|
|
Post by mattb on Dec 10, 2017 10:06:19 GMT
I just believe that too much democracy can be problematic. Remember this democracy stuff is fundamentally a liberal idea and thus based on the flawed idea that people are rational. It's not often I read something on this forum that truly shocks me. I am stunned that seemingly well-intentioned people really think like this. What else from your earlier post do you think reduces the impact of the sentences quoted above? |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907 
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 10, 2017 11:00:23 GMT
I just believe that too much democracy can be problematic. Remember this democracy stuff is fundamentally a liberal idea and thus based on the flawed idea that people are rational. It's not often I read something on this forum that truly shocks me. I am stunned that seemingly well-intentioned people really think like this. Not at all. benjl is a breath of fresh air in not being overtly tribal nor doctrinaire all the time. He is his own man and we can actually see the ideas of an engaged and engaging young mind develop before our eyes. He thinks and he thinks outside the boxes. I like him and his freshness. He is far from wrong about the downside of democracy. It is often close to the rule of the mob and too fashion conscious and too irrational and too easy for a demagogue to stir up. That is of course why we don't have one in Britain but an elective oligarchy instead. That permits the 'political grownups' to exercise power behind the mask of a pseudo democracy and to put right democratic errors like Brexit; just as they are at the moment! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 10, 2017 11:09:11 GMT
So the people exercising power at the moment are the political grownups? Are they? Really?
|
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 10, 2017 12:11:32 GMT
So the people exercising power at the moment are the political grownups? Are they? Really? Another irony-failure by me in my wording then! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 10, 2017 12:23:28 GMT
So the people exercising power at the moment are the political grownups? Are they? Really? Another irony-failure by me in my wording then! I had hoped your original was ironical but just to be on the safe side I put my great big feet down on it,  I would have hoped benjl's dismissal of democracy was also ironical but unfortunately I don't think it was. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 12:30:10 GMT
Another irony-failure by me in my wording then! I had hoped your original was ironical but just to be on the safe side I put my great big feet down on it, I would have hoped benjl's dismissal of democracy was also ironical but unfortunately I don't think it was. "but unfortunately I don't think it was". Yes young @benjl has been seduced by the sith lord carlton43 and has turned to the dark side
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Dec 10, 2017 13:18:00 GMT
What else from your earlier post do you think reduces the impact of the sentences quoted above? “I am also a strong democrat, democracy is essential for the empowerment of the WC” Not sure your assertion helps much, to be honest. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 13:23:13 GMT
“I am also a strong democrat, democracy is essential for the empowerment of the WC” Not sure your assertion helps much, to be honest. Perhaps its just his attempt at toilet humour.... |
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 10, 2017 13:29:44 GMT
Benjl, you can't get away with saying one thing in one place and the opposite somewhere else and then say so that's all right.I'm sorry because like Carlton I have admired a lot of your ideas but I think you have got into a bit of a muddle on your ideas of democracy. In the end you have to be for it or against it. Mind you it is a common failing of the political class to like democracy when you are getting the results you want and to deplore it when you get the opposite. Up to a point we all do it, but yours was a particularly blatant example.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 13:31:18 GMT
Benjl, you can't get away with saying one thing in one place and the opposite somewhere else and then say so that's all right.I'm sorry because like Carlton I have admired a lot of your ideas but I think you have got into a bit of a muddle on your ideas of democracy. In the end you have to be for it or against it. Mind you it is a common failing of the political class to like democracy when you are getting the results you want and to deplore it when you get the opposite. Up to a point we all do it, but yours was a particularly blatant example. Blame carlton43 for his influence on a young malable mind.... |
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Dec 10, 2017 13:47:31 GMT
Not sure your assertion helps much, to be honest. Perhaps its just his attempt at toilet humour.... a convenient excuse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 13:53:59 GMT
Perhaps its just his attempt at toilet humour.... a convenient excuse. ....to log out |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 14:26:52 GMT
Benjl, you can't get away with saying one thing in one place and the opposite somewhere else and then say so that's all right.I'm sorry because like Carlton I have admired a lot of your ideas but I think you have got into a bit of a muddle on your ideas of democracy. In the end you have to be for it or against it. Mind you it is a common failing of the political class to like democracy when you are getting the results you want and to deplore it when you get the opposite. Up to a point we all do it, but yours was a particularly blatant example. , look at what I actually said; ' I am also a strong democrat, democracy is essential for the empowerment of the WC. I just believe that too much democracy can be problematic. Remember this democracy stuff is fundamentally a liberal idea and thus based on the flawed idea that people are rational.', I was arguing that while democracy is vital, too much democracy can be damaging to people's interests. It's not a particularly controversial statement unless you quote part of it out of context as mattb did. Makes for good like bait but is disingenuous at best. I am suspicious of democracy whatever the results, even when the Labour party wins a landslide I am all too aware that all support can disintegrate if we are not careful. Democracy is the love of short-termism as much as anything. I simply recognize this fact and seek to secure my parties position so long term change can be achieved. Democracy is a means to a end, not the end in of itself. As Churchill mused 'The worst system apart from all the others'. @williamhone1780 please stop being so patronizing and unfunny @benjl You can never have too much democracy. When we begin to think we have we are on a slippery slope. Compare what we have today with say Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, current day China or Putins Russia and ask yourself do we really want to be like that? We are right not to be complacent about our democracy and we should be ready to defend it when individuals arise who claim they can "save us from our own follies"
Democracy is not therefore the love of short-termism, nor a "fundamentally liberal idea" as you put it, individuals think short term since their political careers are time-limited (as they should be), and many from the left and right of the political spectrum have good cause to claim the idea as their's as well. mattb was right therefore to address your views.
