The problem with all three options is that I would be validating a system that is abhorrent and aids a continued system of stratification.

Surely We can come to a conscious change in society that would lead us to use science and technology to eliminate the need for the repetitive and redundant jobs that our present system perpetuates.

Of course it can't be an exogenous implementation of a new system of society. And yes this system has been resist change. Has been for a long time, but I am hoping that it can be changed.

What people need to considering is that this system is built on a need for scarcity. Ether it be the lack of a resources or a built in need to be replaced with the newest item or because it expires. With science and technology have the tools we need to eliminate the scarcity. And we can use these tools to eliminate the need for labor.

This would leave us to concentrate on the so called jobs, pastimes and the sciences. This would be the most productive use of our time on this would

These are the reasons I want to participate in politics.

Just don't know what to do

Can you think of any better alternatives to democracy? Even visionaries who write science fiction believe democracy is the best way to run a society of beings.

Thow I am not a sicence fiction fan, all I can come up with is, why would they want to write about a system where there was less or no conflict?

First you have to ask, are we a product of the system we have now? By this I mean that most girls like pink. Is this because we are naturally this way or was it feed to us. Before the 1920's pink was a boys colour. Now we think of it as a girls colour and consider it natural.

Second you have to ask, What is the point of democracy? Why do we vote people in? and do they do the things we ask? I know for a fact that no one voted for us to go to war, or what the latest tax cut or hike would be. So the question is what are we voting for?

The system we have now prerpurates the need for stratifaction. Therfore we end up with people at the bottom. these people given the chance to be freeley educated might find the answer to cancer, or come up with a better way of producing energy. This system worked well when we had scarcity, you earn money to pay for the goods that you wanted. We now have the science and tecnoligy to elimante this need for wealth acumilation.

Imagine a system where all you needed was provided. Your housing, food, shelter, travel and education were all there. you input the info into a web site and a processing center made the goods that you needed. What would be the point of voting for a group of people to lead us then? If you want to learn something then the information is there for you to learn for free. If you want to have an input into this society, then you choose the area you want to try and improve and you have a go. This would mean that the people with the most to add to that part of society would able to. We would end up with more minds working on solutions for the important areas of life.

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

Can you think of any better alternatives to democracy? Even visionaries who write science fiction believe democracy is the best way to run a society of beings.

I don't think that Juggler is suggesting removing/replacing democracy. In fact, in Britain we don't live in a proper or true democracy. A real democracy is government 'of the people by the people for the people' according to Lincoln, and that is as good a definition as any. In Britain, we certainly have a government 'of the people' in that it controls our daily lives. 'By the people' is debateable, but all politicians are British citizens. 'For the people' is not currently true in Britain. Government does not govern on our behalf. Most governments don't have a majority of votes when they come to power. Most have little or no concern for the wishes of the country once in power. To claim that we live in a functioning democracy is to deny the impicit weaknesses in our ridiculous system, not to mention the monarchy which itself represents a way in which government is able to suppress its people.

So the question should be what is democracy?

"A real democracy is government 'of the people by the people for the people' according to Lincoln"

How about if the democracy was done so that the people that have the input and education needed to improve our lives were the ones that lead us.

What does our current government do for the people?

Take for exampled speed limits. If we drive at 150mph the chances are that you will crash, hurt or kill yourself and maybe others. So the government make a law to say you can't drive over this speed in this area. That sounds like the easiest way to solve the problem. How about making it so that cars and roads are designed so they don't crash, or if they do the impacts are reduced. We could use tecnoligy to reduce the social and enviroment impacts. therefor making for a better society.

If you are able to acquire any goods just by inputting info into a web site and you receive it within an hour or so. What would be the need to steal things from other people? You would not be able to sell it because everyone would be able to get the same goods for free.

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

So the question should be what is democracy?

"A real democracy is government 'of the people by the people for the people' according to Lincoln"

How about if the democracy was done so that the people that have the input and education needed to improve our lives were the ones that lead us.

