It's hard to determine what democracy is. There are different versions. But most people in Europe today seem to believe it is about making the environment around ALL living people as loose as it can get... which means you can not allow others to choose their destiny.
Right. Even a democracy in which a party with a majority in parliament can become tyrannical. Thus the balance can be broken. Well alot of eastern bloc countries dropped communist govt because of a variety of issue. E.g. Poland was sick of being dominated by Russia. Yugoslavia collapsed because Tito died which allowed for suppressed hatred to be unleashed, a bit like Pandora's box. Ultimately the collapse of the communism in Europe came down to money and the lack of it. Actually quite a few democracies have killed their own people, Liberia being a notorious example. I would be so quick to merge capitalism with democracy. As the former is an economic concept and the latter a governmental and both are separate pillars of what holds society together.
So you're saying that the first option is better... That a tyrant 3000 miles away is better? It collapsed because of Perestroika. An economic crisis, yes. But the decision came from Moscow alone. You're the one who first mentioned a tyrant versus three thousand. It can't be the same.
By disallowing people their own right to self determination, that in itself is tyranny. As you said democracy comes in many forms and in my opinion is not compatible for merging. Which is why I'd rather be ruled by one tyrant one mile away rather than 766 tyrants 198 miles away in Brussels.
And to be more specific... A single tyrant results into a dictator of the communist type... and in that thing both capital and democracy merge under his absolute power.
People would never stop wanting to kill each other, mostly by wanting rights more advanced than the others'. Not creating a mentality against this... that's tyranny. Lol Brussels is not the topic here.
I'm not saying that either one is better. I'm saying is that they can be just as bad as the other. Both have their advantages and weaknesses and ultimately it's up to whichever country feels is best for them. True but you'll of noticed that most countries in the eastern bloc changed at their own time and theoretically could of continued to enforce communism. Typo error on my part I meant that "I would not be so quick" I mentioned the Byles quote in reference to forms of government. What I was trying to say is that you seem to have mixed Capitalism and democracy together. For clarity: Fig 1 Govt: Economic Model: Dictatorship Exclusive agrarian economy ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fig 2 Govt: Economic Model: Multi party Republic Socialist redistribution of wealth
unfortunately you can't force people to be nice to each other without itself becoming tyrannical. You have to rely upon the culture and good will of the people. But it is an excellent example of how people from a different country can force rules upon another state without popular consent or even veto.
Yes that's entirely possible but not all dictators are communists. For example in the early middle ages if you wanted to trade with other countries you would have to obtain approval from the sovereign. An example of how a single absolute ruler has full control over the economy. You could also look at many of the former dictatorships of south America to see how that model of govt is not exclusive to communism or vice versa.
You worry so much about the pace of European Integration. It's slowing down now thanks to the economic recovery that has just started so don't worry. I did notice the spelling. But I didn't mix them up... I just said that you're the one who mentioned the example of 1 tyrant 3000 miles away... which means an absolute one over a vast territory. In that scenario capital and democracy don't matter anymore. It's up to the one tyrant. So they inevitably merge under whatever his supervision skills are.
People don't have to kill each other in order to not be nice to each other... which you said it can be allowed if you get a far-right majority of voters. Look at Hitler's NSDAP... In the early 30s it was a far-right party like any other and your 'democracy' was allowed to work and look... it got close to destroying the world including Britain. In the last part of the war Hitler was so mad he wanted to exterminate the British too. The V1 and V2s were just the beginning of the project and the British didn't vote for that. And in the last days of the war he said even the German people must be buried with him. That's where your form of democracy can get you. Which is what the EU states do. They rely on each other in all aspects. The British people not mobilizing and taking to the streets to protest against EU proves they are not that desperate to kick the EU out of the island.
Honestly I could not care what states joined the EU as long we are out of it. Thank you for you for your understanding. A dictator may choose to refrain from interfering in economic affairs or may limit his influence. Another possibility may be that of a constitutional rule as the sole head of state. So it's not guaranteed that a dictatorship will hold absolute control over all aspects of society.