As to your annoyance at my remarks I can only plead that I do not regret them, you should be challenged and humour is a good leveller of the proud and zealous.
|
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Dec 10, 2017 14:44:03 GMT
I was arguing that while democracy is vital, too much democracy can be damaging to people's interests. It's not a particularly controversial statement unless you quote part of it out of context ... I am suspicious of democracy whatever the results ... Democracy is a means to a end, not the end in of itself. I’m afraid I find these statements highly controversial, quoted in full or in part. Democracy is absolutely an end in itself; the Churchill quote supports my viewpoint rather than yours, I feel. If not democracy (or not ‘too much’ anyway), then what? If you want long-term change, you need to be able to persuade people, and keep persuading them long-term, that what you want is in their interests; otherwise you should not expect to be able to continue to push through your changes, even if you may feel they are ‘right’. |
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Dec 10, 2017 16:22:34 GMT
I’m afraid I find these statements highly controversial, quoted in full or in part. Democracy is absolutely an end in itself; the Churchill quote supports my viewpoint rather than yours, I feel. If not democracy (or not ‘too much’ anyway), then what? If you want long-term change, you need to be able to persuade people, and keep persuading them long-term, that what you want is in their interests; otherwise you should not expect to be able to continue to push through your changes, even if you may feel they are ‘right’. ' Democracy is absolutely an end in itself'- why? It is essential for a society to achieve things I would agree - not an end, but a facilitator of legitimate change. ' the Churchill quote supports my viewpoint rather than yours' - how so? I see democracy as the least worst option as did Churchill, by your own admission you see it as an end. ' I feel. If not democracy (or not ‘too much’ anyway), then what?' - limited democracy, as I believe in & have set out. In fact, unless you yourself believe every decision should be taken by every citizen, then you also believe in limited democracy. Just to a lesser extent. On your last paragraph I agree, I am not arguing for a dismissal of democracy in the long term but the survival of my party long term. I am arguing against a system that while still democratic, prevents sudden, flippant and rapid change that can be damaging to the workers and thus nation as a whole. Your reaction here sums up our conversational problem: I say that overly responsive democratic structures should be resisted, you then take that as an argument against democracy itself. OK Fair enough, now you clarify how you define ‘limited democracy’, your remarks are less objectionable. Everyday usage would not see representative democracy as ‘limited’. I still see the choice of leaders by the population as a valid goal in itself, not merely as a means to achieving things. |
|
carlton43
Reform Party
Posts: 50,907
Member is Online
|
Post by carlton43 on Dec 10, 2017 16:39:25 GMT
That was a good post benjl and you are right to be irritated. That comment irritated me quite as much.
You are right to inspect, unpack and sniff at this thing we term democracy, both in the abstract and in the living British actuality. Do we in fact have it here at all? i would contend that we do not. Are we more democratic and in a better 'political place' than many, probably most nations? Yes, we are, and it was a hard course we ran to get here.
I agree with you about the falsity lying at the heart of the liberal democratic ideal. It is predicated upon the dearly held fiction that humans are rational, sentient, nice, communitarian and co-operative beings, whereas we have a lifetime of experience proving that they are not!
Genuine democracy would involve all adults in an actual participation probably in sequence and by lot, along the basis of jury service, and not mediated through inter-linking institutions specifically there to dilute the input of the great unwashed to the most rudimentary level possible whilst still attempting to maintaining the pretence that it is a democracy.
We have seen with the election of Trump, the surprise of Brexit and the rise and rise of Corbyn, each causing maximum distress to the meritocratic, Metropolitan, centrist, elite who see themselves as the ruling class. Those people are totally aghast at the 'wrong' decisions taken by the public when they are permitted too great a say in complicated affairs way above their heads!
