Nationalism is not Good
- Thread starter newfangle
- Start date
Hitro
Feistus Raclettus
There's been a fierce debate in Germany between a leader of the so-called liberal party and a leader of Germany's Jewish Council recently, triggered by anti-Sharon comments of that liberal party man. The Jewish leader (who is member of the Conservative party, ironically called Christian Democrats) called that anti-semitism with the result that they both accused each other of fueling anti-semitism...
Wow, now you even pay me for going there.
You're really generous.
Yes, exactly, but in your last post you said "You pay them. And as long as you're a German citizen you're member of the organization called "Germany"" as a reply to my claim of not being voluntarily connected to the government and therefore not to be seen connected to their deeds.
How is that relevant?
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Quite true, but we were talking about democracies. Oh, wait, the powers that be can put guns to the heads of voters in a democracy, too! All they need is a regulation or a law to enforce!
Oh well, Ice, found another hole.
Damien
Emperor
Ice,I think you read my many posts about the Swiss system.
There were more than 500 federal(not talking about cantonal and communal ones) referenda since 1848 and,as you can see,things run pretty well.
Associations and trade unions know what they talk about and the govt usually(I'd say always) drafts a counter-proposal.
People can cast a double no and if ANYTHING is wrong with proposals,people reject it even if was good in general.
Example:On SEp 22,people voted against a proposal of a very conservative party(that had to gather 100,000 citizens' signatures like anyone else) that foresaw to give the benefits of the sale of gold in the National Bank for the age insurance.
The Federal council launched another initiative:1/3 for the cantons,1/3 for the age insurance,1/3 for external aid.
It was rejected:external aid was for too many projects and it was said that it would only lay a golden leaf on 1000 projects and moreover,that would be dependant on the market and the value of gold,the mood of buyers,etc,not on taxes,on citizens.
In Switzerland,there were 4 initiatives to limit the number of foreigners since the 70's and they were all rejected.
PEOPLE ARE NOT DUMB.
About pressure groups and lobbies,they're listened when it's in the interests of those in power.
In France,representatives follow the party's line when they vote.
The right-wing voted against marriage with the same rights for gays.A woman voted for and now she's famous.
There were more than 500 federal(not talking about cantonal and communal ones) referenda since 1848 and,as you can see,things run pretty well.
Associations and trade unions know what they talk about and the govt usually(I'd say always) drafts a counter-proposal.
People can cast a double no and if ANYTHING is wrong with proposals,people reject it even if was good in general.
Example:On SEp 22,people voted against a proposal of a very conservative party(that had to gather 100,000 citizens' signatures like anyone else) that foresaw to give the benefits of the sale of gold in the National Bank for the age insurance.
The Federal council launched another initiative:1/3 for the cantons,1/3 for the age insurance,1/3 for external aid.
It was rejected:external aid was for too many projects and it was said that it would only lay a golden leaf on 1000 projects and moreover,that would be dependant on the market and the value of gold,the mood of buyers,etc,not on taxes,on citizens.
In Switzerland,there were 4 initiatives to limit the number of foreigners since the 70's and they were all rejected.
PEOPLE ARE NOT DUMB.
About pressure groups and lobbies,they're listened when it's in the interests of those in power.
In France,representatives follow the party's line when they vote.
The right-wing voted against marriage with the same rights for gays.A woman voted for and now she's famous.
Damien
Emperor
How?Why would a lobby be heard if it's not in the interests of the govt?
There are lots of lobbies but they're not known.They are feathers in a hurricane.
There are lots of lobbies but they're not known.They are feathers in a hurricane.
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Originally posted by IceBlaZe
What you are talking about here is illegal procedures.
I'm talking about a Kosher democracy
The very fact that you assume that's what I am talking about proves conclusively that you haven't thought this through very carefully.
R.III
Oh, so putting a gun to someones head is legal?
Sorry I'm confused...
Simple, because if you do not listen to the power your power falls.
The opposition collects power and raises a non-trust proposal (dunno the exact phrase for that in English).
Damien
Emperor
The opposition must be able to be heard;people must be able to know that the lobby exists.The lobby must also care about many issues so that people vote for it.
Well, Damien, I agree with you partially.
I agree that Referendum right gives more influence to the people, but I disagree that it is all good.
I also disagree heavily that a country that does not have referendum right disables the power of the people, I think it's nonsense and that in every established democracy people have power if they are well organized and reach big crowds, as long as the corruption does not get in the way too much.
