open Democracy News Analysis - The State of Democracy, - Comments

RhodGates on "The State of Democracy"

RhodGates — Fri, 13 May 2005 09:00:52 +0100

The title of this thread is abit offensive to me. "state of democracy'. No country in the world is a democracy. The UK is a free society, but that doesn't mean that power and wealth is not consentrated in the hands of a few. Which is a reality in Western nations. Democracy means: the people rule. The word comes from the two Ancient Greek words of 'demos' and 'cracy' which respectively mean people rule. There are no representatives, ok! That's oligarghy. Plus the assumptions made about Parliament are completely wrong. Like "The house exists to ensure that Royalty or Lords cannot pass laws unfair to the people." The House of Commons was created as a separate branch of the aristocracy in the Middle Ages to concentrate more power away from rebellious monarchs who didn't follow orders. Essentially persue a veto on major decisions, etc. Another is "A board of members representing the land owners of the country." That's not true, The Lords was formed to protect the aristocracy generallly. Not just land owners. "The joining of both the houses to make decisions about how the country is run." Wrong as well. The combination of both was to present to the monarchs a diversity of proffessions in the aristocracy of England to imtimidate the monarch, despite the fact the aristoicracy of England wasn't very diverse at all. "The idea is that all members of the population are represented in a house" Codswallop! Didn't you do history, wherever you were educated? Or did you forget the House of Commons was formed to provide a more diverse presentation to the monarch of the day at how 'diverse' and 'powerful' the aristocacy was. "Originally they set out to "destroy the five 'evil giants' of want, squalor, disease, ignorance and unemployment"" The Labour Party was formed in 1900, not 1942 in response to the Beverage report! Your history is fundementally 'out there'. "Every single person who lives within the borders of our country who pays tax, by the definitions of democracy, you run the country." Democracy has nothing to do with location of residence or tax. I suggest you look up the word in the dictionary. Ok? "For example many people expressed their concern over the Iraq war." Lat time I checked the majoraty of Britons opposed the aggression against Iraq! More than 70%! "We formed the House of Commons so we were no longer ruled just by a single head of state, or the House of Lords." Your misconception of British history is below the gutter. How ignorant can you get? "The ‘common’ people appear to be drifting further and further away from involvement with the politics of our country. How is this possible, when the ‘common’ people are the democratic ruling body?" The people aren't meant to participate. That's the point in an oligarchy. Or constitutional monarchy as Britain is called, if you look it up in an encyclopedia. That's the way the country was set up! Britain as we know it began with an invasion by Normans led by a French aristocrat called William. The Crown hasn't lots powers since then, and, the purpose of government(in any country) isn't to respresent the general population. "Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defence of the rich against the poor" -Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. So Adam Smith's praise of the division of labor is well known, but less known is his condemnation of the division of labor for its inhuman effects which, as he said, "will turn working people into objects as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to be" and there fore must be prevented in any improved or civilized society by government action to overcome the devastating market forces. -Wealth of Nations Adam Smith, who pointed out that the "principal architects" of policy in England were "merchants and manufacturers," who used state power to serve their own interests, however "grievous" the effect on others, including the people of England. Smith's concern was "the wealth of nations," but he understood that the "national interest" is largely a delusion within the "nation" there are sharply conflicting interests, and to understand policy and its effects we have to ask where power lies and how it is exercised, what later came to be called class analysis. In Smith's day, the "merchants and manufacturers" who were "by far the principal architects" of policy and whose interests were "most peculiarly attended to," whatever the effects on others. "Are we, in fact, still a democratic country at all?" When on earth did Britan even become a democracy? Hmm? You're quite clearly 'up there' in an abstract, fantastical world that probably hasn't been written about but you decided to reaveal it to us. No matter how strange.

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Wed, 11 May 2005 16:53:57 +0100

203... Sorry to hear you've decided to cut and run. You are correct. Opinions should stand on their own. You might in the future ask your readers to refrain from Bush-baiting (similar to jew-baiting) to add weight to their arguments. As for your own Bush-baiting, parting shots are just parting shots. They mean nothing.

203-117-87-596-783 on "The State of Democracy"

203-117-87-596-783 — Wed, 11 May 2005 09:52:58 +0100

Well, this started well and has degraded into pointless bickering. Not sure if that proves anything but there you go. In reply to the original post, you're right, our country is in fact entirely undemocratic, which was what I was trying to say. I would rather phrase it in a way that leads others to that conclusion, than thrusting at them, as people respond better if its their idea. To that end, I have sent that article to everywhere I could, to very little response, but still, I'm trying. It will stay this way till the people rise up (as they do eventually, although we are british, so it'll take a while) and do something about it. Lets all try and speed that day along huh. In response to everything else, America has the worst army in the world, get over it. Brute force and ignorance does win the day, but is not the most effective way to get there. Plus your president is a moron. Flame over, go back to your lives, I won't be returning.

sandistock on "The State of Democracy"

sandistock — Tue, 10 May 2005 11:57:00 +0100

And al-Qaida perfected the technique on 11/09/2001. Thanks for your contribution to human peace and understanding.

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Tue, 10 May 2005 05:16:37 +0100

brolly3, Shingles in Brighton? My travel agent was wrong. My side of the "pond" (California) makes me very happy. Nevery a grotty day. Saigon '75? Yes, we did have our own Dunkerque along the way to winning the Cold War. Death and Destruction? We heard of it from your Bomber Harris. He used carpet bombing to level German cities, didn't he? We came up with precision bombing.

