Since my other thread (http://4-ch.net/politics/kareha.pl/1101592678) kinda went to shit, I thought about formulating the principal question anew:
What kind of political freedoms do you think you have? Which ones do you actually exercise? Why do you think you have them and how do you benefit from them? Also: Are there any complementary political duties for yourself?
I "exercise" my "fair use rights" fairly "often".
Er, yes. That's more of a slight lifting of restrictions than a real freedom, though. Ah, dammit, I'll just come in again, shall I?
I greatly enjoy my freedom not to vote...
Ah, scratch that one too. Who am I kidding? I suck at democracy.
Capitalism! I shop around for good deals. I buy products from companies whose other products have served me well in the past, and avoid products from companies whose other products have disappointed me.
I vote. I speak my mind without worry that I will be come down upon if I don't follow some party line. I do not own a gun, but I enjoy target shooting and have considered it. I come home every day and sleep well at night, with no fear that my rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness will be revoked the next day.
Interesting points, but economic freedom and political freedom are not necessarily one-and-same.
Point. Guess I got carried away. :P
My opinion on political freedom is that it's more an illusion than anything else. Certainly, I have more freedom than many others do, but I rarely exercise it. And even if I do, it's likely a lot smaller than most people believe.
Social censure comes in many forms, layered one above the other. There is execution, prison, isolation and humiliation.
The illusion lasts so long as you don't push the bounds. You may sincerely believe that goatse should be stamped on the side of every bus and on the cover of every book, but ridicule by your peers will prod you back in line.
I'm a rather rotten sod though. While I firmly believe that it is every citizen's duty to be educated, informed and exercise the right to vote, I rarely vote myself. Nor do I exercise many other rights I have. I'm usually the contemptible peanut gallery spewing hot air.
> I'm usually the contemptible peanut gallery spewing hot air.
oh the angst
Verbal wankery at its finest. o.o-b
i use my freedom of speech and press to write to the republican and democrative asses who run our country rather often. if they would simply stop working against each other and work together then i wouldn't have to though. so is the american way though i suppose.
Slightly off-topic, but nothing makes me happier than partisan conflict. I'm not an anarchist, especially not on Saturdays which is trash pick-up day in my neighborhood, but I do tend to have the feeling that government is an extremely strident solution to most problems.
Law is inherently restrictive, and I think America would be a much happier place with two guidelines: all laws expire every year if not renewed by a numerical majority of the legislative branch, and no new laws can be passed without a super majority of 66% or higher.
Just because a law was relevant in 1905 doesn't make it relevant in 2005... and if you can't convince 66% of the people (or their representatives) that something is necessary, then it probably isn't.
Legislative gridlock is the ideal state of a democracy, because law is inherently restrictive.
An appealing idea, but you fail to take into account the incredibly huge volume of laws. Reviewing each one each year would be a far larger work burden than any governement could take on, and sooner or later it would degenerate into a vote to just keep all laws as they are, and you'd be back where you started.
Whatever, as long as they don't have time to pass any new laws I'd be happy. There are far too many laws, so many that a large percentage of them are never enforced. Its a disgusting abuse of democracy, because noone would have chosen this legislative outcome.
Perhaps put a sunset of 25 years, and stagger the laws evenly over the 25 years.
My primary gripe with common law is the byzantine structure of criminal law. It is a citizen's duty to know the law, and ignorance of the law isn't a defence. However, a lot of common-law countries have criminal law spread out over several pieces of legislation and hidden in common law.
It is morally repugnant to me that a person can be imprisoned after committing an action they didn't know was illegal. Certainly, more serious offences require mens rea, but you can still be nailed on strict-liability offences.
Criminal law should be legible to the layman. They should make a single comprehensive piece of criminal legislation, and stick to it. At least in England and where I live.
I vigorously exercise my political right to remain silent [in public] on my political stance and whom I vote for.
I also sometimes exercise my right to sometimes cast a useless vote that doesn't change anything at all, because all choices are the same product, with different corporate packaging.
Furthermore, I am exercising my political right to apply for citizenship in a different, more democratic country.
>Why do you think you have them and how do you benefit from them?
I benefit from the last one by getting out of "here".
I benefit from the first one by saving myself breath.
I benefit from the second one by getting an hour off from work.