But... I am too lazy and too short on material to argue on that topic, so technically you "won"
Cheers, R. III too
I agree that Referendum right gives more influence to the people, but I disagree that it is all good.
I also disagree heavily that a country that does not have referendum right disables the power of the people, I think it's nonsense and that in every established democracy people have power if they are well organized and reach big crowds, as long as the corruption does not get in the way too much.
But... I am too lazy and too short on material to argue on that topic, so technically you "won"
Cheers, R. III too
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
referendums should only be called on matters of great importance, i.e. should Britain join the Euro. This is because it takes power away from a country's leaders. And what is the point in electing leaders if you don't let them lead. Also referedums would be called on gut reaction issues (i.e. if a child was killed in a horrific way) that may lead to draconian laws that go against everything a free society stands for. Referendums are tools of the majority, so-called mob rule, whereas a representative democracy gives power to minorities (i.e. the US senate). And finally there are some subjects when the people are wrong or couldn't possibily be expected to reach an informed judgement. For these reason I do not support the view that citizens should be able to call referendums.
My thoughts exactly (more or less).
Giving the right to referendum anytime, is like the people saying "We elected you, but we do not trust you at all".
It's like voting for a leadership and making a no-confidence vote at the same time.
Damien
Emperor
Pure representative democracy is a denial of one of the most important individual liberties:the right to make things move,to question institutions and laws,treaties.It's:Shut up,I think and talk for you since you're too dumb.
Democracy=power by the people.You think politicians are never wrong?I prefer when people vote for a wrong choice than when politicians do.
The medias broadcast debates and information about the subject.
And the right of minorties are insured by the federal system and the majority cares about the minority.Democracy is no enslavement by the majority.
People launch referenda when they think politicians don't represent em.It's a counter-power.
Pillager
League of Empire Loyalist
Yup, that's about my view, too. Not much point electing leaders if you're going to have constant referenda. If you are going to have them, at least strictly limit them to matters of the greatest importance - joining/leaving the EU or the Euro, for example. I.e. only matters that radically alter the direction of the country.
G-Man
A One Man's War
Originally posted by Hitro
There's been a fierce debate in Germany between a leader of the so-called liberal party and a leader of Germany's Jewish Council recently, triggered by anti-Sharon comments of that liberal party man. The Jewish leader (who is member of the Conservative party, ironically called Christian Democrats) called that anti-semitism with the result that they both accused each other of fueling anti-semitism...
>>> In this case it's possible that this leader said so for one of two reasons:
1) He suspected that the anti Sharon comment wasn't due to Sharon's policies but due to the fact he's jewish (I don't know of the incident so I can't say if there was any basis for such an assumption).
2) He just wanted to use racism claims in order to get support (somethng which is ofcource very bad).
Wow, now you even pay me for going there.
You're really generous.
>>> You mean you were gonna pay to come here?
Yes, exactly, but in your last post you said "You pay them. And as long as you're a German citizen you're member of the organization called "Germany"" as a reply to my claim of not being voluntarily connected to the government and therefore not to be seen connected to their deeds.
How is that relevant?
>>> I said "you" as an example - all (or more accuratly most)German citizens together are the ones with the power. I said before that I don't see you as an individual responsible, but the general public.
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
Have you not heard of elections? If you don't like certain institutions, law and treaties then you elect someone to change them. And if they don't do what you want then next time you elect someone else. Simple.
Politicians are people. Of course they are wrong. But there is no reason to think they are any more wrong than the people are. I prefer it when neither the people or the politicans vote for the wrong choice. I don't see why you would prefer the people to make the wrong choice. I would prefer the politicans too because then the people could elect someone to make the right choice. However if the people make the wrong choice then who would make them make the right choice? Where is the safeguard against the people?
Pure democracy is.
Is this the same media that broadcasts at the moment? Because if you think they will have informed debates about complicate issues then you have a lot more faith than I do. The reason we have experts is because people are not expected to know everything about every possible subject. That is not to say that we should trust experts, of course we shouldn't. Experts wouldn't be the ones making the decision. It would be the politicans in consultation with the experts. And if the people didn't like the decision of the politican then they can get rid of them. You must remember that the job of a leader is not to follow what the public think and say but to follow what they think is right. And then try to convince the people that they are wrong and you are right. That is leadership. That is what representative democracy should be all about.
Damien
Emperor
>>>In Switzerland,debates about issues on ballots are led on TV in emissions such as Arena for swiss-german-speaking Switzerland and Droit de Cité for french-speaking Switzerland.I don't know about italian-speaking Switzerland since I don't understand italian.
