Community and democracy

[Ahollingsworth1961]

"Demo-cracy" in all its forms is rule by the rabble. It is a cause of calamity on a vast scale and it is the duty of all right-minded men to oppose it by vigorous action whenever and wherever it raises its hideous head.

Hello Sydney

Is this a quote, or is it your personal view?

Anthony

[MrGongGong]

Is this a quote, or is it your personal view?

If it were permitted this would be a ............. ha ha ha ha ha

Anthony , meet Sid
he is one of the more colourful characters around these parts

[Ahollingsworth1961]

. (repeat post ?)
please delete
thanks

Which post is a repeat post?

[french frank]

That is one kind of democracy, representative democracy, but there are other kinds, and even anarchism is not incompatible with democracy per se; there have been anarchists who have advocated direct democracy.

I'll go along with the notion that there are different nuances to the word 'democracy' but more relevantly different ideas of community: there may be 'the will of a community' where this means a pre-existing community of interest or of geography. But there is no real 'will of the people' where this vaguely means 'people in general'; and no real community among ad hoc internet users with grievances.

I'm not condemning the use of these social media for effective action, merely saying that just because it is seen as 'people' taking action against measures which they feel are in some way mistreating them or unfair to them, does not make it democratic. It depends whether you regard the protests as 'the people' or just 'people'. Even direct democracy requires some form of regulated system (referendums, statutory petitions &c.) and in terms of national politics would be limited in the areas it could cover.

Perhaps I take the word democracy too literally: the 'demos' is partly present but the 'cracy' bit is carried out by another small group.

[ahinton]

Hello Sydney

Is this a quote, or is it your personal view?

Anthony

It's his own "view" (or at least the one that he's wont to express), just as it's his own bizarre recourse to the unnecessary hyphen. He doesn't define "the rabble" or distinguish them (whoever they may be) from anyone else, he neither defines nor identifies the nature of the alleged cause of the "calamity" of which he writes, he omits to clarify who might impose the "duty" to which he refers, he doesn't make it clear whether, by "right-minded", he means "right" in the sense of "correct" or in the political sense, he does not identify the nature of the "vigorous action" that he commends and, of course, to cap it all, he issues that commendation for action only to the so-called "right-minded" among less than half the world's population at most; in writing thus, he also most notably ignores Churchill's definition of it, from which one can only conclude that he believes that Churchill had no idea of what he was talking - unless, of course, his statement (SG's, I mean - not Churchill's!) was not intended to be taken seriously. Furthermore, he declines to put forward any idea as to what form of government he would like to see replacing the democratic ones of today, or of how such replacement régimes could or should be brought about and who could or should run them how and for whose ultimate benefit.

[MrGongGong]

Which post is a repeat post?

#93

[Deleted - can't you delete it yourself? - ff]

[amateur51]

#93

[Deleted - can't you delete it yourself? - ff]

See? You'll always need an executive :laugh:

[aeolium]

I'm not condemning the use of these social media for effective action, merely saying that just because it is seen as 'people' taking action against measures which they feel are in some way mistreating them or unfair to them, does not make it democratic.

Well, I would say that such action is not undemocratic or contrary to democracy but rather an essential component of what we have come to expect of any democratic system.

[Sydney Grew]

. . . he declines to put forward any idea as to what form of government he would like to see replacing the democratic ones of today . . .

No I don't Mr. H., let us as you suggest be practical! But first I would point out that I regard every one who assumes "demo-cracy" to be a good thing as having been "brain-washed" or hypnotised. The opposite is the case. I would remind you of two points for now and one for the future:

1) A moment's thought will suffice to conclude that my Aunt Fanny is incapable of building a bridge or piloting an aeroplane. Nor for that matter are my eighteen-year-old nephew Willy or any of the shopkeepers in the High Street. They are all self-evidently unqualified. Thus is it with the voters - forget "demo-cracy"! - most citizens lack the necessary knowledge and skills and are entirely unsuitable. Let all who wish to choose and control our government first go through a four-year course in the subject followed by a stringent and searching examination. And after that a five-year term of practical training in areas of lesser importance, before they are permitted a say upon any major issues. The actual executives of government will be drawn only from among the number of these highly-qualified graduates. Very much as is the case at present with pilots and engineers.

2) As member Teamsaint has already said, a tick in a square every five years is absurdly inadequate. Qualified voters, if they are to have proper control, should be consulted at once upon every question. Now that the Inter-network age is with us, this is simple. Whether it be a law prohibiting cycling on the footpath throughout the land, or a decision to send soldiers to foreign parts, a decision can now easily be taken, at the keyboard, by a majority of highly qualified voters themselves. You know it makes sense!

3) And then after some years, the world can move on to the next - and long overdue - phase, which is to make the concept of "nation" entirely illegal. Peace at last!

[ahinton]

No I don't Mr. H., let us as you suggest be practical! But first I would point out that I regard every one who assumes "demo-cracy" to be a good thing as having been "brain-washed" or hypnotised. The opposite is the case. I would remind you of two points for now and one for the future:

1) A moment's thought will suffice to conclude that my Aunt Fanny is incapable of building a bridge or piloting an aeroplane. Nor for that matter are my eighteen-year-old nephew Willy or any of the shopkeepers in the High Street. They are all self-evidently unqualified. Thus is it with the voters - forget "demo-cracy"! - most citizens lack the necessary knowledge and skills and are entirely unsuitable. Let all who wish to choose and control our government first go through a four-year course in the subject followed by a stringent and searching examination. And after that a five-year term of practical training in areas of lesser importance, before they are permitted a say upon any major issues. The actual executives of government will be drawn only from among the number of these highly-qualified graduates. Very much as is the case at present with pilots and engineers.