Ironically, I have them because an undemocratic force fought for them.
good luck in your expatriation. i respect your opinions, and empathize with your sentiment, but i find your cynicism abhorrent. i lived in russia for 13 years surrounded by people who've given up before the fight even started, just like yourself, and i feel like i'm going to go insane when i meet them in america, where everyone is still playing fair, more or less.
>>15
oh my, I've lived nowhere near oppressive as Zovjet Russia so far; so forgive me if it came to sound like it.
The reasons for my choice are manifold and the political situation plays a considerably minor role. You see- this land has in short succession stumbled from one dictatorship into another, and people are now, even decades later, still refusing to come to terms with that; and those in power openly admire the leader figureheads from either regime and are elected for it (much like duce has still a very ...special... sound in some areas of Italy). And though the past years have seen a steady decline in democratic freedoms and the silent removal of checks and balances, we're nowhere near totalitarianism. So the 'more democratic' was of course meant by comparison -- for example, I would not have wanted to move to an Aznar/PP-Spain; all the while democratic it was significantly less democratic than quite a few other european nations.
Secondly, with that out of the way,
>surrounded by people who've given up before the fight even started, just like yourself, and i feel like i'm going to go insane when i meet them in america, where everyone is still playing fair, more or less.
Ah, while I must commend your mettle and your committment, I feel that's somehow unfair towards those who choose to deliberately tend to 'their own business'. Sometimes, a good measure of indifference can save you a lot of gastric ulcer. Sometimes people just don't have the nerve and strength to engage in a 'fight', especially if it seems futile anyways.
Plus, does not the scope of a person naturally grow gradually more limited over time?
"A young man comes out of school and he's interested in everything. He gets a job, and his world narrows. He marries. Job, home, family. And it narrows some more. Finally, he gets older; through with his job, his family gone away, his ultimate concern is his bowel movement every morning..." --Studs Terkel
I think that's very true...
democracy is true or false.
either greater than 50% of the population of the united states wants bush to be president or they don't.
i think sometimes when you say democracy you mean liberty, but they're not the same thing.
err, and p.s.,
as long as you act on your inclination to leave, then you're intellectually honest and noone but a moral absolutist (which i'm not) can fault you. but if you're still here in a couple of years, and still proclaiming your imminent immigration, then you're a hypocrite.
>democracy is true or false
democracy isn't binary - there can be varying degrees of people's rule. A direct democracy is more democratic than a bicameral parliamentary democracy. A bicameral parliamentary democracy is more democratic than an electoral monarchy.
This is why the concept of democratic deficits exists, and the more deficitary a system is, the less democratic it is.
>>18
naturally. anything but following through would be pure and worthless lamentation.
yeah, you're right.
i suppose that in a country where every citizen votes on every issue, the people have a more direct effect on how their country is ruled than in a country where they merely vote for every officer every few years.
i wonder how big of a difference in policy there would be though? do you really think if every american voted on every issue, and it only took a numerical majority to enact a law, that the country wouldn't be governed pretty much the same way it is under bush? if anything i think we'd see more wars and more jesus.
here's a thought experiment though; under a direct democracy, how would laws be proposed? if everyone voted via e-mail or something like that, would every individual citizen be able to submit a law which all hundreds of millions of citizens have to vote on? would there be a limit to the number of laws submitted by a citizen in a given day? is direct democracy even remotely, conceivably possible in a country of hundreds of millions? even the athenians only let a small percentage of their city-state vote, maybe a couple thousand people at most.
but that's just theory.
anyway, believe it or not, while i didn't vote for the guy (can't vote, i was born in washington state but i had to renounce my citizenship at 18), i think that bush is probably a wiser and more intelligent leader than the average american. i like having a level between citizens and The Rule Of Law, a phrase which should always be capitalized because it's that fucking dangerous.
do i think i could govern a country well? indeed i do (i think most of us who spend our times on pol. boards think so, or we'd spend less time talking about it, right?). do i think 99% of the people in my city (toledo, ohio, a "blue" city in a "red" state by the way) could or should? no.
so anyway, i put the question to you: do you believe that The Rule Of Law needs a filter?
Do I deduct correctly that you take the U.S. of A as example because you are familiar with the political situation there, yes?
Just to clear up that I wasn't addressing the U.S., and that my following statements have nothing to do with my actual opinion on American politics. I'll just treat it as a petri dish specimen.
