Hard News: Footnotes
234 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 Newer→ Last
-
yet you are convinced a five year plan is a bad thing because it's called a five year plan and at some point in history some people had some bad five year plans, so the whole notion could only be suggested with tongue in cheek.
-
consensus non-democracy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/2507879/China-retreats-from-web-filtering-plan
-
After a frustrating few hours in that tiny airless room the rest of us decided to stand around the table with our backs to them and our faces an inch from the wall while the defendent's admirers sorted themselves out.
I'm concerned that this is how 'justice' is decided.
-
There's always some statistician to smugly tell you that buying a ticket in the meat raffle at your local is a much more economically rational decision than buying a Lotto ticket.
It's bollocks of course.
They calculate Expected Value based on probabilities and returns, but define the returns solely in $ value. But as pointed out earlier in these comments, the big prize in Lotto is not "x million dollars" - it is "opportunity to completely change your lifestyle". Probably of achieving this in Lotto is small, but real. Probability of achieving this in a meat raffle is zero.
I'm not missing the cash I spent on my first ever Big Wednesday tickets, so it would have been a bit irrational not to have spent it... -
<quote>I'm concerned that this is how 'justice' is decided.<quote>
I'm concerned that this is how anything is decided.
-
yet you are convinced a five year plan is a bad thing because it's called a five year plan and at some point in history some people had some bad five year plans, so the whole notion could only be suggested with tongue in cheek.
To be fair those bad plans were really REALLY BAD plans.
And I don't mean "bad" in the way teh yoofs mean it.
I'm not against planning. But the moment I hear "five-year plan" I immediately thing Stalinist Russia. Change the name and you're on to a winner. Say "half-decade plan" or "quarter-score" or something else.
-
Mainly its about how and when compromise is achieved. While consensus democracy (CD) and representative democracy (RD) are both able to accommodate compromise, CD seeks it in the first instance, whereas RD seeks it as a last resort.
If you have the votes in RD, there is no need to compromise, no matter the impact on the dissident minority.
In CD, even though you may begin discussions with higher levels of support than other parties, this does not give you a mandate to steamroller your opponents. Rather, you enter into (sometimes lengthy) dialogue where you seek to understand the nature of the opposition and attempt to establish compromises. If all goes well, you will end up with full consensus.
Sometimes consensus is not possible, especially in decisions that are discrete (e.g. who to choose as party leader, say, vs what kind of public transport mix would best suit a community). In no consensus can be achieved then you can resort to voting or some other mechanism.
By contrast, RD only compromises when it has to. This results in weaker decisions. e.g. National overturning the ETS. Unlike the S59 repeal, National did not have buy-in, so could simply dump the ETS without even having a replacement. This is hardly good governance on an issue as important as climate change.
-
I'm not against planning. But the moment I hear "five-year plan" I immediately thing Stalinist Russia. Change the name and you're on to a winner. Say "half-decade plan" or "quarter-score" or something else.
Ha nice. yeah Scotty sorry. When I hear 5 year plan I think of stadium planning, relaxing of internet restrictions and unprecedented economic growth.
Here's a good example of CD
Switzerland features a system of government not seen at the national level on any other place on Earth: direct democracy, sometimes called half-direct democracy (this may be arguable, as, theoretically, one could state that the people have full power over the law). Referendums on the most important laws have been used since the 1848 constitution.
Any citizen may challenge a law that has been passed by parliament. If that person is able to gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days, a national vote has to be scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law.
Also, any citizen may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the constitution. For such an amendment initiative to be organised, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months. Such a popular initiative may be formulated as a general proposal or - much more often - be put forward as a precise new text whose wording can no longer be changed by parliament and the government. After a successful vote gathering, the federal council may create a counterproposal to the proposed amendment and put it to vote on the same day. Such counterproposals are usually a compromise between the status quo and the wording of the initiative. Voters will again decide in a national vote whether to accept the initiative amendment, the counterproposal put forward by the government or both. If both are accepted, one has to additionally signal a preference. Initiatives have to be accepted by a double majority of both the popular votes and a majority of the cantons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland
It could easily work in a population as small as New Zealand's.
-
Putting aside the fact that the term is permanently tainted.
A 5 year plan wouldn’t really work in a country with a 3 year electoral cycle.
-
Thanks Mikaere.
-
Putting aside the fact that the term is permanently tainted.
A 5 year plan wouldn’t really work in a country with a 3 year electoral cycle.
I think that's possibly one reason why Mark thinks our system doesn't work so well.
-
I think that's possibly one reason why Mark thinks our system doesn't work so well.
Isn’t that the detail of the system, rather than its fundamental principle, that’s the issue then?
-
A 5 year plan wouldn’t really work in a country with a 3 year electoral cycle.
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say, that a three year cycle barely covers the hangover recovery for the post victory celebrations.
The illusion of empowerment for individuals is insignificant in a nation where our government can't even make a truly attainable five year plan.
-
Thanks ScottY and Mikaere for understanding and the discussion in general.
-
Isn’t that the detail of the system, rather than its fundamental principle, that’s the issue then?
True just a detail Legbreak, but my only objective is to cast reasonable doubt that assertion that democracy is better than all other systems, not to prove that it isn't, all just details.
-
sorry...reasonable doubt 'on that assertion that....
-
Here's a good example of CD
I would characterise it more as direct democracy since the primary mechanism is voting rather than actual consensus-building. Still, it illustrates your point that there are viable alternatives to Churchill's (implicit) representative democracy.
-
Considering Jury trials and democracy aren't mutually inclusive it's a total threadjack. My apologies.