2) As member Teamsaint has already said, a tick in a square every five years is absurdly inadequate. Qualified voters, if they are to have proper control, should be consulted at once upon every question. Now that the Inter-network age is with us, this is simple. Whether it be a law prohibiting cycling on the footpath throughout the land, or a decision to send soldiers to foreign parts, a decision can now easily be taken, at the keyboard, by a majority of highly qualified voters themselves. You know it makes sense!

3) And then after some years, the world can move on to the next - and long overdue - phase, which is to make the concept of "nation" entirely illegal. Peace at last!

SG, we all have different expertises and qualifications, some more of them than others. Who on earth could or should be expected to decide which people possessed of which ones and when ought to be charged with government as a direct consequence thereof? That is absurd! It also ignores the question of for whose benefit the implementation of any such government's policies might be intended. Also, who determines, monitors and regulates the qualification process, the subsequent government process or indeed any other process in such a régime?

[Beef Oven]

The laws are formulated and implemented by the Commission. They are approved by our MEPs and governments elected by us.

"The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is known as 'Ordinary Legislative Procedure’ (ex "codecision"). This means that the directly elected European Parliament has to approve EU legislation together with the Council (the governments of the 27 EU countries). The Commission drafts and implements EU legislation."

Not Wikipedia this time http://europa.eu/eu-law/

No . What it means is that the commission is the executive body - operating as the cabinet government. It is responsible for proposing legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the Union's treaties and day-to-day running of the EU. The EU parliament is a tweaking/rubberstamping talking-shop. Since people trust wiki -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

The trouble is that it is a government of non-elected managers/bureaucrats. That's what all the fuss is about!!!!!

How do you feel about non-elected government members? Don't you think the members of governments need to be elected for it to be democratic?

[scottycelt]

No I don't Mr. H., let us as you suggest be practical! But first I would point out that I regard every one who assumes "demo-cracy" to be a good thing as having been "brain-washed" or hypnotised. The opposite is the case. I would remind you of two points for now and one for the future:

1) A moment's thought will suffice to conclude that my Aunt Fanny is incapable of building a bridge or piloting an aeroplane. Nor for that matter are my eighteen-year-old nephew Willy or any of the shopkeepers in the High Street. They are all self-evidently unqualified. Thus is it with the voters - forget "demo-cracy"! - most citizens lack the necessary knowledge and skills and are entirely unsuitable. Let all who wish to choose and control our government first go through a four-year course in the subject followed by a stringent and searching examination. And after that a five-year term of practical training in areas of lesser importance, before they are permitted a say upon any major issues. The actual executives of government will be drawn only from among the number of these highly-qualified graduates. Very much as is the case at present with pilots and engineers.

2) As member Teamsaint has already said, a tick in a square every five years is absurdly inadequate. Qualified voters, if they are to have proper control, should be consulted at once upon every question. Now that the Inter-network age is with us, this is simple. Whether it be a law prohibiting cycling on the footpath throughout the land, or a decision to send soldiers to foreign parts, a decision can now easily be taken, at the keyboard, by a majority of highly qualified voters themselves. You know it makes sense!

3) And then after some years, the world can move on to the next - and long overdue - phase, which is to make the concept of "nation" entirely illegal. Peace at last!

Dear me, I do have my grave doubts, Mr Grew ...

Whilst I understand your concern at the likes of your Aunt Fanny (and my Aunt Nellie) having the right to share in the choice of government, your preferred alternative of government being chosen and run by a 'qualified Elite' might well send shivers of horror down the spine of many within the Rabble population, and could well lead to bloody Rabble Revolutions all over the world? Hardly, I contend, a prospect for the peaceful World Nirvana you so rightly crave!

Furthermore, if my experience of retail management is anything to go by, a specially-programmed Elite coming straight out of teaching-school, and being thrust into ruling positions over some of the Elite-perceived "unqualified" Rabble employees, has almost always proved to be little short of a quite unmitigated disaster.

Therefore, I fervently hope that your preferred form of 'demo-cracy' will never, ever come to pass.

[Beef Oven]

Thank you for this; at last it blows to pieces the myth that the entire EU legislative panoply is undemocratic by reason of being predicated and wholly reliant upon the actions of unelected officialdom, however uncomfortable such a fact might seem to be for certain people including some of those amenable to the persuasions of kipperish gibberish...

At last, alas it doesn't.

It's the unelected commission that runs Europe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Commission

[french frank]

No . What it means is that the commission is the executive body - operating as the cabinet government.

And the parliament is the legislative body.

[Beef Oven]

And the parliament is the legislative body.

It is a rubber-stamping talking shop. It is a pretty irrelevant body. The commission runs the EU and that's the problem. Who can call a government 'democratic' if it contains not one elected person? There would not be an issue otherwise. That's to say nothing of the ECB (teamsaint has already set out the facts on that one).