Democracy is something much praised in the distant abstract but greatly feared in reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 16:56:11 GMT
That was a good post benjl and you are right to be irritated. That comment irritated me quite as much. You are right to inspect, unpack and sniff at this thing we term democracy, both in the abstract and in the living British actuality. Do we in fact have it here at all? i would contend that we do not. Are we more democratic and in a better 'political place' than many, probably most nations? Yes, we are, and it was a hard course we ran to get here. I agree with you about the falsity lying at the heart of the liberal democratic ideal. It is predicated upon the dearly held fiction that humans are rational, sentient, nice, communitarian and co-operative beings, whereas we have a lifetime of experience proving that they are not! Genuine democracy would involve all adults in an actual participation probably in sequence and by lot, along the basis of jury service, and not mediated through inter-linking institutions specifically there to dilute the input of the great unwashed to the most rudimentary level possible whilst still attempting to maintaining the pretence that it is a democracy. We have seen with the election of Trump, the surprise of Brexit and the rise and rise of Corbyn, each causing maximum distress to the meritocratic, Metropolitan, centrist, elite who see themselves as the ruling class. Those people are totally aghast at the 'wrong' decisions taken by the public when they are permitted too great a say in complicated affairs way above their heads! Democracy is something much praised in the distant abstract but greatly feared in reality. Ah carlton43 I got it all wrong about you, you want to leave the EU because you are terrified of democracy. It is such a shame that democracy doesn't give you the result you want all the time isn't it? But you know that is democracy at its heart - unpredictable, otherwise it would dictatorship and I am sure you don't want to live under a dictatorship do you?
You don't have be of the liberal democratic tradition to be irrational or false as the non-liberal democracy of the Trump presidency shows us perfectly well. I would always choose liberal democracy rather than "guided democracy" because I don't want to be classed in the same league was Putin or China which is where I believe some admirers believe we should be.
re Irritation, @benjl and you. In a democracy one has the right to offend.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2017 17:10:09 GMT
@benjl You can never have too much democracy. When we begin to think we have we are on a slippery slope. Compare what we have today with say Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, current day China or Putins Russia and ask yourself do we really want to be like that? We are right not to be complacent about our democracy and we should be ready to defend it when individuals arise who claim they can "save us from our own follies"
Democracy is not therefore the love of short-termism, nor a "fundamentally liberal idea" as you put it, individuals think short term since their political careers are time-limited (as they should be), and many from the left and right of the political spectrum have good cause to claim the idea as their's as well. mattb was right therefore to address your views.
As to your annoyance at my remarks I can only plead that I do not regret them, you should be challenged and humour is a good leveller of the proud and zealous.
 . Kicked of with a statement that is easy to pull apart, you then move into Reductio ad Hitlerum territory before telling me not to be complacent despite me being the one arguing for the status quo! ' Democracy is not therefore the love of short-termism' - maybe love was not the right word but it is certainly an unintended consequence of politicians having one huge goal: re-election. 'nor a "fundamentally liberal idea"' - oh it is, liberalism is about freedom and early liberals concluded that the way for a person to be supremely free was to give everyone control over the decisions that affect their lives. I was just pointing out that most liberals base their ideas on the premise that we are rational - rational to make our own decisions in the economy for example & hence the virtue of the free market. The problem with this is that, imo, it isn't an accurate description of human nature. Therefore as we limit the free market to protect the workers, we must limit democracy. It is certainly an idea that other political chapters have stolen, but it is still at it's core liberal. ' humor is a good leveler of the proud and zealous' - true but saying carlton43 controls my ideas is also patronizing & irritating. I haven't misrepresented a single word of yours, I merely responded to what you have written. This is hopeless @benjl hopeless, do you not see that your words can be seen as pandering to less democratic elements? They don't seem to be in line with Jeremy Corbyn's lifelong respect for democracy and the vote of the individual. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam in Stroud on Dec 10, 2017 17:11:51 GMT
Interesting discussion this, because I've always thought that @benjl and I could easily be in the same party, so its quite instructive to find a major area of difference.
I havd a lot of empathy with his view that democracy is a means to an end (i.e. good government) and would make the same argument for freedom of speech. In practice I think it doesn't make a lot of odds, both things are so clearly linked to the desired end that I'm unhesitatingly in favour of both; but in reality both are limited for practical reasons and I think it is useful when considering this limits to be bale to bear in mind the end purpose. I.e. on principle I'm suspicious of any limits on democracy but if one is proposed the question of whether it will produce better government than unlimited democracy is the acid test.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowperil on Dec 10, 2017 21:04:24 GMT
Interesting discussion this, because I've always thought that @benjl and I could easily be in the same party, so its quite instructive to find a major area of difference. I havd a lot of empathy with his view that democracy is a means to an end (i.e. good government) and would make the same argument for freedom of speech. In practice I think it doesn't make a lot of odds, both things are so clearly linked to the desired end that I'm unhesitatingly in favour of both; but in reality both are limited for practical reasons and I think it is useful when considering this limits to be bale to bear in mind the end purpose. I.e. on principle I'm suspicious of any limits on democracy but if one is proposed the question of whether it will produce better government than unlimited democracy is the acid test. brilliantly balanced and concise response to what was fast becoming a rather futile argument. |
|
. Kicked of with a statement that is easy to pull apart, you then move into Reductio ad Hitlerum territory before telling me not to be complacent despite me being the one arguing for the status quo! 