-
I would characterise it more as direct democracy since the primary mechanism is voting rather than actual consensus-building.
Thanks, like Joe said, I'm not politically buffed.
-
Once past the whole democracy=jury arrgument, there's some good stuff to inspire possible alternatives here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trials
http://www.helplinelaw.com/law/netherlands/courts/courts.php
-
After a frustrating few hours in that tiny airless room the rest of us decided to stand around the table with our backs to them and our faces an inch from the wall while the defendent's admirers sorted themselves out.
I'm concerned that this is how 'justice' is decided.
you think that's bad, you should see how some of the lawyers behave. One of the trials I mentioned was defended by the brother of a famous tennis player (in case you may have come across him), he was congratulated afterwards by the judge for turning a straightfoward case (the jury had the "what if" lady to assist) into a two day confusion fest. Hugely amusing though, the guy could front his own TV show.
-
I'm concerned that this is how 'justice' is decided.
Ten people listened to the evidence and came up with coherent views, two people refused to - I thought the solution was quite fair. We gave them time and space to come up with constructive arguments and they couldn't. The alternative was to stay there for another five hours in a small, stuffy room with instant coffee and horrible tea bags. Possibly this is how juries work. As I say, I don't know - I've only been on two. In the end, if there's disagreement, someone has to give in or the process goes on forever.
-
Now we're getting down to it.
Mark, you said:
Democracy is not the worst form of government compared to Nazism and there are better
Then I called you on it, by saying:
Since you clearly think there are better forms of Government than that which we could for the sake of argument call 'Western Democratic', how about you provide some examples of governmental forms you think are better, or 'don't bother'.
To which you replied:
**You have conveniently placed all the many variations of democracy into one shoebox.** This self satisfied complacence is of what benefit? Basically do your own search. I'm not the one saying democracy is the best, you are. You Rich are saying democracy is best, and if I don't agree with you I can fuck off or I'm trolling. As if better is some all encompassing quantifiable concept. Better in what respect? human rights? economically? technologically? The health system? environmentally? Ask an answerable question and I'll answer it.
There was nothing in your post to indicate that you thought we should be separating out the various democratic sub-systems. It was therefore quite reasonable of me to 'place them all in one shoebox', and ask you to provide an alternative form of government.
But maybe you weren't putting them all in one shoebox?
Apparently not, since LegBreak said:
Isn’t that the detail of the [democratic] system, rather than its fundamental principle, that’s the issue then?
To which you replied:
True just a detail Legbreak, but my only objective is to cast reasonable doubt [on the] assertion that democracy is better than all other systems, not to prove that it isn't, all just details
So you are clearly talking about democracy as a whole , and not whether one form of democracy is better or worse than another.
You are clearly contrasting any democratic form of government with any other fundamentally different form of government.
So my question stands: what do you think is a better form of government? There's plenty to choose from. Military junta? Aristocracy? Theocracy? Oh, the choices we have!
Then you said:
When I hear 5 year plan I think of stadium planning, relaxing of internet restrictions and unprecedented economic growth.
Wow, those are all great things! I wonder which form of government can deliver all of those wonderful benefits? I wonder exactly which brutally repressive totalitarian state your were thinking of when you wrote that...?
So, you're trying to 'cast reasonable doubt on the assertion that any form of democracy is better than all other systems', and to do that, you're effectively saying that a new stadium, internet restrictons eased from 'totalitarian, to, uh, 'totalitarian lite', and economic growth are acceptable substitutes for freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of government, and all that democratic crap.
Seriously? That's your argument? A Communist Dictatorship is better than any form of Democracy? A new stadium outweighs my freedom to say whatever the fuck I like about the government, as loudly as I care to, to whoever I choose? Srsly?
My word, I can feel the resonable doubt creeping up my spine as I type.
Seriously. The choice of any form of democracy, or the Communist Chinese model? That's my choice?
And you wonder why I think you're trolling?
-
Thanks, like Joe said, I'm not politically buffed.
Mark, if you're referring to me, I've never used that expression. For the record, it strikes me as a bit dickish.
And as long as I'm here, that proverb about men needing to fear fame as pigs should fear becoming fat was rather nice. If you have any more like that in your store thereof . . .
-
Sure, this creature of Westminster democracy was actually talking about something else...
Weak comeback, Mikaere.
Yes. Yes, he was.
That particular quote is from a 1947 speech he made. Two years after the end of WW2, and one year after his 'iron curtain' speech.
The full quote is:
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.
Given the context, I think it's quite clear that he is contrasting democracy (any form thereof) with totalitarianism.
As far as I have been able to ascertain, several countries that were occupied by the nazis in mainland Europe had governments that used a system that was closer to proportional representation than the westminster FPP system. Denmark, Holland and Norway and possibly others. France, UK, and the US didn't and don't.
Given the context, it's quite clear that he is talking about all of those forms of free democratic government, plus all the the wider concepts of democracy - freedom of speech, association, press, etc, etc, and contrasting all of it with things that are a lot more unpleasant.
As it happens, I do tend towards agreeing with you when you say:
No, representative democracy is NOT the best system. Consensus democracy, such as is practiced by the Greens, is much better at getting good decisions.
However, I take exception to the way you set that particular straw man up in order to deliver your sales pitch.
People died in large numbers in order to gain any sort of democratic freedom in Europe, both before and after WW2. Until they got it, they didn't really care whether it was vanilla or chocolate, consensual or representative. They worried about those trivial details afterwards. I use the word 'trivial' deliberately, because when you're being beaten by the Stasti in a police cell, the particular flavour of representation you're fighting for tends to be of secondary importance.
In light of that, I found the way you made your point a little distasteful.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.