I think we need to differentiate between a true democracy in the sense that Lincoln (presumably) meant and what we have at the moment, which is just representative democracy. And not very representative at that! A completely true democracy is a pipe dream of course, there's no way that any government can satisfy everyone's requirements on every matter every time, it's just not physically possible. However a representative democracy which involves a/ proportional representation so that the government is made up of political parties in the same ratio as the general public votes for them, and b/ a high degree of feedback from the electorate by way of public debates and referendums on a wide range of topics, following expert non-political evaluation of all proposed legislative changes, is probably the best we can hope for.

What does our current government do for the people?

A serious question? Not a lot!!!

Take for exampled speed limits. If we drive at 150mph the chances are that you will crash, hurt or kill yourself and maybe others. So the government make a law to say you can't drive over this speed in this area. That sounds like the easiest way to solve the problem. How about making it so that cars and roads are designed so they don't crash, or if they do the impacts are reduced. We could use tecnoligy to reduce the social and enviroment impacts. therefor making for a better society.

Yes, there are undoubtedly many ways that technology could be used to make life easier and safer, however there's always a balance to be had between cost/complexity/legislation and personal responsibility. Sadly it's the legislative route that far too many governments pursue, sometimes for good reason, other times simply because they can and it increases their own power base. But having a government decide what is or what isn't appropriate can also be a dangerous route to follow, and can, if unchecked, lead to either a completely nanny state where everything "is for your own good" - the archetypal socialist state - or a totalitarian regime which wants to control people's every move - the archetypal fascist state.

If you are able to acquire any goods just by inputting info into a web site and you receive it within an hour or so. What would be the need to steal things from other people? You would not be able to sell it because everyone would be able to get the same goods for free.

Idealistic! Who pays for everything?

I think I did not explain what I meant by my meaning of democracy.

1, In our present system we put people in charge of systems and organizations, that have no back ground in the area they are meant to be organizing. And this leads to mismanagement in a monumental way. In a true democracy the people that have the most to offer and that wanted to help would be allowed to participate.

But this would mean that we would have to eliminate the need for people to do all the laborious jobs. Why not allow the engineers and scientist a chance to design systems that can grow and build all that we need from this world. And to build machines that will repair the other machines. By eliminating the need for repetitive and laborious jobs, this would allow us a chance to explore the world and sciences.

The problem with all past systems of governance is that they have all failed to take into account the fact that science and technology can be used to eliminate the need for us to work

Midas - Who pays for everything? I think the question should be what puts a monetary value on things? If something is easily available then what would be the cost of it. Water was once free, but because of pollution and the chemicals that have been placed in our tap water we have to go and pay for some provided in a plastic bottle. If we eliminated the need for people to make wealth then the same people would not take short cuts that can endanger the environment we live in. The idea is to eliminate the need for jobs, and set in place a mechanized and computerized system. This would mean that the need for money would be eliminated

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

I think I did not explain what I meant by my meaning of democracy.

1, In our present system we put people in charge of systems and organizations, that have no back ground in the area they are meant to be organizing. And this leads to mismanagement in a monumental way. In a true democracy the people that have the most to offer and that wanted to help would be allowed to participate

You still don't explain what a 'true democracy' is and your account lacks a an understanding of power IMO

The system we have now promotes egos and megalomania in people, just because all they can see is to grab as much power and wealth as they can. That is not to say all of them do, but the ones in charge don't really want change, because that would threaten there very reason for going for that job in the first place. What we need to do is to eliminate the need for people to want power and money. Both of which are process of the environment we have had created around us.

So my view of a true and decent democracy would be to have the people in charge that have the intelligence and the knowledge to upkeep and improve the systems we put in place. So the only reason you would have to want to be in that 'so called' job is because you have the knowledge to improve it. By eliminating the need for work you would be freeing people to find more complimentary ways of improving society

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

I think I did not explain what I meant by my meaning of democracy.

1, In our present system we put people in charge of systems and organizations, that have no back ground in the area they are meant to be organizing. And this leads to mismanagement in a monumental way. In a true democracy the people that have the most to offer and that wanted to help would be allowed to participate.

I'm presuming you're meaning systems and organisations within government? I'd dispute that it's always necessary for people in charge to have a background in the area they're working. A broad working knowledge certainly, but detailed knowledge, no, there are people further down the chain of management who are paid to have that knowledge and keep those in charge informed of all that goes on. The most important qualification for senior management is the ability to manage, control and analyse, and that applies in government just as much as in business.

