Democracy is the worst form of government...

[Ana the Ist]

I am not quibbling over semantics. Democratically elected governments are made free to govern by winning. They owe nothing to the opposition. That is the point of the election.

Absolutely.

The disagreements have already been settled by the vote.

Well, by virtue of the same argument, the opposition owes nothing to the winner either.

So if you want to get anything done, can sit there and skulk over getting 52% of something in the vote...or you can compromise.

 

[Aaron112]

I think you've hit on a great point here...

Between a hypothetical nation that has never existed and can never exist and a democracy....if that hypothetical nation is paradise....then yes, we'd all choose the hypothetical.

Since it's not a choice, you know, because of human nature, reality, real life, people....or however you want to describe it....it doesn't really add much to the discussion.


Valid point though in fiction land.

footnote to simply be aware of:
The best government for all the citizens of a country according to people asked or research done
was the rare
beneficial dictatorship. There seems to only have been a few times this ever occurred, but the health and welfare and wellbeing and happiness of the people were best then.

 

[Aaron112]

Somebody please cheer me up and tell me we can expect something better.

Is that what you really want ?

Or do you seek the truth ?

 

[Ana the Ist]

footnote to simply be aware of:
The best government for all the citizens of a country according to people asked or research done
was the rare
beneficial dictatorship. There seems to only have been a few times this ever occurred, but the health and welfare and wellbeing and happiness of the people were best then.

Ok....let's assume that is true.

It still can't be the hypothetical described.

 

[Pommer]

I am not quibbling over semantics. Democratically elected governments are made free to govern by winning. They owe nothing to the opposition. That is the point of the election.

The disagreements have already been settled by the vote.

Your nation uses a parliamentary system, yes?
The USA does not and our system relies on parties working together to lumber on (as best as we can) through negotiation & compromise.

 

[Aaron112]

Ok....let's assume that is true.

It still can't be the hypothetical described.

The hypothetical described is hypothetical, right ?
The benevolent dictators that succeeded doing what's best for all the country, all the people, were real.

On a smaller scale, better than either was achieved at various times and places,
a much smaller scale probably than any country, although there may have been some that succeeded - if they did, it was conveniently re-written or covered up so it would not catch on,
as the money makers prefer money making vs what's best for any people other than themselves.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The hypothetical described is hypothetical, right ?

Right....but as s hypothetical, it doesn't work. It can't happen.

The benevolent dictators that succeeded doing what's best for all the country, all the people, were real.

Right....but you won't see widespread quality education, freedom of speech, or freedom of press.

On a smaller scale, better than either was achieved at various times and places,
a much smaller scale probably than any country, although there may have been some that succeeded - if they did, it was conveniently re-written or covered up so it would not catch on,
as the money makers prefer money making vs what's best for any people other than themselves.

One of the primary misunderstandings of capitalism is the idea that it's a "way of doing economics" instead of just economics. It's just economics. There's literally no difference between the fundamental principles of economics and what was originally described as "capitalism" in the Wealth of Nations.

 

[Aaron112]

Right....but as s hypothetical, it doesn't work. It can't happen.

Hypothetically, it can happen, and might happen, albeit with some adjustments , eh ?
Not on a big scale though, I expect.

Right....but you won't see widespread quality education, freedom of speech, or freedom of press.

I don't ever expect to see anything good widespread anywhere until Jesus Returns to save His people and to execute God's vengeance on those responsible for shedding innocent blood all of our lives, our parents lives, ye even since the beginning.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The question is does Christian beliefs and values conflict with the State and other agents representing the State beliefs and values. It seems that you believe the State cannot fall into a form of Totalitarism. What do you think would happen if a member stood up in parliament or a polititian expressed their view about homosexuality or SSM in the public forum.

You keep using these odd terms "state beliefs" which are very odd.

Look at Jordan Peterson.

I'd rather not. Half the time he looks like he needs a few weeks in rehab.

If the State goes after a non Christian professional who expresses their belief then they are certainly going to go after a Christian who doews the same and in the same position. They are more or less saying you cannot express your belief if it opposes the status quo the State has determined as correct.

This is apparently about Peterson's crusade against a "pronoun" bill that he used to build a following when he was still a professor. Peterson was never actually "gone after", rather it was the other way around.