Well actually apathy of the state or "laissez faire" can be just as cruel. What I'm ultimately trying to say is that democracy is not the finest system nor is it a guarantor of common rights and that to throw ones stern belief in it is flawed. I think that it was B. Franklin who said that "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance" So with that in mind even for the people not to do anything like vote for example can invite tyranny. Fine but don't rely on us. It's an unfair deal for us. I don't think that you know our character enough to make that assumption.
The English criminal justice system, historically, could stand up and be counted as one of the most brutal in world history. It wasn't really reformed until the early 20th Century and even today it has some individual judges whose attitudes wouldn't be out of the place at the Bloody Assizes. It protected and extended privilege, it was helped along by corrupt parliaments and corrupt governments until it could no longer not be called to account. Even today suspicion lingers that it could quite easily revert.
I'd have to disagree with you there. Historically Britain has had a comparatively liberal justice system when compared to other European nations at the time. I'm referring to the Victorian era. It was quite common for judges to commute sentences rather than bring to bear the full penalty. It's not to say that it did not happen otherwise. For example during the first world war there were some 3,000 soldiers who handed the death penalty however only 346 were actually executed. Even for a military tribunal that's pretty easy going.
We should bring back hanging. Getting rid of it was a big mistake. We should bring back the death penalty, tear up the 1998 Human Rights Act and get out of the EU. Get rid of all wind turbines and build more coal-fired and nuclear power stations. If we don't we'll be living by candlelight by 2020. Increase defence spending and double in size the army, navy and airforce. Abolish the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly and Northern Irish Assembly and better use that money on things such as health, education and defence. Change constituency boundaries to stop them giving an unfair and undemocratic advantage to the Labour Party every time there is a General Election. Ban abortions. Ban Islam and the building of new mosques. Bring back grammar schools. Open more free schools. Abolish the BBC and get rid of the TV license. Keep the monarchy
Nuclear stations... One small human error or one terrorist attack and the economy could be reversed by decades. Heavy spending on mass health and abandoned ghost cities that will not be inhabitable for decades. Germany and France will refuse to import power from you nevertheless. A fallen wind turbine is nothing. A blown up nuclear reactor is one big problem for an economy. Look at what happened to the economies of Japan or the USSR after their nuclear disasters. I guess you want the ban only for the white Britons cause otherwise Arabs and Indians are notorious for how many children they have. So the demand for new mosques would be greater than ever.
I disagree with you on this one. But I do think that we should be much tougher on murderers and rapists and also we should stop prisons from being a holiday camp. Yes to the last two It's not really feasible but may be so at a later date. What I would propose is the formation of an "Auxilia" force that could assist with the simpler aspects of the military. This could be made up of school leavers. I would be in favour of Northern Ireland having some measure of autonomy. I think more of us need to get off our backsides and vote. That is a tricky one. I think we need to foster a culture that discourages promiscuity particularly towards teens. I do think that freedom of religion is important despite not being inclined that way myself. I would suggest that if a new mosque is to be built then it should be in places where there is significant population of Muslim people. I would disallow the building of minarets though. I don't that much about those but it's clear that Britain's education system is abominable not to mention over administered much like many other things in the UK. I'm OK with the BBC. Ultimately if you don't what there putting on the air then you should disconnect from it and if enough people do that then they will be forced to change their programming. Couldn't agree more and they have practical value as well.
The monarchy does not have a practical influence on domestic politics. They provide a unique diplomatic service as well as bring in additional tourists Plus they are a part of the national makeup and tradition.
Fundamentally, it is better to have a non-political Head of State than to suffer the constant near-treason and hate the American President comes in for.
Yes I do agree with you. But I can't help but feel that the legislative and governmental process might benefit from some input from the crown. And in the interest of the balance of power would make things a little more equal and might lessen the influence of lobbyists.
The crown lost its influence over many years as parliament struggled against the crown. The power in British society is still with the elites but it's just transferred to the Commons. The crown probably couldn't provide much useful input and frankly shouldn't be expected to do so. That would simply signal a return to the retrograde path leading to the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings. Lobbyists have always been in the system, even the mediaeval kings knew them.
