This is a spin off of the Libya thread, basically to assist my sanity.
I want to isolate any alternative political agendas from the mix and focus solely on whether or not the "Will Of The People" is a)measurable b)valuable c)actionable when it comes to how a country is governed.
Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important. I'd wager that it would be hard to negate a) b) or c) without taking a stance against democracy.
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
The Will Of The People
-
jones jones
- Posts: 6601
- Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:30 am
The Will Of The People
koan;1356292 wrote: This is a spin off of the Libya thread, basically to assist my sanity.
I want to isolate any alternative political agendas from the mix and focus solely on whether or not the "Will Of The People" is a)measurable b)valuable c)actionable when it comes to how a country is governed.
Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important. I'd wager that it would be hard to negate a) b) or c) without taking a stance against democracy.
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
I lived comfortably in a third world country ruled by an undemocratic regime for several years. During this period I was blissfully unaware to what extent the majority were being deprived of their basic human rights. Why? Simply because the regime chose to dissimulate this information by state control over all media. This country is now a “democracy.”
So, is the “will of the people measurable?” Yes once every four or five years when an election is called. In the period between elections the majority who voted the ruling party into power spend their time complaining mostly about how poor they have become. Yet in the next election they will place their cross in the exact same place they did last time. Why? Mostly because they believe that anything will be better than what they had to endure under the “previous regime.” Also because in the weeks leading up to the election, the ruling party distribute food parcels to the poor and mostly uneducated masses & make empty promises to them.
It is my experience that politicians and administrations the world over continually create scenarios in order to enrich themselves. That is the basic reason why they offer themselves for election in the first place. We the electorate are never going to change this so we figure that if we are going to be raped, lets lie back & enjoy it!
So to me a democracy guarantees me nothing more than a dictatorship would. Most people would probably live happily under a dictatorship as long as they had employment, a salary, a place to live & security.
What else can a democracy offer?
I want to isolate any alternative political agendas from the mix and focus solely on whether or not the "Will Of The People" is a)measurable b)valuable c)actionable when it comes to how a country is governed.
Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important. I'd wager that it would be hard to negate a) b) or c) without taking a stance against democracy.
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
I lived comfortably in a third world country ruled by an undemocratic regime for several years. During this period I was blissfully unaware to what extent the majority were being deprived of their basic human rights. Why? Simply because the regime chose to dissimulate this information by state control over all media. This country is now a “democracy.”
So, is the “will of the people measurable?” Yes once every four or five years when an election is called. In the period between elections the majority who voted the ruling party into power spend their time complaining mostly about how poor they have become. Yet in the next election they will place their cross in the exact same place they did last time. Why? Mostly because they believe that anything will be better than what they had to endure under the “previous regime.” Also because in the weeks leading up to the election, the ruling party distribute food parcels to the poor and mostly uneducated masses & make empty promises to them.
It is my experience that politicians and administrations the world over continually create scenarios in order to enrich themselves. That is the basic reason why they offer themselves for election in the first place. We the electorate are never going to change this so we figure that if we are going to be raped, lets lie back & enjoy it!
So to me a democracy guarantees me nothing more than a dictatorship would. Most people would probably live happily under a dictatorship as long as they had employment, a salary, a place to live & security.
What else can a democracy offer?
"…I hate how I don’t feel real enough unless people are watching." — Chuck Palahniuk, Invisible Monsters
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
jones jones;1356301 wrote: So, is the “will of the people measurable?” Yes once every four or five years when an election is called. In the period between elections the majority who voted the ruling party into power spend their time complaining mostly about how poor they have become. Yet in the next election they will place their cross in the exact same place they did last time. Why? Mostly because they believe that anything will be better than what they had to endure under the “previous regime.”
I'm glad nothing like that ever happens in the US!
jones jones wrote: So to me a democracy guarantees me nothing more than a dictatorship would. Most people would probably live happily under a dictatorship as long as they had employment, a salary, a place to live & security.You can see this same thing played out under employment. People generally only go for a union if they feel the employer isn't treating them well.
You may be right. So long as people are generally satisfied with their lot in life, the government style & amount of actual freedom isn't relevant. Only when what the citizen wants to do comes at odds with what the gov't allows is there friction. The trick, then, is keeping that friction to a minimum.
