Give me democracy over anarchism any day!shnaek said:To quote Proudhon
And these are preferable how exactly!?... the authority of a religion
the nobility of a race
not on the merits ... of riches.
Sounds good to me. Certainly better than the alternatives above.It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people.
Can you illustrate clichés like these with some hard factual examples from Ireland 2006 perhaps?Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities
Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority.
shnaek said:There are more educated and informed citizens out there who are in the minority and thus their ideas/beliefs are not often heard nor listened to.
One of the parts but not obviously more imporatant that the others from what I can see. I would agree with a meritocracy but certainly not with the idea of the authority of religion, nobility of race or merits of riches.shnaek said:In paraphrasing Proudhon there you left out 'the merits of talent' - one of the more important parts of the quote I believe.
What has the Koran or Islamic teachings/beliefs got to do with this discussion?I think (but I am not sure) that the Koran proclaims it a sin to hire a man for a job if there is someone more qualified than him who does not get the job.
Note that Ireland operates a system of proportional and not majoritarian representation which should mitigate any suspicions of tyranny of the majority. Questioning/challenging the majority view on matters is a freedom guaranteed to people under a liberal democratic system. However subverting it is another matter altogether.Certainly ability/talent would be a valuable trait in those who hold ministerial positions, let alone in all public representatives. That said I only quoted Proudhon to illustrate that the will of the majority is not a supreme unquestionable authority. We need to constantly question it.
Aren't these ultimately matters for the populations/voters of the countries in question?Far more threatening though, in my opinion, is the way that the majority are allowing the rights of everyone to be eroded in the US (eg. Patriot Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) and the UK (eg Compulsory ID cards)
See above re. proportional representation.Also, just because 50.1% of the population think something to be true/ think something a good idea - this does not make it so.
Care to back that claim up with some evidence? All individuals of voting age are "listened to" when (if!?) they cast their vote. In a democracy no individual's vote carries more weight than any other's. And thank goodness for that in my opinion!There are more educated and informed citizens out there who are in the minority and thus their ideas/beliefs are not often heard nor listened to.
Why Nordic countries in particular?Perhaps we should look to nordic countries to see how they can manage democracy and yet implement thoughful and forward thinking policies. I believe we would find it is a lot to do with the Nordic people themselves, and that is reflected in their politics.
The discussion was on the merits of democracy, and whether there is a better system of governance available to us or not. I quoted that belief/teaching because I believe it important to have the most talented and able people in the top positions - especially ministerial positions - who are making vital decisions on how our country is run. Democracy doesn't always result in this outcome. But is there an alternative? Perhaps not. Still, in a utopian society wouldn't it be great to have true leaders leading the country - decision makers, visionaries concerned with the future of Ireland and not just the next election?ClubMan said:What has the Koran or Islamic teachings/beliefs got to do with this discussion?
Indeed. The proportional representational system is a superior one to majoritarian.ClubMan said:Note that Ireland operates a system of proportional and not majoritarian representation which should mitigate any suspicions of tyranny of the majority. Questioning/challenging the majority view on matters is a freedom guaranteed to people under a liberal democratic system. However subverting it is another matter altogether.
As I stated earlier, the debate is about democracy, irrespective of borders. The US and UK are simply well known examples of democracies. Feel free to chose any, not just Ireland.ClubMan said:Aren't these ultimately matters for the populations/voters of the countries in question?
Do you really believe that casting your vote is equivalent to being listened to? If Dubya and Blair can be re-ellected after lying to the public then who is really listening? If certain proven corrupt politicians in Ireland can be re-ellected because the meeeedia can't tell us what to do - then who is listening? Sounds to me like a lot of people are casting their votes asleep.ClubMan said:Care to back that claim up with some evidence? All individuals of voting age are "listened to" when (if!?) they cast their vote. In a democracy no individual's vote carries more weight than any other's. And thank goodness for that in my opinion!
Just because they were mentioned earlier as good quality examples of democracy and forward thinking in operation. I tend to agree on the face of it, but of course the matter deserves much more thorough investigation.ClubMan said:Why Nordic countries in particular?
And indeed a lashing you shall get Theo!! Do you really think that 3rd level education adds anything to one's ability to vote wisely? I certainly don't think that just because I had a few extra drinking years with no responsibility means that I am better qualified to vote wisely than a school leaver at age 16. I do believe however if we could have a situation wherein politcians came from successful careers (from a variety of walks of life) it would add to their ability to run the country. Take our current cabinet for example:I fully expect to be lashed for this but I reckon voting in all elections should be restricted to those with third level qualifications and the over 25's.
Theo said:Education and experience is the answer. I fully expect to be lashed for this but I reckon voting in all elections should be restricted to those with third level qualifications and the over 25's.
Indeed; this is toss.Theo said:Education and experience is the answer. I fully expect to be lashed for this but I reckon voting in all elections should be restricted to those with third level qualifications and the over 25's.
Some of the biggest egits I have ever met have decades of third level experience and no idea about the real world. It reminds me of the old Garret Fitzgerald line "It might work in reality, but does it work in theory?".Theo said:I reckon voting in all elections should be restricted to those with third level qualifications and the over 25's.
I don't see how.Theo said:This would reduce at least a little bit the prospect of people being fooled too easily by image and sounding good instead of going for substance and hard action and results.
michaelm said:Indeed; this is toss.
If anything voting should be a national duty (compulsory), however, 2 additional boxes should be added to the end of each constituency ballot paper 1. None of the above & 2. Abstain.
At the very least there should be a law against people who don't bother turning up to vote moaning about the results.JohnnyBoy said:I also think that if peolple don't vote,they should be punished(correct me if I'm wrong,but Belgium have this system?)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?