UK Elections

Originally posted by DeepThought
Possibly the one who is king is the one paying the money and not the politician receiving it.

Of course the political figure is a puppet! In the US we don't build great monuments to the people who put Presidents in place, but to the Presidents themselves. We don't build pyramids, we build "Libraries".

Originally posted by googlefudge
First, the fact that people keep choosing the same parties doesn't mean they didn't have
the option to do something different.

And second... "Let's limit it to the last 20 years" is going to always land up with the same
few parties unless there is some great instability and turmoil going on.
Terms in the UK have typically [and recently] been 4~5 ...[text shortened]... t, in the last 20 years we have had 3 parties in government. Labour, Tory-Lib coalition,
Tory.

They are choosing the same people due to huge amounts of money spent on propaganda to keep people voting for the same old jokers.

You both seem to be arguing that democracy doesn't work. I agree.

Originally posted by normbenign
You both seem to be arguing that democracy doesn't work. I agree.

That depends on what you want democracy to do. If you want to give everyone what they want then no, clearly. If you simply do not want to live under tyranny then it does a great job.

Originally posted by DeepThought
That depends on what you want democracy to do. If you want to give everyone what they want then no, clearly. If you simply do not want to live under tyranny then it does a great job.

Both the US and British forms of democracy lack purity, a good thing IMHO. They both avoid the mob rule of pure democracy, but also are not liked by populists, especially those who lose elections.

And I further think that they are of limited use in preventing tyranny.

Originally posted by normbenign
Both the US and British forms of democracy lack purity, a good thing IMHO. They both avoid the mob rule of pure democracy, but also are not liked by populists, especially those who lose elections.

And I further think that they are of limited use in preventing tyranny.

We've done o.k. for the last few hundred years, looking around it could have been a lot worse.

Originally posted by DeepThought
We've done o.k. for the last few hundred years, looking around it could have been a lot worse.

I agree, but many on both sides of the pond find fault with both electoral processes, and with the "imperialism" of the US and UK.

Originally posted by normbenign
You both seem to be arguing that democracy doesn't work. I agree.

What's your alternative?

Originally posted by normbenign
You both seem to be arguing that democracy doesn't work. I agree.

My own opinion is that democracy is far from perfect but does have some upsides. Further, I think it can be improved with a few tweaks, and greatly improved with a few more tweaks.
My own wish list includes:
1. Better voting systems that result in better representation. (Several good systems exist but haven't been implemented widely)
2. The removal of bribery from elections. (Again, some countries do this better than others).
3. Increased input in between elections and less focus on personality cults. (in Africa we call this voting someone into office as opposed to voting someone into power).
4. Increased local democracy (this may actually be the biggest item on my list). (again, countries vary wildly as to how much this is the case). (also culture varies as to how much focus is put on local democracy even when it exists).

Originally posted by normbenign
You both seem to be arguing that democracy doesn't work. I agree.

It works, as long as the government serves the people and the people do not serve the government. It is the difference between what the US started out to be which was a rejection of the European style government.

The US was doomed when the population allowed themselves to be vassals of the state by allowing the government to take from a person's labor. Do away with the income tax and you'll take a big step in limiting the power of government over a person's life.

Originally posted by Eladar
It works, as long as the government serves the people and the people do not serve the government. It is the difference between what the US started out to be which was a rejection of the European style government.

The US was doomed when the population allowed themselves to be vassals of the state by allowing the government to take from a person's labor. D ...[text shortened]... income tax and you'll take a big step in limiting the power of government over a person's life.

Europe also rejected "European style government" many years ago. The "European style government" rejected in the US constitution was totally unlike the current systems in any European country so this point is empty. The tragedy in England is its temptation to adopt a US style of government, which has to be crazy.

Originally posted by finnegan
Europe also rejected "European style government" many years ago. The "European style government" rejected in the US constitution was totally unlike the current systems in any European country so this point is empty. The tragedy in England is its temptation to adopt a US style of government, which has to be crazy.

Really? It is so different? Does the government no longer take its cut of a person's labors? Does the government no longer tell its people what to believe through government run education? I know in Germany that it is illegal to educate your own child. In Germany a family is required to give its children to the government for a 'proper education'.

Originally posted by Eladar
Really? It is so different? Does the government no longer take its cut of a person's labors? Does the government no longer tell its people what to believe through government run education? I know in Germany that it is illegal to educate your own child. In Germany a family is required to give its children to the government for a 'proper education'.

To operate, a government needs to employ people (directly and indirectly) and therefore any and all governments "take [a] cut of a person's labors."

Education systems vary greatly throughout Europe but it makes sense to me that someone has to be qualified in order to teach students.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
What's your alternative?

I'm not certain I have one. You might find "From Aristocracy, to Monarchy, to Democracy", an essay by Hans Herman Hoppe to be interesting.

He rationally finds Monarchy to be worse than aristocracy, and the progression from early forms of monarchy to constitutional monarchy, on to democracy.

Here is a pull quote: "Democracy radically transforms the limited wars of kings into total wars." This is in-arguably the history of the 20th century in the heyday of democratic growth and social consciousness.

I'm not quite certain I can totally support Dr. Hoppe's radical suggestion of anarcho-capitalism, but could it be any worse than what is upon us now?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
To operate, a government needs to employ people (directly and indirectly) and therefore any and all governments "take [a] cut of a person's labors."

Education systems vary greatly throughout Europe but it makes sense to me that someone has to be qualified in order to teach students.

To operate, a government needs to employ people (directly and indirectly) and therefore any and all governments "take [a] cut of a person's labors."

So because that is the way it is, that is the way it ought to be?

Education systems vary greatly throughout Europe but it makes sense to me that someone has to be qualified in order to teach students.

Qualified to teach what? In the US, we used to mock Russian government schools, but in the last several decades American public schools are looking a lot like Soviet style government schools.