For the OP:
Measurable? I'd say so, either by the vote, apathy to the vote, or (without the vote) rebellion; but lack of rebellion shouldn't be mistaken for either apathy or satisfaction.
Valuable? How could it not be? Maybe I'm missing the definition here.
Actionable? If you mean as in a court of law, then it would depend on the first two, right?
I'm glad nothing like that ever happens in the US!
jones jones wrote: So to me a democracy guarantees me nothing more than a dictatorship would. Most people would probably live happily under a dictatorship as long as they had employment, a salary, a place to live & security.You can see this same thing played out under employment. People generally only go for a union if they feel the employer isn't treating them well.
You may be right. So long as people are generally satisfied with their lot in life, the government style & amount of actual freedom isn't relevant. Only when what the citizen wants to do comes at odds with what the gov't allows is there friction. The trick, then, is keeping that friction to a minimum.
For the OP:
Measurable? I'd say so, either by the vote, apathy to the vote, or (without the vote) rebellion; but lack of rebellion shouldn't be mistaken for either apathy or satisfaction.
Valuable? How could it not be? Maybe I'm missing the definition here.
Actionable? If you mean as in a court of law, then it would depend on the first two, right?
The Will Of The People
In what country is there an actual democracy?
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
Koan wrote "democracy," not "a democracy." The word, like seemingly any political word, has changed from it's original form somewhat. I think democracy today has a closer meaning to "a voice & stake in the running of the government."
The Will Of The People
From Wikipedia:
Democracy is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law.
A noble idea that has taken centuries to develop, and as the population grows, the implementation of the idea have become the biggest challenge mankind has faced in the political arena.
IT seems the illusion of Democracy is far greater than the actual reality of the thing.
Democracy, in it's purest form would, indeed be the will of the people, or at least the will of the majority of the people.
There are countries, today, for whom the will of the people seems to lean towards being led, rather than taking the lead.
The US seems to be moving in that direction.
The idea of being able to vote seems to outweigh the idea of actually voting.
Democracy is a legislative system in which all citizens exercise direct and equal participation in the development, proposal and passage of legislation into law.
A noble idea that has taken centuries to develop, and as the population grows, the implementation of the idea have become the biggest challenge mankind has faced in the political arena.
IT seems the illusion of Democracy is far greater than the actual reality of the thing.
Democracy, in it's purest form would, indeed be the will of the people, or at least the will of the majority of the people.
There are countries, today, for whom the will of the people seems to lean towards being led, rather than taking the lead.
The US seems to be moving in that direction.
The idea of being able to vote seems to outweigh the idea of actually voting.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
The Will Of The People
koan;1356292 wrote: This is a spin off of the Libya thread, basically to assist my sanity.
I want to isolate any alternative political agendas from the mix and focus solely on whether or not the "Will Of The People" is a)measurable b)valuable c)actionable when it comes to how a country is governed.
Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important. I'd wager that it would be hard to negate a) b) or c) without taking a stance against democracy.
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
I would answer yes to all three but I would also say that the answer to (c) is yes, by the government of that country - not by other countries looking for an excuse to force regime change.
I would also argue that the West does not want democracy, either for itself or for anyone else. What Western governments want is control, the same as any other government - it is just the way they go about it that differs.
Since the UK joined the EU there are few instances when our government has measured, valued or actioned the will of the people in any significant way.
I want to isolate any alternative political agendas from the mix and focus solely on whether or not the "Will Of The People" is a)measurable b)valuable c)actionable when it comes to how a country is governed.
Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important. I'd wager that it would be hard to negate a) b) or c) without taking a stance against democracy.
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
I would answer yes to all three but I would also say that the answer to (c) is yes, by the government of that country - not by other countries looking for an excuse to force regime change.
I would also argue that the West does not want democracy, either for itself or for anyone else. What Western governments want is control, the same as any other government - it is just the way they go about it that differs.
Since the UK joined the EU there are few instances when our government has measured, valued or actioned the will of the people in any significant way.
