Right wingers less intelligent

[Bernie Gunther]

Representative democracy does not necessarily imply a parliament.

In fact, it could be argued plausibly that a parliament is inherently unrepresentative of anything other than the ruling class, and that in order to be representative you need e.g. workers' soviets or something.

 

[Gmart]

Representative democracy does not necessarily imply a parliament.

In fact, it could be argued plausibly that a parliament is inherently unrepresentative of anything other than the ruling class, and that in order to be representative you need e.g. workers' soviets or something.

It depends on whether you want to have a democracy that represents the views of the population, or a simple authoritarian system where there is no such choice - one might argue about more local versions, but there would still then be elected representatives and the people and thus a need to define the relationship.

 

[Gmart]

[...]gmart why do you think a written constitution is so great? [...]

I am simply stating that it is better to have checks and balances on our rulers, like most other democracies, rather than having the situation in the UK where there are no such checks on power.

 

[butchersapron]

It depends on whether you want to have A) a bad thing , or B) a good thing i propose.

It really really does not.

 

[binka]

I am simply stating that it is better to have checks and balances on our rulers, like most other democracies, rather than having the situation in the UK where there are no such checks on power.

what a stupid phrase 'checks and balances' as if they aren't all on the same side. i don't see much checking and balancing going on in any of your democracies

 

[frogwoman]

I am simply stating that it is better to have checks and balances on our rulers, like most other democracies, rather than having the situation in the UK where there are no such checks on power.

mexico has one of the most detailed expertly drafted constitutions in the world and yet a war between different factions of drug dealers and corrupt cops are killing thousands of people over there, there's been tonnes of corruption and electoral fraud, obviously hasn't done them much good ...

 

[ViolentPanda]

It does, the Crown-in Parliament has the sovereignty in the UK constitution, so Parliament can legislate how it wishes without limit. Parliament saw the unlimited powers of the Monarchy and sought to hijack them for itself. In 1689 it had the opportunity to do so, and was successful. The only limits which Parliament has are self-imposed ones which it could get rid of tomorrow if it wishes.

That's probably the most one-sided and ridiculous reading of constitutional history it's ever been my misfortune to read.

You all try to paint this position as 'simplistic', but the only reason why I continue to ask this is because I expected you all to know the history and the constitutional set up of the UK.

A simple question for you who are simple enough to believe in "unlimited power":

What are the three pillars on which the constitution rests?

He stated elsewhere that he wouldn't have a written constitution which specifically restricts the unlimited powers of his own parliament as I have described them -

No, you interpreted what he said to mean that, because of your obsession with a particular form of rule.

...thus the conclusion that he wishes to replace one authoritarian system with his own 'more enlightened version' is logical.

No, it isn't "logical" if you've misunderstood or misrepresented his original point.

If he wishes to describe how he would constrain the power of our rulers (I am assuming that your solutions are all versions of representative democracies), then why not specifically state how this would be done? The same goes for all of you - if you actually answered the questions as to what your plan is then this whole dance between me asking and you avoiding answer would not have to happen.

BA is an anarchist. Here's a slogan some anarchists use.

Are you perhaps starting to get the actual point of his post yet?

 

[ViolentPanda]

what a stupid phrase 'checks and balances' as if they aren't all on the same side. i don't see much checking and balancing going on in any of your democracies

You have a point, but....
Historically we've been able to rely a little bit more on the tensions between different parts of our government system to stop one section becoming over-mighty. Unfortunately, among other things, Blair's imposition of a crypto-presidential style of governing circumvented some of the mechanisms that provided that tension.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Have you ever thought, Gmart, that if you made less assumptions about the beliefs of others you might not get such a hard time? Who knows, you might even learn something.

Shame on you, Norm!!!







Everyone knows it's "fewer assumptions", not "less"!

 

[ViolentPanda]

You are more extreme than I thought - i assumed that you would at least respect the majority position that the UK wants a representative democracy. Seeing as you have therefore stated that you would have no parliament, then I understand why you wouldn't have constraints on such a body. So unless you want straight out Anarchy, you will need to have some rules (if you don't give them then the population would turn to the army to force you). Thus what restrictions would you have then on either side?

I am surprised that so many here consider your views of importance seeing as you basically want to impose your views on the whole population without giving them a choice.