>i wonder how big of a difference in policy there would be though? do you really think if every american voted on every issue, and it only took a numerical majority to enact a law, that the country wouldn't be governed pretty much the same way it is under bush? if anything i think we'd see more wars and more jesus.
That is possible, maybe likely. But, whether that is desirable or not is somewhat besides the point, because the point here is that it would atleast be the people directly deciding on an issue, instead of elected policymakers. Policymakers in many western brand democracies have a free mandate; they are elected on the basis of a platform and then make decisions according to their own conscience. That means they are - cf. imperative mandate - not directly bound to the vill of the people.
>under a direct democracy, how would laws be proposed?
In Europe, several nations with direct democracy exist. On important issues, the people are called to vote by means of referenda.
Laws are usually proposed by interest groups and discussed in a political plenum. If the petition finds enough support, the people are to vote on it. To keep it practical, often multiple laws are convoluted into a package, which symbolizes a certain direction in policy. People then either accept or decline the proposal, thereby amending or dropping the legislative changes in question.
>democracy even remotely, conceivably possible in a country of hundreds of millions?
The answer to size is federalism. Centralism has always brought about democratic deficits.
The question is not the size, but whether the people are willing to make use of it. The aforely referenced countries traditionally uphold the rank of the individual as a decisionmaker in society as an important value.
When that is not the case, it may fail.
>do i think i could govern a country well? indeed i do (i think most of us who spend our times on pol. boards think so, or we'd spend less time talking about it, right?). do i think 99% of the people in my city (toledo, ohio, a "blue" city in a "red" state by the way) could or should? no.
I don't think I would govern a country well (this is the only board where I make an exception to my rule never to discuss politics). No better than my compatriots or the current policymakers; I think they do the best according to their ability. Do I think 100% of the mature citzens of 'my' city could or should? Yes. Because they'll atleast be making decisions of their own, instead of having one decree after the other rain down on them from some shrouded empyrean far above their reach.
>so anyway, i put the question to you: do you believe that The Rule Of Law needs a filter?
I don't see what you mean by a filter; maybe you care to elaborate? The Rule of Law ensures that (theoretically), authority is kept within a tight cage of rules, which define its possible paths of action. As such, it is inherently positive, so long as the trinity of forces is strictly separated.
It is, in my opinion, one principle working for the citizen, (as well as, paradoxically, bureaucracy) and as such shouldn't be tampered with.
i've lived in america for 5 years in my whole life, but i feel that i'm very familiar with american politics (everyone is), and the other places i've lived (russia and israel) have really good excuses for their occasional tyrannies.
i was pretty sure that you were talking about america because you kept talking about moving to europe, suggesting you didn't already live there. where do you live then, that is not democratic enough for you? hey, i told you what city i live in. :>
>"it would atleast be the people directly deciding..."
i think you're splitting thistle, but this is a pol. forum so i suppose its the place for it. it seems to me that if outcome p is equal to outcome q, you should pick the easier one and be happy you had a choice.
>"On important issues, the people are called to a vote by means of referenda"
correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this holds true in russia, israel, and america also. last november some of my friends who are citizens got to vote on things like gay marriage and whether or not a new school should be built and something about parks. the same sort of thing happened all the time in israel.
also, in america and israel, groups of citizens often propose laws. in both instances, it is required that a member of the legislature formally presents the legislation. or is there some difference between that and what you meant?
>"the answer to size is federalism"
ok, so how would clearly national issues be decided? in your theoretical direct democracy, how is war declared? how are new ministries formed? how are bureaucrats appointed? i still imagine that some autocratic power must be vested in some individual, or otherwise citizens would have to vote on dozens of pieces of legislation (between local, federal, and national items) every year. how can someone who works 40+ hours a week and has 2 kids and a marriage and occasionally enjoys hobbies other than politics be expected to be an informed voter? i can't imagine it.
>"they'll atleast be making decisions of their own"
i suppose you're just optimistic on this issue while i find myself pessimistic. i imagine your average citizen (of any country i've ever been to) would lose interest within a decade or two and no longer take the time to inform themselves about the issues, and voting would become a terrifically random process...
>"care to elaborate?"
i think that in a completely direct democracy, your average country would be enormously vulnerable to current events. fast decision making is a very bad thing when it involves countries. but to anyone who isn't paid to pay attention to politics, spending a couple weeks pondering issues of tax codes or farming subsidies would be too much to ask for, and they would go to the polls (if at all), totally bored and uninterested.