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Tue, 10 May 2005 04:27:08 +0100

sandistock, mmy nname? Wwhy ddon't yyou aask mme.

brolly3 on "The State of Democracy"

brolly3 — Tue, 10 May 2005 01:14:43 +0100

Sandistock, I am still transgressing with our misguided 'friend' Ttrryosborn. I wish he would explain why the 'e' is missing in his username, it puzzles me. Is it just plain affectation, which seems to match his profile generally?

brolly3 on "The State of Democracy"

brolly3 — Tue, 10 May 2005 01:10:51 +0100

Ttrryosborn, ["GB: You got allot of sand in England? OD: Brighton, sir. We love our holidays."] You have revealed your ignorance in your confected dialogue. Brighton does not have a sandy beach - it is all shingle. So there! Stick to your own side of the pond and everyone will be happy. We don't like the way you 'nibble' at problems and you certainly don't clear much up. In fact you cause a lot of death and destruction and then leave from your embassies on the last helicopters, when you have worn out the welcome you mistakenly thought you had.

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Mon, 09 May 2005 23:02:54 +0100

A recent conversation with a spokesman at Open Democracy: GB: What's this I hear that you fellas won't let mah buddy Ttrry on your forum? OD: Well sir, we don't know what to say. You see when we opened this forum there was a misprint. We meant to title it Open Obsession-- a small misunderstanding, you see. GB: You mean to tell me that you brits don't wanna hear nothin else but yer own opinions? OD: Well, yes sir. That's the size of it. GB: Well what in the samhill way is that to run a railroad? What are ya afraid of? Ah did have three debates of mah own last October--felt pretty good. OD: I'm sure they did, sir. But we here are just a little uncomfortable with that sort of thing. We like to just huddle in own our little groups and, well, pat each other on the back so to speak. GB: Well how do you fellas ever get anythin done? OD: We prefer to talk and and if that doesn't work we like to stick our heads in the sand and hope our problems will pass us by. GB: You got allot of sand in England? OD: Brighton, sir. We love our holidays. GB: No wonder you fellas are in such a mess. OD: Well, yes sir. We have been known for that. We're once a superpower like yourself and we mucked that up-- twice. the French too. GB: Are you talkin about WW2? I just went to a couple a them parties in Europe. OD: Yes, we saw you, sir. GB: So yah screwed up? OD: Royally, sir. Had to come running home the last time with our tails between our legs. Had to leave all the messes for you Yanks to clean up. GB: Thanks allot; we're still cleanin 'em up. OD: Sorry about that, sir. GB: At least we ain't had no world wars under our watch. OD: That is true, sir. You Yanks have a way of nibbling at problems until they're no longer there. Quite clever. GB: Well thank you son. You're a nice fella. OD: We try sir. GB: You should come and visit us sometime. OD: Well I have been to a few blue states, sir. GB: Blue States? OD: I do believe that is what you call them, sir. GB: Why shoot, that's just the losers talkin. You can go to any state you want. We'll treat you like family. OD: That would be jolly, sir.

sandistock on "The State of Democracy"

sandistock — Mon, 09 May 2005 22:15:28 +0100

Brolly 3 - is this a gentle leg-pull because you can see I have replied to him - or have you really yielded too? Please note that this will be my one and only relapse!

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Mon, 09 May 2005 20:10:28 +0100

sandistock, Glad to hear your brooding days are over.

brolly3 on "The State of Democracy"

brolly3 — Mon, 09 May 2005 19:15:45 +0100

Sandistock, Reference the embargo. I have displayed weakness and responded to one Ttrryosborn's posts. My spirit appears to have been unwilling to live up to the advice I gave. What can I say, other than to apologise.

sandistock on "The State of Democracy"

sandistock — Mon, 09 May 2005 18:34:28 +0100

Ttrryosborn, my one and only answer to you: if you consider I 'lost' given the pathetic attempts you made in reply to my original contribution, then Brolly3 overestimates you. If you want discussion, then I suggest you don't insult the intelligence of others. I have far more to say but I suspect it is too complex for you to respond to in a non-facetious way. Oh and by the way, I don't actually consider openDemocracy to be a matter of winning or losing - it's a little more grown up than that. I rest my case.

Ttrryosborn on "The State of Democracy"

Ttrryosborn — Mon, 09 May 2005 15:49:21 +0100

sandistock, The one who asks the other one to bow out of a debate is doing so because he has run out ou answers. You lose.

sandistock on "The State of Democracy"

sandistock — Mon, 09 May 2005 08:05:41 +0100

Thanks for the advice, Brolly3. Embargo now in place, so far as I am concerned...

The State of Democracy,

203-117-87-596-783 — Fri, 06 May 2005 17:13:23 +0100

So it has just gone, election time 2005 and everyones talking politics. The House of Commons, the House of Lords, the Prime Minister, all these words are there for a reason, but what do they actually mean? In Summary: The House of Commons: A committee consisting of common people (e.g. a selection of members representing the population). The members are elected because not every common person can be present. Those elected are called Members of Parliament or MPs. The house exists to ensure that Royalty or Lords cannot pass laws unfair to the people. House of Lords: A board of members representing the land owners of the country. The memberships are passed down through family lines. Land owners are a major part of this country, and land owners do provide many jobs for the population too, so thats why this house exists. They don't want their livelihood jeopardised by what the commons wants to do, so therefore land owners must have a voice too. Read the rest of this post...