But this would mean that we would have to eliminate the need for people to do all the laborious jobs. Why not allow the engineers and scientist a chance to design systems that can grow and build all that we need from this world. And to build machines that will repair the other machines. By eliminating the need for repetitive and laborious jobs, this would allow us a chance to explore the world and sciences.

The problem with all past systems of governance is that they have all failed to take into account the fact that science and technology can be used to eliminate the need for us to work

I think you're either overly idealistic or you've been reading too much sci-fi! What you're suggesting is basically not feasible or practical; what for instance are all those workers whose jobs are supplanted by machines going to a/ do for income and b/ fill their lives with?

Midas - Who pays for everything? I think the question should be what puts a monetary value on things? If something is easily available then what would be the cost of it. Water was once free, but because of pollution and the chemicals that have been placed in our tap water we have to go and pay for some provided in a plastic bottle. If we eliminated the need for people to make wealth then the same people would not take short cuts that can endanger the environment we live in. The idea is to eliminate the need for jobs, and set in place a mechanized and computerized system. This would mean that the need for money would be eliminated

A combination of scarcity or abundance plus the forces of supply and demand place a value on things. As in your example, water itself might be free because there's so much of it around, but someone has to pay for it to be pumped, cleaned, filtered and distributed, whether that's down pipes to individual properties or put in bottles, which also cost, and delivered to shops and stores, who then have to make their own profit in order to survive. If on the other hand you're talking about something like gold, because of its scarcity a considerable part of its price goes in the cost of mining it from increasingly difficult locations, the balance of the high price is made up because there's a greater demand than supply, which keeps the prices up simply because those who need it are prepared to pay more for it. I'd respectfully suggest you have a good read through some books on basic economics!

Originally Posted by Midas

I'm presuming you're meaning systems and organisations within government? I'd dispute that it's always necessary for people in charge to have a background in the area they're working. A broad working knowledge certainly, but detailed knowledge, no, there are people further down the chain of management who are paid to have that knowledge and keep those in charge informed of all that goes on. The most important qualification for senior management is the ability to manage, control and analyse, and that applies in government just as much as in business.

Look at what a good job they have done so far. How is it a good idea to have people in charge that have no or little idea of the system they are running? The only reason they are there is to perpetuate the stratification of society. If they do not have a background in the department they are running, then how can you imagine they would be the best person to run it.

I think you're either overly idealistic or you've been reading too much sci-fi! What you're suggesting is basically not feasible or practical; what for instance are all those workers whose jobs are supplanted by machines going to a/ do for income and b/ fill their lives with?

Not a great sci-fi fan, just a person that has spent a great amount of time trying to formulate better ways for society to head. Instead of playing around with this abhorrent system.

A/ what would people do for income? Why would you need an income if you had designed a system that knew what resources we have, and what machines can build the items we need?

B/ How would people fill their lives? Without limits on what you can learn and where you could go, would you not find things to fill your life with.

A combination of scarcity or abundance plus the forces of supply and demand place a value on things. As in your example, water itself might be free because there's so much of it around, but someone has to pay for it to be pumped, cleaned, filtered and distributed, whether that's down pipes to individual properties or put in bottles, which also cost, and delivered to shops and stores, who then have to make their own profit in order to survive. If on the other hand you're talking about something like gold, because of its scarcity a considerable part of its price goes in the cost of mining it from increasingly difficult locations, the balance of the high price is made up because there's a greater demand than supply, which keeps the prices up simply because those who need it are prepared to pay more for it. I'd respectfully suggest you have a good read through some books on basic economics!

OK basic economics is where people are tripping up. You need to look beyond basic and take a look at fundamental economics.

How is money created?
loaning out a physical monetary unit multiple times through fractional-reserve lending (credit creation) This is the reason why the institutions (Central banks) will always win. They hold all the cards, if someone (Countries banks and business) want to create money in the system then they ask the institutions to make some. That money is then lent to the system with interest. But where does the extra money come from to pay the interest back to the institutions? Catch 22, the system is set to favor the rich with a better and healthier life. And penalize the poor with inferior products and a substandard life. The only 'free' people are the ones at the top of the pile. But even that is good for them because they have to do things that in some ways deprecate the life of others.