-
along-for-the-ride
- Posts: 11732
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 4:28 pm
The Will Of The People
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams quote (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)
I thought this an interesting quote from one of the United States "founding fathers".
John Adams quote (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)
I thought this an interesting quote from one of the United States "founding fathers".
Life is a Highway. Let's share the Commute.
The Will Of The People
I don't believe I've heard an argument against democracy yet. Lots against capitalism, socialism, etc. but not against democracy.
Democracy is too chaotic and corrupt. I can use the new Alaskan Way tunnel project here in Seattle as an example. It has taken them more than a decade to sort all of the different aspects out. Any efficiently run organization would simply look at the facts and make a decision.
What do you need?
How much does it cost?
What are the benefits and liabilities?
What we have now is the worst solution possible, a multi billion dollar potential boondoggle that came about because of all of the special interests that had to have their piece of the pie. The developers that owned the buildings along the waterfront wanted the viaduct gone so their property values would go up. The unions were cracking their whips on the politicians backs screaming jobs and even the Indian tribes bringing their issues to the table. In a more rigidly controlled system the studies would have been done the plans made and the project completed.
Look at Libya and NATO, who the hell is in charge there? When Georgia attacked S Ossetia the Russians routed the Georgian army in 18 hours. They had information that Georgia was going to try something a few days in advance, plans were made and when the time came those plans were carried out.
Democracy is too chaotic and corrupt. I can use the new Alaskan Way tunnel project here in Seattle as an example. It has taken them more than a decade to sort all of the different aspects out. Any efficiently run organization would simply look at the facts and make a decision.
What do you need?
How much does it cost?
What are the benefits and liabilities?
What we have now is the worst solution possible, a multi billion dollar potential boondoggle that came about because of all of the special interests that had to have their piece of the pie. The developers that owned the buildings along the waterfront wanted the viaduct gone so their property values would go up. The unions were cracking their whips on the politicians backs screaming jobs and even the Indian tribes bringing their issues to the table. In a more rigidly controlled system the studies would have been done the plans made and the project completed.
Look at Libya and NATO, who the hell is in charge there? When Georgia attacked S Ossetia the Russians routed the Georgian army in 18 hours. They had information that Georgia was going to try something a few days in advance, plans were made and when the time came those plans were carried out.
The Will Of The People
I think a lot people in democracies fail to exercise their will regarding political issues because they have become convinced that it won't change anything. It's a callousness towards politicians in general.
I think it's only measurable if heads of state hold elections. So, for example, Gaddafi saying he rules by the will of the people but not actually polling the people to assess their will is rather like saying I rule by what I think the will of the people is. If there are no elections then the will of the people can still be heard but not measured. Like was said earlier in this thread, apathy or lack of rebellion should not be assumed to be satisfaction with the status quo. Many people are willing to state an opinion but won't actually do anything about it and, in some places it's dangerous to state an opinion and deadly to try and do something about it.
Rebellions are a good sign that the will of the people is against the head of state but the number of rebels is only going to be a small percentage of the number of dissenters. It takes a lot of courage and sometimes a willingness to die for the cause. Of course some rebellions are manufactured by outside interests and, aside from the immorality and insidiousness of those events, it is even worse, imo, that those plots make it harder to assess when true rebellion is taking place.
The will of the people is, imo, the only valuable factor in the governing of a state. Leaders that believe the masses are ignorant and should leave the thinking to the intellectuals/military need to be reminded that the masses outnumber them and probably can figure out how to fire a gun no matter what their IQ might be. So, play nice. Don't call them rats and cockroaches. Remember they are humans who require food. Starving people are far more likely to pick up a gun if they are dying anyway. I'm glad accountable thought the quality of "valuable" was an odd one. It was my hope that most people would think "huh?" but I asked because it's being questioned whether or not the will of the Libyans who asked for help is valuable enough for us to respond by giving it to them.
I think "the people" have far more power to enact their will than they realise. I think most people have very little idea how much power they have both as consumers and citizens. Nevertheless, personal power isn't going to do you much good if you're standing there with a slingshot and your enemy is in a tank.
Bryn caught part of my meaning with "actionable" by referencing interfering with other countries.
