My democracy

Originally posted by Wajoma
You're almost there mate, don't you see, instead of giving your money to the gummint (whether ewe like it or not) then filling out these boxes, why not just hang on to your money in the first place, cut out the middle man then...

[b]",,,the government can see what people want their money spent on.

That above statment coming from you has....aww shuck ...[text shortened]... r party is unfit to rule --
and both commonly succeed, and are right."
-- H. L. Mencken[/b]

Deary me...
You're right. It would never work.

Originally posted by shavixmir
With internet and security codes, I'm sure we can be imaginative and think up something really cool.

Get rid of political parties and politicians. Install an elected civil serive and have a system of perpetual referendums.

Or, have every member of society fill in an on-line "what do you want your money spent on" form.
Then the government can see ...[text shortened]... ple want their money spent on. The money gets spent per percentage of crossed boxes.

etc.

what you are talking about is how Rome use to be run...senators and the "republic"

Originally posted by uzless
what you are talking about is how Rome use to be run...senators and the "republic"

The problem is, as Wajomi suggests, that a good number of the population would only vote for that which affects them directly, not understanding abstract matters such as 'the greater good'.

And a healthy society has everything to do with the greater good.
There is a lot of proof that individualisation leads to substance abuse, violence and aggression.
(for instance: compare Europe to England and England and Europe to the US).

Originally posted by shavixmir
The problem is, as Wajomi suggests, that a good number of the population would only vote for that which affects them directly, not understanding abstract matters such as 'the greater good'.

And a healthy society has everything to do with the greater good.
There is a lot of proof that individualisation leads to substance abuse, violence and aggression.
(for instance: compare Europe to England and England and Europe to the US).

One need not divorce individual gain from social gain. They can be harmonized to a very large extent. You only need to get people to take a longer term view of things. When the results of a single action are viewed in isolation, it might seem beneficial to maximize one's own gain at the expense of everyone else. But when viewed in the long term, this strategy, if followed consistently, will have the opposite effect. It will lead to the greater impoverishment of society as a whole, and consequently of the individual that is part of that society. The best strategy for insuring a gain for oneself is to raise the level of society as a whole. One may derive more benefit from a purely selfish strategy, but one is more likely to end up with nothing. A broad, social approach, when viewed in the long term is the greatest guarantee for individual gain.

Originally posted by rwingett
One need not divorce individual gain from social gain. They can be harmonized to a very large extent. You only need to get people to take a longer term view of things. When the results of a single action are viewed in isolation, it might seem beneficial to maximize one's own gain at the expense of everyone else. But when viewed in the long term, this strate ...[text shortened]... d, social approach, when viewed in the long term is the greatest guarantee for individual gain.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

But are you going to vote on issues of "saving the whale in a far away ocean" if you seriously ill and you're watching your children starve to death in front of you?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Deary me...
You're right. It would never work.

Deary me indeed, you've slipped back into the old 'shav thinks he knows how to run others lives' syndrome, I'm still taking your previous statement as an encouraging sign, you caught a brief glimpse, keep working on it.

Odd that later you mention one of the perils of individualism as being substance abuse when we often see you making light of your own substance abuse.

Originally posted by shavixmir
With internet and security codes, I'm sure we can be imaginative and think up something really cool.

Get rid of political parties and politicians. Install an elected civil serive and have a system of perpetual referendums.

Or, have every member of society fill in an on-line "what do you want your money spent on" form.
Then the government can see ...[text shortened]... ple want their money spent on. The money gets spent per percentage of crossed boxes.

etc.

Pfft...you'd hate that as well.

And be posting "I live in a whatever".

Originally posted by Wajoma

Odd that later you mention one of the perils of individualism as being substance abuse when we often see you making light of your own substance abuse.

You will, ofcourse, note that I'm a product of an individualistic and capitalist society.
Hence the drugs, booze and masturbation abuse.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You will, ofcourse, note that I'm a product of an individualistic and capitalist society.
Hence the drugs, booze and masturbation abuse.

We'll have to work slowly through the basics.

Taking responsibility for ones choices is the mark of an individualist.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree with you.

But are you going to vote on issues of "saving the whale in a far away ocean" if you seriously ill and you're watching your children starve to death in front of you?

If we had a cooperative society, I wouldn't be starving in the first place.

Originally posted by shavixmir
I live in a democracy.

A democracy where I'm constantly tracked, filmed and spied upon.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6108496.stm
Or more amusingly:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/5353538.stm

A democracy which uses unsubstantiated reasoning to justify wars, prison sentences and restrictions on freedom.
we ...[text shortened]... ght crimes
[i](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6122270.stm)

I live in a democracy.

Are you confusing democracy with perfectacy. wake up. democracy only means that you have the right to participate in your govt, and you are represented in govt. Govt is a burocracy that tries to serve the the majority whils not squashing the minority. its not a perfect system, but its what works for the western world. you dont like it? resign your citizenship, move to a dictatorial country and try to voice your displeasure.

Originally posted by Philodor
Unfortunately the BNP is not the answer either since it appears to be solely representative of the bottom end of the social spectrum in Britain. So do not bother to refer me to that set of hooligans.

So, it isn't the politics of the BNP which makes you think they're not the answer.

It is just the perception that they're comprised of working class elements.

That really sums you up - if the BNP had more posh folk, you'd support them.

if the BNP had more posh folk, you'd support them.[/b]

isn't that the tory party?

Originally posted by london nick
isn't that the tory party?

Footballers' Wives?

Originally posted by Redmike
So, it isn't the politics of the BNP which makes you think they're not the answer.

It is just the perception that they're comprised of working class elements.

That really sums you up - if the BNP had more posh folk, you'd support them.

No,Red, you've got it all wrong.

The fact that the other side of the thuggish, hooligan, mentality in society represented by communism is equally abhorrent to me, but not to you, shows that you have failed to understand my position.

We just have to make sure that those we let in are going to make a net contribution to our society, and to make it worthwhile for those already here who do not to depart.