Reference to the Supreme Court striking down the Texas Laws against sodomy, would such a thing be able to happen in your ideal system?

I see why you are so reluctant to go into details now.

You utter fool.

He doesn't want anarchy. He wants anarchism. That means that the rules are determined by the people for the people, rather than imposed, including whether an army/defence force is a necessary expense.

You know why anarchists are often reluctant to go into detail, fool? Because it isn't the anarchist's job to prescribe solutions.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

It depends on whether you want to have a democracy that represents the views of the population, or a simple authoritarian system where there is no such choice - one might argue about more local versions, but there would still then be elected representatives and the people and thus a need to define the relationship.

Got to say that doesn't make a great deal of sense, particularly if it's supposed to be understood as a reply to the post of mine that you were quoting.

I may regret this, but ... could you possibly elaborate how that is supposed to relate to anything I said above?

 

[ViolentPanda]

ive not been following this (perhaps thats a good thing) but lol gmart why do you think a written constitution is so great? i mean what difference do you think it would make to the uk? do you not think that the rulers would frame the constitution in such a way that it would help them carry on doing whatever they're doing, for example by writing whatever bad shit they wanted to do into the constitution, writing the constitution so it says they have huge powers? or for that matter by ignoring it completely like for example what happened under the soviet union which had on paper the "best" rights to free speech etc in the world? or mexico under the pri with its constitution saying everyone has a right to a house, a job etc?

i really don't understand why you think its so important because it really isn't!

I've been asking him the same thing since he started banging on about it, but his "answer" is never an answer, it's just more crap about a written constitution.
I mean, we don't (as I've stated many times before) have any mechanisms in place to even ensure that MPs represent their constituents' interests, and under the current system any legislation that might make it as far as the floor of the house won't get vote in because "turkeys won't vote for Christmas".
Do you know what GMart offered as a possible solution to push such legislation through Parliament? You'll love this...entryism into the Labour party to take it over and make it genuinely representative.
That's right, the same Labour party that has seen all the power stripped from constituency parties so that they can't actually activate or influence policy formation!

 

[frogwoman]

Do you know what GMart offered as a possible solution to push such legislation through Parliament? You'll love this...entryism into the Labour party to take it over and make it genuinely representative.

oh god

 

[Jeff Robinson]

He doesn't want anarchy. He wants anarchism. That means that the rules are determined by the people for the people, rather than imposed, including whether an army/defence force is a necessary expense.

How does that distinguish anarchism from any other democratic theory?

 

[frogwoman]

no it would not happen because under anarchism the texas court would not exist, at least not in its current form.

 

[butchersapron]

How does that distinguish anarchism from any other democratic theory?

He didn't say that this was the entire content of anarchism - it was simply a direct limited reply to the one from gmart about parliament and other bollocks. Look at the drivel it was replying to.

 

[ViolentPanda]

How does that distinguish anarchism from any other democratic theory?

Well, apart from the fact that anarchism wouldn't be weighted down by the same structures that those "other democratic theories" feel they need in order to validate themselves, and that there would therefore mean far fewer layers of mediation between the will of "the people" and the execution of the will of the people, then I admit that it's barely distinguishable at all, Jeff.

 

[SpineyNorman]

But remember - we're the ones whose ideas are unrealistic, not him. And this is because we're trapped in an endless cycle of rebellion and apathy or something.

 

[ViolentPanda]

But remember - we're the ones whose ideas are unrealistic, not him. And this is because we're trapped in an endless cycle of rebellion and apathy or something.

Your saying that has just reminded me of the last person I heard using such arguments. He deployed them to argue that members of the Labour party should stop hanging onto unrealistic ideas like Clause 4, or they'd be locked in a cycle of eternal opposition and internal conflict. His name was Peter Mandelson, and he could be said to have participated in the destruction of any value that the Labour party originally had.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

He didn't say that this was the entire content of anarchism - it was simply a direct limited reply to the one from gmart about parliament and other bollocks. Look at the drivel it was replying to.

I'd rather not, generally as a rule I don't read GMart, although maybe 1 in every 100 posts I take a cursory glance only to remind myself why I've ignored the previous 99.

 

[DotCommunist]

tbf, they're all variations on a stock essay anyway.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Gmart

 

[ViolentPanda]

Gmart

That's truly beautiful!