In the past I've been pretty steadfast on my belief that a country's military should never leave their own borders and should be used only in defense of their own country. The one exception I've always allowed for is the humanitarian response to another country pleading for help. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not responses. No one there asked for us to be there. Libya is kind of exciting in that they actually asked for help instead of having it forced on them. I have no problem with that. I'm rather shocked that they asked for it after the Iraq events. It's kind of like a vote of confidence from a country who should hate the West.
I'm also quite pleased with the UN taking an interest in stopping genocide and mass murder within countries before all the people die. It would be nice if we never see another Pol Pot.
I think it's only measurable if heads of state hold elections. So, for example, Gaddafi saying he rules by the will of the people but not actually polling the people to assess their will is rather like saying I rule by what I think the will of the people is. If there are no elections then the will of the people can still be heard but not measured. Like was said earlier in this thread, apathy or lack of rebellion should not be assumed to be satisfaction with the status quo. Many people are willing to state an opinion but won't actually do anything about it and, in some places it's dangerous to state an opinion and deadly to try and do something about it.
Rebellions are a good sign that the will of the people is against the head of state but the number of rebels is only going to be a small percentage of the number of dissenters. It takes a lot of courage and sometimes a willingness to die for the cause. Of course some rebellions are manufactured by outside interests and, aside from the immorality and insidiousness of those events, it is even worse, imo, that those plots make it harder to assess when true rebellion is taking place.
The will of the people is, imo, the only valuable factor in the governing of a state. Leaders that believe the masses are ignorant and should leave the thinking to the intellectuals/military need to be reminded that the masses outnumber them and probably can figure out how to fire a gun no matter what their IQ might be. So, play nice. Don't call them rats and cockroaches. Remember they are humans who require food. Starving people are far more likely to pick up a gun if they are dying anyway. I'm glad accountable thought the quality of "valuable" was an odd one. It was my hope that most people would think "huh?" but I asked because it's being questioned whether or not the will of the Libyans who asked for help is valuable enough for us to respond by giving it to them.
I think "the people" have far more power to enact their will than they realise. I think most people have very little idea how much power they have both as consumers and citizens. Nevertheless, personal power isn't going to do you much good if you're standing there with a slingshot and your enemy is in a tank.
Bryn caught part of my meaning with "actionable" by referencing interfering with other countries.
In the past I've been pretty steadfast on my belief that a country's military should never leave their own borders and should be used only in defense of their own country. The one exception I've always allowed for is the humanitarian response to another country pleading for help. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not responses. No one there asked for us to be there. Libya is kind of exciting in that they actually asked for help instead of having it forced on them. I have no problem with that. I'm rather shocked that they asked for it after the Iraq events. It's kind of like a vote of confidence from a country who should hate the West.
I'm also quite pleased with the UN taking an interest in stopping genocide and mass murder within countries before all the people die. It would be nice if we never see another Pol Pot.
The Will Of The People
LarsMac;1356314 wrote: In what country is there an actual democracy?
The way I used it was "Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important." What I'm promoting is "The Will Of The People" with democracy as its utopian form. I'm not sure a true democracy could exist but the desire for it is placed in esteem in the Western world.
The way I used it was "Certainly that's what democracy is all about and the West keeps claiming democracy is important." What I'm promoting is "The Will Of The People" with democracy as its utopian form. I'm not sure a true democracy could exist but the desire for it is placed in esteem in the Western world.
The Will Of The People
posted by bryn mawr
Since the UK joined the EU there are few instances when our government has measured, valued or actioned the will of the people in any significant way.
They did when we actually went in to it though - something ukip supoporters like to pretend didn't happen. They did after the poll tax riots when the tories realised how big a liability thatcher was, they didn;t after the iraq war demonstrations despite their size, maybe rioting is the only language they understand and we have a long tradition of that in this country.
They won't pay attentention until we get electoral reform away from the first past the post system and they have to pay attention. There are too many seats where the sitting MP polled more somewhat less than half the votes - or out another way where the majority if the constituents actually voted against them. Sasdly neither of the maon partioes want it because they know all too well they wouldn't be ab le to form a government on their own.
posted by fuzzy wuzzy
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams quote (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)
I thought this an interesting quote from one of the United States "founding fathers".
