Your view on popular referenda? - Page 4 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Modern liberalism. Civil rights and liberties, State responsibility to the people (welfare).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14539894
Wait a second, I said nothing about scientific development being direct democratic. Scientific institutions should most definitely be merit based. Reality is NOT a democracy. Direct democracy would have elected and appoint parts of government in the same way that representative governments have appointed parts of government. Science shall be and always be within the realm of the scientific community, and they must be at least taken into consideration when policy is made.

Incidentally, it's usually not democratic revolutionaries who seem to deny scientific fact, but instead anti-democratic reactionaries. American conservatives and propertarians seem to be hell-bent on establishing an even more oligarchic republic and precisely fear too much democracy. Not to mention that I don't advocate for just simply installing a direct democratic government out of the sky. That is not even possible without building a movement, and rationalism definitely would play a large part in a movement dedicated to true political reform or revolution.

Also, the UKIP and BNP are not majority popular and neither are their opinions. They happen to mobilize an sizable minority of the population to support their cause in elections. In fact, the UK's population tends to have MUCH less support for privatizing the NHS than you think, and the only reason why the UKIP even has political power is that it exploits nationalism to gain supporters. It's a protest party that is in the vast minority, and the party doesn't even represent some of its constituents well. The BNP actually supports the NHS, so you dropped the ball there. As for the center-right and their privatization, I think that shows more the LACK of democracy in the representative system more than anything else. The majority actually want to keep it public. So again, your point fails.

The populist nature of right-wing movements is not from a democratic element, but rather from the inert conservatism of portions of the population mobilized by elites. comprised of a middle-class of a sort, or even both. I mean, Carlists and Jacobites were actually mass movements even though their ideology being highly elitist and reactionary. This is especially true for the UKIP, who often are consisted of propertarians who want to replace public, democratic power with the direct private power of a society ruled even more by capitalists with the state simply supporting them through protecting their property and creating the order needed to improve THEIR economic lot.

Republicans, meanwhile, are actually the minority in the United States. Now, the anti-science thought seems to be common, but that is simply due to the ignorance bestowed upon the common man by media such as Fox News and laughable figures on the internet. In fact, it is the elites who are in favor of ignorance, and the Republicans, whilst a minority, gain a majority through gerrymandering a form of government that emphasizes small states and rural areas over populated urban areas. And, this doesn't even mention how the role of money in politics has expanded since Citizens United. Then, include the inherently undemocratic tendencies of capitalism, and you end up with a government and economic system that doesn't even represent the people at all. And, I didn't even get started on the lack of involvement of the people in most elections beyond the Presidency and especially on local governments, in a federal system.

It isn't the people that perpetuate ignorance, but rather the elites who do so, whether it be the nobility and church in the time of feudalism or the bourgeois corporations and the remnants of the church in the age of capitalism. Of course, there are progressive members of a ruling class, but they will be in the minority of the ruling class and thus only rule in circumstances of instability. If anything, the increasingly unscientific rule of our republics precisely means that the ruling class has abandoned science and the only solution is to oust them from power. Of course, we can replace with technocratic elites and just simply create a new system of exploitation, but we can see from the USSR that this clearly leads no where and to eventually governments that rule with little basis in reality.

Additionally, One Degree is being quite ignorant by assuming that supporting military research makes you a right-winger. And, I think the constitution should have a bill of rights that extends it's protection to minorities such as homosexuals.
#14539920
Additionally, One Degree is being quite ignorant by assuming that supporting military research makes you a right-winger

If you wish to criticize me, please do so based upon what I said and not on what you misinterpreted my statement to mean.
#14540740
Heisenberg wrote:Nonsense. If you held a state-wide referendum in 1965 in Alabama, people would overwhelmingly have voted to deprive blacks of the right to vote. Similarly, if you held a referendum in Alabama today, people would probably vote to deprive gay people of their rights.


It goes without saying I'm no supporter or romantic for democracy so I'm not wading in on that side of the argument, but I think this begs the more provocative question: If not the majority, then who has the right or authority to decide what constitutes a "right" and which rights should be applied to whom in the first place? It's problematic because there's no answer which rests upon anything remotely democratic.