>>"On important issues, the people are called to a vote by means of referenda"
>correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this holds true in russia, israel, and america also
At the state level, yes. They're called "propositions." However, there's no equivalent at the federal level except for the ol' "vote the bum out." Should there be? I'm undecided...
>how can someone who works 40+ hours a week and has 2 kids and a marriage and occasionally enjoys hobbies other than politics be expected to be an informed voter? i can't imagine it.
Precisely the case for representational democracy. I let a mechanic fix my car, a plumber fix my plumbing, and a politician fix my law. If I am dissatisfied with my car, plumbing or law's performance, I will choose a new specialist the next time.
bubu: Care to share which nation you are emigrating from, and which you are immigrating to?
please excuse the delayed response, but I was busy first getting one of my ivories unexploded and then dramaqueening about it.
>>22
I was somewhat "smiling" just now -with all due respect- because of your comment
>i was pretty sure that you were talking about america because you kept talking about moving to europe, suggesting you didn't already live there
I never mentioned I intended moving to Europe; I only said that I wouldn't have wanted to live in PP-Spain. That doesn't really sum up to "kept talking about moving to Europe"...
Oh well, mirth aside--
>i think you're splitting thistle...
I don't quite follow on the 'splitting thistle' part, because to me it's a huge difference whether a secluded group of personae responsible only to their own conscience decide on policies, or the general populace does it. Also, Occam's Razor does not necessarily apply in politics, to my opinion. The easiest way is not always the best, because sometimes the means X by which you reach outcome Z are preferable to the means Y. [is that even English? sigh...]
>also, in america and israel, groups of citizens often propose laws. in both instances, it is required that a member of the legislature formally presents the legislation. or is there some difference between that and what you meant?
Yes, there is. In most parliamentary democracies, the people can make a proposal, and the parliament will vote on what to do. In more direct democracies, the people make a petition, which is binding in that the parliament must then codify this petition into an applicable legislative writ, which is then resubmitted to the populace for a general vote.
>...you...optimistic...
hahahaha! ha.
>citizens would have to vote on dozens of pieces of legislation (between local, federal, and national items) every year. how can someone who works 40+ hours a week and has 2 kids and a marriage and occasionally enjoys hobbies other than politics be expected to be an informed voter? i can't imagine it.
Not everyone naturally votes on every issue. A man will vote only on the issues that concern him - the ones he feels strongly about. But when they do concern him, and he has the feeling of his actions counting for something, then one can be quite sure he will. In this respect I have much faith in the working stiff.
>i imagine your average citizen (of any country i've ever been to) would lose interest within a decade or two and no longer take the time to inform themselves about the issues, and voting would become a terrifically random process...
Let's just assume everyone gets tired of it - how is that any worse than people being tired of electing a marionette to make their decisions for them?
>fast decision making is a very bad thing when it involves countries. but to anyone who isn't paid to pay attention to politics, spending a couple weeks pondering issues of tax codes or farming subsidies would be too much to ask for, and they would go to the polls (if at all), totally bored and uninterested.
Mmm...using the motto "speed kills", our godvernment has recently successfully proceeded to deforest the democratic structures in the educational branch. I'm all for a slow pace, because it gives people time to have their attention drawn to an issue.
I concede that there's matters which must be decided quickly. For example, letting the american people vote and what Greenspan's next steps should be would be pure madness. But letting the people set the general course of action as directly and often as possible, seems highly desirable to me.
>Precisely the case for representational democracy. I let a mechanic fix my car, a plumber fix my plumbing, and a politician fix my law. If I am dissatisfied with my car, plumbing or law's performance, I will choose a new specialist the next time.
I can see your point, and it is good. But, as much as I enjoy the occasional sloth, I enjoy fixing things myself whenever I can. It's also a cultural thing - I'm not intending to offend you, or labelling the American people as sloths, mind you! -;where I was born, people have an almost Calvinist work morale and a "do as much as possible yourself, it my keep you from great trouble" attitude. And I do fully share this attitude.
(ERROR ERROR ERROR MENE MENE TEKEL U-PHARSIN 666 WAS HERE HIENOA NITISTIT MADON ! --- text field too long)
I was waiting for this topic to create Einstürzende Neubauten lyric quotations...
>>26
what?