Your founding fathers were heavily influenced by the roman republic and what happened to it. Exactkly the same thing as shappened in america and keeps on happeneing - it's an ongoing changing situation with one side ascendent and then the other - left versus right, the people versus those who would be seek power for their own benefit.
Since the UK joined the EU there are few instances when our government has measured, valued or actioned the will of the people in any significant way.
They did when we actually went in to it though - something ukip supoporters like to pretend didn't happen. They did after the poll tax riots when the tories realised how big a liability thatcher was, they didn;t after the iraq war demonstrations despite their size, maybe rioting is the only language they understand and we have a long tradition of that in this country.
They won't pay attentention until we get electoral reform away from the first past the post system and they have to pay attention. There are too many seats where the sitting MP polled more somewhat less than half the votes - or out another way where the majority if the constituents actually voted against them. Sasdly neither of the maon partioes want it because they know all too well they wouldn't be ab le to form a government on their own.
posted by fuzzy wuzzy
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams quote (American 2nd US President (1797-1801), 1735-1826)
I thought this an interesting quote from one of the United States "founding fathers".
Your founding fathers were heavily influenced by the roman republic and what happened to it. Exactkly the same thing as shappened in america and keeps on happeneing - it's an ongoing changing situation with one side ascendent and then the other - left versus right, the people versus those who would be seek power for their own benefit.
The Will Of The People
Democracy, like any other socio-political structure, is a good idea, in design, and would work well, of all the people involved truly had the best interests of their society-at-large in mind.
Unfortunately, humans, as a rule, tend to be rather fond of looking after the best interests of their own circle of influence, rather that the good of society, or the human species.
Unfortunately, humans, as a rule, tend to be rather fond of looking after the best interests of their own circle of influence, rather that the good of society, or the human species.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
The Will Of The People
Lars hit it right on the head. Libertarians and others trumpet the benefits of "individual freedom" and allowing individuals to go as far as they can in life, why not? I can think of 3 bankers that will be going to trial here soon that ran Wamu into the ground.
Adolf Hitler was a great example of this, he was nothing before he got into politics. He went as far as he could go in the spirit of personal freedom and he was laid low in large part by another example of this kind of excellence. Joseph Stalin.
Both of these individuals succeeded in their personal ambitions to the utmost extent. If you look at the dynamics of these individuals and many others "democracy", "personal freedom and liberty" has much more meaning and consequences than you would think.
Adolf Hitler was a great example of this, he was nothing before he got into politics. He went as far as he could go in the spirit of personal freedom and he was laid low in large part by another example of this kind of excellence. Joseph Stalin.
Both of these individuals succeeded in their personal ambitions to the utmost extent. If you look at the dynamics of these individuals and many others "democracy", "personal freedom and liberty" has much more meaning and consequences than you would think.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
Scrat;1356434 wrote: Lars hit it right on the head. Libertarians and others trumpet the benefits of "individual freedom" and allowing individuals to go as far as they can in lifeNice cynicism. I'd finish the sentence for you, but we both know you purposely only used half and are uninterested in any real truth in this area.
The Will Of The People
LarsMac;1356433 wrote: Democracy, like any other socio-political structure, is a good idea, in design, and would work well, of all the people involved truly had the best interests of their society-at-large in mind.
Unfortunately, humans, as a rule, tend to be rather fond of looking after the best interests of their own circle of influence, rather that the good of society, or the human species.
Which is why the more successful democratic systems have inbuilt checks and balance to prevent abuse of power, in our case the development has been organic in your case you have a written constuitution, congress and the senate are supposed to act as a check on each other and on the power of the president - the idea and structure is there but like most idea the basis can be forgotten and corrupted. Latterly in the UK the cabinet and prime minisrter have become too powerful and back benchers have forgotten the PM governs at the whim of parliament. I think you have bigger problems in the states than we do with enough money allowing you to buy an election it seems. We're in danger of going the same way at least when about depended on union funding you had the pretence of looking after ordinary people, old time lbourites must be sspinning in their grave. Sorry to say I know very little about canada.