Uberak wrote:The popular referendum is a vulgar and simplistic form of direct democracy. Sure, it may be useful as a part of democracy, but the referendum, as mentioned, above is insufficient in bringing about liberty for all. Firstly, a constitution must be around to protect individual rights...


I think what's being lost in translation is the understanding that what you're talking about (enforced liberalism even if the majority of the populace disagrees with it) is something inherently different and distinct from the concept of democracy. Liberty and individualism are in no way prerequisites for setting the parameters of a democratic society.
#14540774
Far-Right Sage wrote:It goes without saying I'm no supporter or romantic for democracy so I'm not wading in on that side of the argument, but I think this begs the more provocative question: If not the majority, then who has the right or authority to decide what constitutes a "right" and which rights should be applied to whom in the first place? It's problematic because there's no answer which rests upon anything remotely democratic.

It's definitely an interesting question. I guess the cynical (or honest?) answer would be "those who hold power". I think Mussolini probably had the same sort of idea, based on this line:
Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism wrote: In so far as it is embodied in a State, this higher personality becomes a nation. It is not the nation which generates the State; that is an antiquated naturalistic concept which afforded a basis for XIXth century publicity in favor of national governments. Rather is it the State which creates the nation, conferring volition and therefore real life on a people made aware of their moral unity.

My main issue with the premise of the thread is the idea that "50%+1" holds some sort of objective ethical/moral weight, even though it's such a fickle threshold in the first place.
#14541701
Uberak wrote: In fact, the UK's population tends to have MUCH less support for privatizing the NHS than you think, and the only reason why the UKIP even has political power is that it exploits nationalism to gain supporters.

That's why they vote for the three main parties, who support creeping privatisation of the NHS through "market reform". Either voters are idiots and/or hard-right economic liberals who want to destroy every public service. Nobody forced them to vote for these parties.

They hate every progress that was made by progressives and wish to tear it down in order to return to some non-existent, nostalgic, Downtown Abbey, Daily Mail, Middle England fantasy land that never existed, in the process destroying themselves. It's really sick how the British public can think like this.
#14541733
Quantum wrote:That's why they vote for the three main parties, who support creeping privatisation of the NHS through "market reform". Either voters are idiots and/or hard-right economic liberals who want to destroy every public service. Nobody forced them to vote for these parties.

They hate every progress that was made by progressives and wish to tear it down in order to return to some non-existent, nostalgic, Downtown Abbey, Daily Mail, Middle England fantasy land that never existed, in the process destroying themselves. It's really sick how the British public can think like this.


There is a thing called "Public Polls/Surveys". In these things which apparently you've never heard of, the actual policy views of a population can be measured *independently of how they actually vote*. In other words, people cast votes in a much more primitive/crude manner which doesn't truly represent their actual policy beliefs... this is WHY we need popular referenda.
#14541848
Fuck 'em. If they support the NHS but are thick enough to vote Lib-Con-Lab all the time without fail then they deserve what they get. I am tired of the British public voting for things and then moaning when they get them.
#14541886
Decky wrote:Fuck 'em. If they support the NHS but are thick enough to vote Lib-Con-Lab all the time without fail then they deserve what they get. I am tired of the British public voting for things and then moaning when they get them.


A lot of things go into how somebody votes... maybe they're just too ignorant to have even heard of other parties? Maybe they believe voting for non mainstream parties is "dangerous" or "throwing away your vote" somehow. There is a huge campaign of demonization in the USA where I live against ever daring to vote for any party besides the big two. People on "your side" criticize you for "letting the other side win". People get bullied more or less into supporting the status quo, *even when their actual beliefs are different*. It's more complicated than what you're saying....
#14542044
As I said, the pathetic cowards deserve what they get. No working class person should vote Lib-Con-Lab, it's insane.

There is a huge campaign of demonization in the USA where I live against ever daring to vote for any party besides the big two. People on "your side" criticize you for "letting the other side win". People get bullied more or less into supporting the status quo, *even when their actual beliefs are different*. It's more complicated than what you're saying....


That does not shock me but here in Blighty we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than in the colonies.
#14544071
Decky wrote:As I said, the pathetic cowards deserve what they get. No working class person should vote Lib-Con-Lab, it's insane.


