StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:My question now becomes, i know no country which has either a representative Govt or a Govt of the people and yet the world is falling apart at the seams. uncontrolled budgets, MASSIVE deficits, out of control banks and bankers, never ending and un-payable debts, corrupt and totally inept leaders and politicians, escalating endless and un-winnable wars...how can DD be any worse than that?

Just because they are not succeeding doesn't mean that random-average people who have often less experience, interest and knowledge about said matters would know better.
Why do you believe that only the "leaders" are corrupt? What's with believing the masses are majority good and aware people who only think for the better of the nation in the long term? I'm not saying they should be fed to vultures (lol!!!) but I doubt that the people can necessarily take the right decisions while the politicians apparently don't. It's much more of a gamble than the existing system. Much more unknown fate with such regime.

The current system is corrupt. But it's still the best system. Changes need to be made, but the system shouldn't be scrapped. Especially not for a true democracy. Proposition 8 shows us what happens in a true democracy. The only reason it was defeated was because we are a republic. There is no room for a constitution, or equivalent, in a true democracy.

We've had this discussion before and all agreed that the current system is the best of several bad options, the lesser evil or whatever you choose to call it.

Direct democracy would be wide open to abuse and corruption ( people selling votes or making multiple votes under other people names ), but worse than that people in general would not understand most of what they are voting on or it's consequences, the choices made would be media driven since the media have the loudest voice.


IMO what we need to fix the current system is

1) Elected parties/AM/MP/MEPs should be FORCED to do what the promised or resign, no more promises before elections then excuses afterwards. This would make election promised realistic and true.

2) Electoral parties should NOT be able to force members ( via party whip ) to vote one way on anything other than the key policies stated in the election, on all other votes the AM/MP/MEP should be free to vote the way their electorate want them too.

3) The constituencies that have been chopped and changed by successive political parties for their own benefit should be abolished and replaced with proportional representation.

The best way? Get rid of the party system all together.

[BoT] Jack wrote:The best way? Get rid of the party system all together.

This would make elections and political life boring/uninteresting.

Legendary Apophis wrote:

[BoT] Jack wrote:The best way? Get rid of the party system all together.

This would make elections and political life boring/uninteresting.

Do you prefer the corruption we face today? Removing the part system would encourage people to find out who they are voting for and why. No longer would people be able to vote straight political party X. The party system encourages blind voting. Oh look, Bob is an Xpublicratarian. *votes bob*

[BoT] Jack wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:

[BoT] Jack wrote:The best way? Get rid of the party system all together.

This would make elections and political life boring/uninteresting.

Do you prefer the corruption we face today? Removing the part system would encourage people to find out who they are voting for and why. No longer would people be able to vote straight political party X. The party system encourages blind voting. Oh look, Bob is an Xpublicratarian. *votes bob*

I agree political parties are a bad thing, people vote for the party instead of the actual representative.

I would also add a major problem with politics is professional politicians lol There are dedicated qualifications for Medicine, Economics, Law, Arts, Town Planning etc etc yet we vote for people who have degree's in politics, people trained to tell the electorate what they want to hear, kiss babies and give speeches, but not qualified to do the actual jobs in government. IMO the Cabinet positions should be given to the elected representatives best qualified to do them, not given out as party rewards or as part of trade off back room deals.



A aptly qualified cabinet, that must be the most radical idea I ever posted lol

Complete direct democracy cannot work, because Athens democracy had indeed slaves who did the work while the citizens were taking part in political life of the city (or fighting in wars). They gave orders and "managed" their slaves, the citizens who weren't rich enough to afford slaves, were obliged to work themselves but as a consequences they weren't really able to take part into the political life of Athens.
Because a complete direct democracy requires a lot of time from citizens.

That is not a good example Jim, that was NOT direct democracy. that was just plain old democracy.

DD is something different in that 51% of the people cannot vote to make the other 49% slaves due to something called a constitution. not to mention slavery laws preventing such an act lol

So, what example(s) of complete direct democracy (more than the "semi direct democracy" of Switzerland) are there in history?

None, which is why it is needed.

To be clear, what we need are a set of rules (a constitution which is for ever and cannot be removed by future generations) which bind Govts and the people to live according to how people want to live. each nation obviously has the right to decide if that is what they want or not, but i would look at what the US did, when they declared independence and adopted their constitution, what was the result?! the best and brightest Europe had to offer flooded to the US where they could be free to express their expertise and practice what they wanted to without fear of Govt intervention.the ultimate result of which was not only the freest nation the world had ever seen, but also the richest, most industrious the world had ever seen.
Just because the US no longer abides by it's constitution does not mean it is dead or was a failure.

Check these words out by Ben Franklin:

As Benjamin Franklin was leaving the building where, after four months of hard work, the Constitution had been completed and signed, a lady asked him what kind of government did the convention create. A very old, very tired, and very wise Benjamin Franklin replied; "A Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."


Freedom should be legalised!


ps, if 1 nation does it, other nations soon demand the same thing or it's citizens leave, as was the case with the US.

You're ideas for a democracy are very flawed. For instance, the no parts of the constitution can ever be removed? Eighteenth Amendment.

"Freedom should be legalized"
What does that mean?
Freedom is a relative concept. It is *NOT* absolute.
Now, you have different freedoms existing in our nations like freedom of speech, freedom of choosing your religion...but freedom itself is a different matter.

One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

The libertarians conveniently ignore that. So does the statement "freedom should be legalized".

[BoT] Jack wrote:You're ideas for a democracy are very flawed. For instance, the no parts of the constitution can ever be removed? Eighteenth Amendment.

That's not what i meant

don't take one part of what i said and try and tell me it's flawed. i first said, agreed upon by the people.

The Volstead Act was a clear violation of the peoples freedoms which was a clear and absolute violation of the US constitution...as is the Federal Reserve act

Legendary Apophis wrote:"Freedom should be legalized"
What does that mean?
Freedom is a relative concept. It is *NOT* absolute.
Now, you have different freedoms existing in our nations like freedom of speech, freedom of choosing your religion...but freedom itself is a different matter.

One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom begins.

The libertarians conveniently ignore that. So does the statement "freedom should be legalized".

Guys, stop trying to pick apart my statements using a snapshot of what i say..did i not say "so long as i do no harm or commit fraud"?

Stepping on someone else's freedom just so i can say i am free is not only committing harm, but i could also be committing fraud, yes?