Christians already do and have done for decades. We learnt that long ago as Christian beliefs on marriage and family law, abortion and a host of other anti Christian laws and policies. Do you think the laws and policies that replaced the Christian ones were opposing Christianity. Or were they completely neutral.

These are not "anti-Christian" laws just because they treat people different than you think Christians should or would.

OK so you don't think any of the laws and policies that the government has implemented are not anti-Christian. If Christians believe that abortion is wrong wouldn't the fact that the State law that allows abortion be an anti Christian position to take for example.

No. They are not *anti-Christian*. Un-Christian, perhaps, to the extent that such things form the core of Christian doctrine. (They didn't back when I was a Christian, but perhaps now they do. Other than the "Creationists" these beliefs now dominate the way Christians express their faith in my presence here. But, even if they are now the core of Christian doctrine, no one is forcing a Christian to have an abortion, be in a SS marriage (or even go to one), or use the preferred pronouns of trans people.

So your saying laws and policies are moral.

I have no idea if they are moral or not. Frankly I don't care.

I am talking about whether the government has stepped into peoples private lives with their laws and policies which is politics. Whether the State is infringing our private lives, breaching our Rights to freedom is very relevant to this thread as it is anti democractic to deny peoples freedom.

They aren't in your private lives. The government isn't controlling your churches, etc. It's too bad you "persecuted Western Christians" can't experience some actual persecution for your religion because then you'd realize you're not being persecuted.

Now, let us end this pointless distraction and go back to the thread's actual topic...

But it doesn't work that way in many nations. Sometimes the party that gets into power can have less votes but get over the line with preferences from minority parties. So the mninority parties can force labor to implement policies that labor voters may disagree with which then puts a minority in the position of power over the majority.

This is coalition government. It sounds like the labor union's party isn't quite getting what it wants. That happens. You can change the structure of your election systems to force a 1-vs-1 choice, but ranked choice lists and trasferable votes and proportionality isn't going to do that. They are not undemocratic as the power still flows from the people. (In my country, those factions join together into major parties before the election, but a faction can still force things by leveraging the power they do have, such as the power in a legislature to force a measure to fail by withholding votes from it. The TeaParty/FreedomCaucus/MAGAcrazies have done this many times in the US House of Representatives when their party (Republican) holds the speakership. A speaker basically quit because he couldn't take it any more. (Boehner, who was replaced by Ryan[McCarthy was in the higher position], then they lost to the Dems and Pelosi took the gavel again, and finally this year McCarthy became speaker, but about a dozen of the MAGA-crazy faction held his election hostage for a week.)

This happens especially with the Green and environmental minority parties. But can also happen with independents where a handful of people can dictate policies that the majority disagree with because the major party has to compromise their policies to accommodate minorities that hold the balance of power.

Minor party politics, still democracy. If the major parties were popular enough without the minor parties to form a majority, the minor parties would have no sway. The Greens were definitely part of a German governing coalition not that long ago.

Then there there are the Lobbyist, Unionist and big Corps who can dictate law and policy because the major parties are dependent on them to win elections. They more or less buy the policies they want through either financial support or through associations. For example The Workers union usually aligns with Labor who are socialists or big corps are tied to Conservatives who are pro private enterprise. Then there are the individual lobbyist and organisations who side with parties or lobby parties in exchange for promoting their agendas.

Money in politics is bad. I get that. (Also some lobbying is just representing a sub-faction or affinity group to have their voice heard.)

Ok well in Britain and Australia minor parties can have a lot of influence even when the majority did not vote for them. This has forced radical ideas from minor parties onto the majority of people. I think Canada may be the same as well as a few European nations. As a result Democracy has decreased in most nations.

Democracy only declines because we don't work hard enough to maintain it and there *are* forces working against it. The existance of minor parties isn't one of those forces.

But its interesting with the US. I know that when Trump got in it seemed the majority of people were unhappy.

Trump convinced a large, but still minority, fraction of the US voters that their enemies were his enemies and the causes of their problems were their collective enemies. Trump is and was a demagogue and not a friend of democracy.

Maybe thats how it came across as many seemed devasted. Not just that it seems not too long after a government gets in power people are calling for them to go. It seems they don't get what they voted for. The parties make promises and then break them or bring in policies they did not tell the people about. In other words they misrepresented the people and the majority didn't get what they wanted.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Too many vagaries.

The problem is the compromise is usually not what the majority wanted.