So, you take the failure of elected representative democracy to represent the people to be an example of why direct democracy doesn't work?

Well then, I guess we simply can't win arguments with people who just keep on grasping on straws.

As for One Degree, what I meant is that your specific claim that right-wingers perpetuate military research when the reality is that militaries (controlled by conservatives) are actually very conservative entities that often fight according to the conditions of the last war. World War 1 is a good example of this being the case. Still, research should be done by experts in a meritocratic system. Representative democracy does not hold scientists to elections, and neither will direct democracy put science in the hands of the masses. In fact, science shouldn't even put in the hands of the elite. It should be placed in the hands of fair and unbiased institutions separated from political life. Military innovations would be done by the military as per usual.
#14544171
UnusuallyUsual wrote:There is a thing called "Public Polls/Surveys". In these things which apparently you've never heard of, the actual policy views of a population can be measured *independently of how they actually vote*. In other words, people cast votes in a much more primitive/crude manner which doesn't truly represent their actual policy beliefs... this is WHY we need popular referenda.

Public polls are meaningless. I care about outcomes, not some hypothetical scenarios where people are willing to vote for centre-left policies but magically vote right-wing every time. If polls are to believed, Farage would be a kingmaker and would produce an even more right-wing government. If people are like that, then why would I want these idiots having control over my life anymore than the current lot?
#14544364
Quantum wrote:Public polls are meaningless. I care about outcomes, not some hypothetical scenarios where people are willing to vote for centre-left policies but magically vote right-wing every time. If polls are to believed, Farage would be a kingmaker and would produce an even more right-wing government. If people are like that, then why would I want these idiots having control over my life anymore than the current lot?


A lot of British folk perhaps like UKIP because to them it seems to promise some type of economic egalitarianism. There is this twisted kind of propaganda that also occurs in the USA (again, I live in USA, I can't comment much on internal British politics since I don't really understand it that well) where the Democratic Party gets identified with "Rich Hollywood Liberal Elites Trying to Control And Mock You Poor People". So a lot of working-/midde class type folk seemingly identify with the Republican Party over social and cultural issues like being "Pro Everyone Owning Guns At All Times" or "No Abortions Ever Because It Murders Children because Bible Says So", "No Brown Skin People Who Don't SPeak American Allowed In Country", "No Queers Anywhere, They Are Gross" etc etc etc. These things appeal to many folk on the lower end of the economic spectrum BECAUSE being on the lower end of the economic spectrum tends to correlate with NOT HAVING MUCH EDUCATION, also NOT BEING ABLE TO TRAVEL WIDELY. Also NOT LIVING IN AN URBAN SETTING where one might come across and encounter a variety of different kinds of humans, and come to be less fearful/bigoted about them. So yeah, I don't think British people being pro UKIP necessarily means they favor right=wing ECONOMIC policies.
#14544369
Indeed, people vote UKIP because they hate foreigners, they don't know or care about their economic policies.
#14590526
I used to love the idea of direct democracy. I still think it can work in certain cases, but on a federal level such as the US, it can be disastrous. I think that every citizen should have to take a class on citizenship and pass a voter test before gaining the "right to vote." People that fail the first time are able to take the test once a year. I also think that the "strong majority" rule should be applied. I also do not think that average people should be able to vote on federal economic policy and what happens in courts. In general, I think direct democracy tends to work better in smaller, more culturally monolithic areas, and we should be encouraging people to be more active in the workplaces in their areas of specialization- participating in decision-making within these firms on what changes to make and ultimately correspond with the political branches of their sector/industry (who will be better-specialized with working with governmental institutions that pass and enforce policies for their sector).

Political direct democracy is a noble but flawed cause because not everybody has the will to be educated on politics in government (it is a career path), but everybody goes to work somewhere (ideally- not factoring in unemployment), so perhaps this is where we should start instead of squabbling about how suited everybody is to be a direct and equally-considered stakeholder in government

How about Russia uses a battle field nuclear we[…]

@Tainari88 , @Godstud @Rich , @Verv , @Po[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 29, Friday Mackenzie King wins Canadian el[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over main[…]