Posts by mark taslov
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Mark, if you're referring to me, I've never used that expression. For the record, it strikes me as a bit dickish.
Sincerely sorry Joe, It was a misquote (for the second time) of a damn find shaddup.
for Rich;
If a man take no thought about what is distant, he will find sorrow near at hand.
Confucius
-
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?
I'll keep it simple Rich. I never mentioned any dictatorship, Vietnam (the example I gave you to work with) is not a dictatorship. It's a one party system. You can contend the democratic system is better than the one party system vice versa. Ultimately Churchill's quote will be supported by those favoring the democracy and negated by those who don't. You seem to want to prove that the greatest success of non democracy is worse than the greatest miscarriage of democracy. I assert that's not case.
in South Africa we saw democracy at it's worst.
I contend that the current situation in Vietnam is now better than the situation we saw in Apartheid South Africa,If democracy in all its permutations had never been worse than all other forms of government then I would agree with Mr Churchill. But From time to time we have seen democracy drag our world to deep deep lows, As we did following the German election of March 1933.
I can't work out what you hate about China or the Chinese or why you keep mentioning it and attacking the place, The only time I've referred to it today was jestfully in reply to scottY's post, it's not really part of the discussion.
I also suggest you deselect the ad terrānum feature of your word processor.
-
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
-
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.
-
Considering Jury trials and democracy aren't mutually inclusive it's a total threadjack. My apologies.
-
sorry...reasonable doubt 'on that assertion that....
-
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.
-
Thanks ScottY and Mikaere for understanding and the discussion in general.
-
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.
-
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.