It is said that in a true compromise no one is happy. But, at the same time no one loses everything either.

So the environmentalist or other parties like the Gun party don't have any influence.

Didn't say that.

No I like democracy. I am saying its failing and that so called democractic nations are less democractic and becoming more controlling. I thought that was obvious. Why would I be criticising the current lack of democracy by governments in taking our freedoms.

I'm going to need real examples for this bit of non-specifics.

 

[Whyayeman]

Well, by virtue of the same argument, the opposition owes nothing to the winner either.

True. In a democracy the opposition opposes. It is their duty as well as their prerogative.

The USA does not and our system relies on parties working together to lumber on (as best as we can) through negotiation & compromise.

Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.

 

[Bradskii]

Is it right or wrong for society to restrict the right of some to drive on public roads? Yes.

I'd see it as a means to promote safety. Like telling people they have to drive on one side of the road. So you can't drive on the left. And you can't drive when you're drunk. But is it immoral to purposely drive on the wrong side? Or to drive after a few beers?

Setting the rules is not a moral act. Obeying the rules or not, if it concerns the safety of others, is.

 

[Bradskii]

Is an inequality of wealth a bad (immoral) thing?

To a certain extent? No. But to an extreme, which we often find is the case? Yes. And sometimes the difference can only be described as obscene.

I suggest doing the proposed thought experiment fully before drawing a conclusion. Although neither the use of government force nor the lack of it, are perfect solutions to relieve the distress of the less fortunate (there are trade-offs), one is more just than the other.

I think that what you are suggesting is that the 'haves' get to vote and the 'have nots' don't. The rich can vote but the poor can't. I can't offhand think of a system with which I'd disagree more.

 

[Bradskii]

Is that what you really want ?

Or do you seek the truth ?

If that's a question that involves theology, then the answer is a categorical no.

 

[Aaron112]

If that's a question that involves theology, then the answer is a categorical no.

Nothing I choose willingly to talk about or think about is "theology" as far as people present theology.... except to expose the errors of it if there is an error presented that is contrary to and/or opposed to Scripture.
Truth is truth best served and known experientially in Christ Jesus without man's -ologies....

 

[Pommer]

I don't ever expect to see anything good widespread anywhere until Jesus Returns to save His people and to execute God's vengeance on those responsible for shedding innocent blood all of our lives, our parents lives, ye even since the beginning.

Gee, it sounds so exciting, are you looking forward to this glorious time?

 

[Aaron112]

Is it right or wrong for society to restrict the right of some to drive on public roads? Yes.

Why ?

 

[Aaron112]

Gee, it sounds so exciting, are you looking forward to this glorious time?

With great and continuing and growing eagerness !

"1 Thessalonians 4:13 "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord,
shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God;

and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18

Therefore comfort one another with these words." "

In these verses, Paul confidently affirms that there is a resurrection to come. Christians, unlike others who have no promise of an afterlife, should look forward to being with God after their physical death. Paul, in no uncertain terms declares that those who are dead in Christ will be raised from the dead! Death is not final!

 

[Pommer]

Only when they have a working majority. We have seen the level of cooperation shown by oppositions when presidents try to get legislation past a hostile Congress and Senate.

Yes, our current “problem” is that we have tried working the system we have as a parliament, when it’s not set up to do that.

 

[Pommer]

Nothing I choose willingly to talk about or think about is "theology" as far as people present theology.... except to expose the errors of it if there is an error presented that is contrary to and/or opposed to Scripture.
Truth is truth best served and known experientially in Christ Jesus without man's -ologies....

According to scripture there is only one God, should this “truth” be enshrined in our Nation’s Law?

 

[Pommer]

With great and continuing and growing eagerness !

"1 Thessalonians 4:13 "But we do not want you to be uninformed, brethren, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve, as do the rest who have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God will bring with Him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus. 15

For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, and remain until the coming of the Lord,
shall not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God;

and the dead in Christ shall rise first. 17

Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18

Therefore comfort one another with these words." "

In these verses, Paul confidently affirms that there is a resurrection to come. Christians, unlike others who have no promise of an afterlife, should look forward to being with God after their physical death. Paul, in no uncertain terms declares that those who are dead in Christ will be raised from the dead! Death is not final!

What do you think you’ll be doing when sinners are being made to conform to the Will of the Almighty?