Unfortunately, humans, as a rule, tend to be rather fond of looking after the best interests of their own circle of influence, rather that the good of society, or the human species.
Which is why the more successful democratic systems have inbuilt checks and balance to prevent abuse of power, in our case the development has been organic in your case you have a written constuitution, congress and the senate are supposed to act as a check on each other and on the power of the president - the idea and structure is there but like most idea the basis can be forgotten and corrupted. Latterly in the UK the cabinet and prime minisrter have become too powerful and back benchers have forgotten the PM governs at the whim of parliament. I think you have bigger problems in the states than we do with enough money allowing you to buy an election it seems. We're in danger of going the same way at least when about depended on union funding you had the pretence of looking after ordinary people, old time lbourites must be sspinning in their grave. Sorry to say I know very little about canada.
The Will Of The People
The will of the people is the only significant force (from within a country) that can be used against heads of state who stop representing their people. The lack of unity in that will is the reason why it can take so long to turn it into a force. As Lars said, people tend to be self interested within their own circle of friends and family. That's kind of understandable as the world is rather huge place and I think it helps to try and keep it manageable on a personal, day to day basis. That doesn't mean they can't be united by will but it does tend to slow things down a bit.
The Will Of The People
Nice cynicism. I'd finish the sentence for you, but we both know you purposely only used half and are uninterested in any real truth in this area.
No, the truth of it is quite evident to me. What is your version again?
No, the truth of it is quite evident to me. What is your version again?
The Will Of The People
I need to think about this, it's a tough one and it has been bugging me for awhile. The dynamics of it don't change nor throughout history does the result. Napoleon was a product of a revolution which had over thrown an aristocracy. He in ways filled a void, his personal ambition and the new found freedoms without the control of the aristocracy led/allowed him to gain power. The same for Stalin, Hitler and others. I think we need to sort this out, and no I don't think I'm being cynical. Look at history, how many times have people won freedom from one system only to have it taken away by another. It's the power of people that is capable of keeping this in check. The problem is you have to deal with this.
The will of the people is the only significant force (from within a country) that can be used against heads of state who stop representing their people. The lack of unity in that will is the reason why it can take so long to turn it into a force.
The will of the people is the only significant force (from within a country) that can be used against heads of state who stop representing their people. The lack of unity in that will is the reason why it can take so long to turn it into a force.
The Will Of The People
Scrat;1356462 wrote: I need to think about this, it's a tough one and it has been bugging me for awhile. The dynamics of it don't change nor throughout history does the result. Napoleon was a product of a revolution which had over thrown an aristocracy. He in ways filled a void, his personal ambition and the new found freedoms without the control of the aristocracy led/allowed him to gain power. The same for Stalin, Hitler and others. I think we need to sort this out, and no I don't think I'm being cynical. Look at history, how many times have people won freedom from one system only to have it taken away by another. It's the power of people that is capable of keeping this in check. The problem is you have to deal with this.
The people need to have something in mind to replace it, in the english civil war there were institutions in place that could take over and a politically aware middle class that could take over when they killed the monarch. France didn't have that so there was a vacuum for bonaparte. Same with Stalin or ratyhr the communists when they killed the tsar. Hitler took over the institutions that were there already - nearest analogy might be cromwell - both thought they were doing god's work. (OK bit of a stretch that one) wiped out the left wing opposition and ended up terrorising their people.
The people need to have something in mind to replace it, in the english civil war there were institutions in place that could take over and a politically aware middle class that could take over when they killed the monarch. France didn't have that so there was a vacuum for bonaparte. Same with Stalin or ratyhr the communists when they killed the tsar. Hitler took over the institutions that were there already - nearest analogy might be cromwell - both thought they were doing god's work. (OK bit of a stretch that one) wiped out the left wing opposition and ended up terrorising their people.
The Will Of The People
One thing that seems contrary to the will of the people but that I recognise as important is the restraint on calling elections more than an allotted period (usually 4 years) and a coup announcing that they will prevent resistance to the new government for a set time period.
People are fickle and have high demands sometimes. We think overthrowing a regime will mean instant gratification. Sometimes even the rebels think that there will be an easy quick fix if they can get power but change takes time.
