent policies to one's own, one announces a campaign of forceful protest and disobedience to the mandate.

Laminations

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The loony left in the Dail, as represented by Joe and his party, are - as I understand it - believers in the Marxist doctrine that the overthrow of the state and its replacement with a dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable.

And they want to achieve this overthrow how? Through participation in the democratic process? And then abolish democracy and the state in favour of a dictatorship? McCarthyism has got hold of you I'm afraid. While i disagree with their policies generally they are calling for protest, not violence

karma_

Monty Burnz wrote: »

The loony left in the Dail, as represented by Joe and his party, are - as I understand it - believers in the Marxist doctrine that the overthrow of the state and its replacement with a dictatorship of the proletariat is inevitable. Apologists make noises about Sweden being a socialist state, as if that is what Joe and co. are looking for, but it's not, is it? Sweden is still a capitalist country.

So the overthrow of the state is a given - the only question is the level of violence involved. This is difficult to determine, but previous socialist/communist/marxist revolutions seem to indicate that plenty of bloodshed would be involved.

Total nonsense. Left wing candidates stood for election and were duly elected. The last thing a violent revolutionary is interested in is being elected.

I don;t mind anyone having a differing opinion to me, if someone feels there are better represented by a right-wing candidate then that's fair game but I won't call them 'loons' or 'fascists' at every given opportunity. It's too bad that on this forum those on the left have to be labelled in such a negative manner every-time they are mentioned.

Denerick

The economic philosophy of the ULA is hard left, essentially early 20th century socialism. They seem to have learnt nothing from history and refuse to adapt anything new to their outdated religious beliefs. Amazing really that this group could even win seats. It should comfort some that with maybe 2 exceptions, the rest (Higgins, Healy and RBB) were elected more as 'principled local characters) than as embodiments of hard left ideas. THe ULA are over-represented as it is. The majority of RBBs vote came from middle class women who liked the way he dressed and think he looks 'dreamy'.

Laminations

Einhard wrote: »

I think we're pretty much in complete agreement so!

I think so too BUT

However, the minority voices have, in the very recent past, forced the political hand in this country. When pensioners took to the streets and achieved a reversal of minor cuts, they represented a tiny minority of the electorate, yet the government caved in to them. Before that, hysterical protests outside the Dail, orchestrated by Joe Duffy, saw the introduction of fundamentally unfair laws, discriminating against boys. Farmers, again representing a minority of the electorate, have had a significant voice in previous administrations precisely because of the forcefulness of their actions.

But that is their right. And those u turns happened not because of active minorities protesting for their views but because of a lazy and apathetic majority who did not put pressure on the government to not concede.

20Cent

Here is the ULA programme.
Don't see violent overthrow of the state on it they must have left it out.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/about-us/

karma_

Denerick wrote: »

The economic philosophy of the ULA is hard left, essentially early 20th century socialism. They seem to have learnt nothing from history and refuse to adapt anything new to their outdated religious beliefs. Amazing really that this group could even win seats. It should comfort some that with maybe 2 exceptions, the rest (Higgins, Healy and RBB) were elected more as 'principled local characters) than as embodiments of hard left ideas. THe ULA are over-represented as it is. The majority of RBBs vote came from middle class women who liked the way he dressed and think he looks 'dreamy'.

That's just opinion not backed up by fact. RBB was elected, yet it's not enough that he was elected there has to be a reason other than his policies that got him elected. He has his mandate from his electorate and maybe it's time people accepted that and got over that particular hurdle.

Dyr

Einhard wrote: »

I fear that we may once again see the tail wagging the dog. Even if the government stands firm, and it doesn't come to pass, I still object to the notion in principle.

If the dog is having it's tail docked then the tail has every right to wag

JimiTime

Einhard wrote: »

Of course such decisions can be protsted, but to seek to overturn them through mass protests and campaigns of civil disobedience is fundamentally undemocratic. Almost two million people voted in some form for Labour and FG- for an angry crowd of 50,000 to force the government to rescind a policy can hardly be called a triumph of the popular will. More like a subversion of it.

This is a nonsense which is continually propagated. A bit like the sound byte, 'In democracy, the public get what they deserve' in relation the their government.

It is NOT anti democratic to vote in a certain party and then object to their policies. In fact, in politics, it seems to go, 'election promises - vote based on election promises - promises not upheld, or skewed'.

So rather than it being a simple matter of voting someone in and then just going, 'oh well, they've been voted in, so I gotta go with their policies', people in a democracy still can voice and act on what their government is doing. Even the people who voted for the ruling party can do it. There was not one party in this election that I was happy with policy wise. A policy here and a policy there. What do I do, just not vote? So its not this simplistic and sleepy process that you suggest.

Monty Burnz

karma_ wrote: »

Total nonsense. Left wing candidates stood for election and were duly elected. The last thing a violent revolutionary is interested in is being elected.

I'm sorry, what I posted was (to the best of my knowledge) entirely factually correct. Either Higgins and company believe in the inevitablility of the revolution or they do not. If they do, then everything else flows from there. If you have any issues with the facts of the post, please feel free to share them, as politely as you can manage.

karma_ wrote: »

I don;t mind anyone having a differing opinion to me, if someone feels there are better represented by a right-wing candidate then that's fair game but I won't call them 'loons' or 'fascists' at every given opportunity. It's too bad that on this forum those on the left have to be labelled in such a negative manner every-time they are mentioned.

I don't mind people having different opinions either, and I actually quite like Joe. Whether I personally regard someone as a loon is to a large degree determined by how far out on the political spectrum they are, so when I see people like the ULA urging us up the blind alley of failed socialist policies and trying to turn us into a socialist state (and what a great track record of happiness and success they enjoyed...) I think that they are a bit mad. Similarly, if a fascist party were to crop up in Ireland I would regard them as equally mad.

I reserve the right to consider people crazy for adhering to any political or social philosophy that has ended in disaster at any time and in any place where it was attempted to be put in practice.

Laminations

Bambi wrote: »

If the dog is having it's tail docked then the tail has every right to wag

Especially when the tail is nearest the sh1t and most likely to be affected

Monty Burnz

20Cent wrote: »

Here is the ULA programme.
Don't see violent overthrow of the state on it they must have left it out.

http://www.unitedleftalliance.org/about-us/

Do you seriously think that they would put it in? They may be Marxists, but they are not that stupid.