I'm all in favour of direct accountability and direct democracy and the will of the people but I also recognise that people are really impatient.
People are fickle and have high demands sometimes. We think overthrowing a regime will mean instant gratification. Sometimes even the rebels think that there will be an easy quick fix if they can get power but change takes time.
I'm all in favour of direct accountability and direct democracy and the will of the people but I also recognise that people are really impatient.
The Will Of The People
The "Will of The People" is a fable.
People can be lead to whatever a talented leader can convince them is their will.
People can be lead to whatever a talented leader can convince them is their will.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
The Will Of The People
LarsMac;1356527 wrote: The "Will of The People" is a fable.
People can be lead to whatever a talented leader can convince them is their will.
Which is why you end up with a system to check the power of those who rule and a system of laws to protect you from the powerful. The rule of law rather than the rule of kings, the rule of law rather than rule by a powerful majority or even monority. Youve got a classic battle going on in the states at the moment, not just the one in wisconsin and michigan but also the one between the christian right and everybody else. We had similar battles centuries ago but the old issues do keep returning don't they. . Pity we can't all be like iceland but they have the advantage of having a very small populatuion so a referndum on major issues is practical. So they get to tell the bankers to F--k off. great stuff. I think you're going to see more and more demonstrations throughoput europe in the months to come. If you look at history the will of the people eventually prevails. They just need to get very very pissed off sometimes and even blind patriotism only works for so long. IMO anyway for what it's worth.
People can be lead to whatever a talented leader can convince them is their will.
Which is why you end up with a system to check the power of those who rule and a system of laws to protect you from the powerful. The rule of law rather than the rule of kings, the rule of law rather than rule by a powerful majority or even monority. Youve got a classic battle going on in the states at the moment, not just the one in wisconsin and michigan but also the one between the christian right and everybody else. We had similar battles centuries ago but the old issues do keep returning don't they. . Pity we can't all be like iceland but they have the advantage of having a very small populatuion so a referndum on major issues is practical. So they get to tell the bankers to F--k off. great stuff. I think you're going to see more and more demonstrations throughoput europe in the months to come. If you look at history the will of the people eventually prevails. They just need to get very very pissed off sometimes and even blind patriotism only works for so long. IMO anyway for what it's worth.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
gmc;1356554 wrote: Which is why you end up with a system to check the power of those who rule and a system of laws to protect you from the powerful. The rule of law rather than the rule of kings, the rule of law rather than rule by a powerful majority or even monority. Youve got a classic battle going on in the states at the moment, not just the one in wisconsin and michigan but also the one between the christian right and everybody else. The bigger and more important one is the current president (and the controlling political parties) playing fast and loose with the rule of law.
The Will Of The People
Accountable;1356580 wrote: The bigger and more important one is the current president (and the controlling political parties) playing fast and loose with the rule of law.
Maybe the people need to give the politicians a right good kicking to remind them who is actually in charge.
Maybe the people need to give the politicians a right good kicking to remind them who is actually in charge.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
gmc;1356601 wrote: Maybe the people need to give the politicians a right good kicking to remind them who is actually in charge.
Love to. Trouble right now is that people actually believe there are only two choices, and they would rather vote for the guy most likely to win than the guy most likely to do what they want. We Americans like to be winners. I've said it before: if people would vote for the best candidate, maybe the best candidate would win.
Love to. Trouble right now is that people actually believe there are only two choices, and they would rather vote for the guy most likely to win than the guy most likely to do what they want. We Americans like to be winners. I've said it before: if people would vote for the best candidate, maybe the best candidate would win.
The Will Of The People
Accountable;1356606 wrote: Love to. Trouble right now is that people actually believe there are only two choices, and they would rather vote for the guy most likely to win than the guy most likely to do what they want. We Americans like to be winners. I've said it before: if people would vote for the best candidate, maybe the best candidate would win.
From what I have seen of late, usually the best candidates aren't running.
From what I have seen of late, usually the best candidates aren't running.
The home of the soul is the Open Road.
- DH Lawrence
- DH Lawrence
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
The Will Of The People
LarsMac;1356697 wrote: From what I have seen of late, usually the best candidates aren't running.
Exactly!
Exactly!