What is the propose of money and economics?
When first used it was to facilitate the movement of goods in a society that had no way of eliminating scarcity. But I believe that we have the knowledge to solve these fundamental problems. It is not that we don't have the intellectual capacity to design a machine that cut and sow any garment that you choose. With an internet connection where you can input new designs. And with the use of GPS and computer guided machines to plant, sow and crop the metarilas. So then you have elimated all thos jobs. If you really had a craving to work on the system. All you have to do is learn the part of the system you want to improve and how you can add to the sum total of the system and input that infomation. So you could still design cloths, be an engineer or a farmer.

I will put this very simply for you.
Either you vote, or I will hunt you down and shove a voting ballot box up your back end and out through your nose. Do ya'get me?

lol

NO but seriously, voting is a way of making sure the politicians understand your views, what you want. In terms of the European Elections it allows your view to be voiced in the European Parliament. I for one want to hear some Anti European Nutters explaining why the European Union screams of corruption, Dictatorship etc... But that's just me.

Some prefer Labour, some Lib Dems, others Conservatives, whilst a fair few like fascists and enviro-fascists.

In terms of the county council elections it is important because you don't want some old tosser who does jack **** for your community, doing further jack **** to your community.

I could have answered that more formally but I think I made the point quite clear.

Liberal Authoritarian, yes I understand what you are saying. But that does take into account that none of the parties seem to off any change to the system. All they come up with is "we are going to charge this tax or put more money here and there".

You see the problem is that the people in charge have a duty to make sure we have the best system we can. But what we have ended up with is a system that promotes greed at the expense of morals. For as long as the underlining factor in life is profit, then we are not going to have the best of anything because, why would you use the best materials available if you have a chance to make more money by using an inferior process or materials?

Without this type of profit based greed we would be able to greatly reduce crime in this country. And regain this world 'of the people by the people for the people'

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

Look at what a good job they have done so far. How is it a good idea to have people in charge that have no or little idea of the system they are running? The only reason they are there is to perpetuate the stratification of society. If they do not have a background in the department they are running, then how can you imagine they would be the best person to run it.

Aren't you moving the goalposts a bit? Initially you said "...in charge of systems and organizations", now you're saying "If they do not have a background in the department they are running", which is a somewhat different thing - organisation and department are patently not the same. If you're talking about department heads it's pretty obvious that they need detailed knowledge of what their department is doing, however as you move up the chain of command, whether it be corporate or government, the need for specialisation decreases, certainly in some areas of management, to be replaced by a better understanding of how organisations as a whole work and how to optimise the efficiency of the people under your control and how to maximise the potential of the organisation as a whole. Obviously there are exceptions, but in broad terms the closer a person is to the work being carried out, the more knowledge he requires, and vice versa - perhaps I should qualify that by saying far more so in non-technical environments.

Have you had actual experience in working your way through the management chain of either a corporate structure or a government department or similar organisation or is all this just theory?

Not a great sci-fi fan, just a person that has spent a great amount of time trying to formulate better ways for society to head. Instead of playing around with this abhorrent system.

Abhorrent is a strong word! I agree that what we have at the moment is far from ideal, however change in politics is an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one if you want to maintain stability and growth over a long period (given the normal peaks and troughs of any system) - we've all seen the results where countries have tried the latter. There's certainly plenty of scope for significant change, and thankfully the public are beginning to realise this, however there's security in the status quo for the majority; try to implement too many changes in too short a period of time and the public become suspicious.

A/ what would people do for income? Why would you need an income if you had designed a system that knew what resources we have, and what machines can build the items we need?

B/ How would people fill their lives? Without limits on what you can learn and where you could go, would you not find things to fill your life with.

I don't follow your logic at all. Irrespective of what you did, what you designed and what its ultimate capabilities were, you as a person would still have to have an income to live! Unless you're talking about a communist style state which looked after you from cradle to grave and provided you with everything you needed to live on. but then where would the state get its resources from to do that; unless its citizens worked to produce them?

OK basic economics is where people are tripping up. You need to look beyond basic and take a look at fundamental economics.

How is money created?
loaning out a physical monetary unit multiple times through fractional-reserve lending (credit creation) This is the reason why the institutions (Central banks) will always win. They hold all the cards, if someone (Countries banks and business) want to create money in the system then they ask the institutions to make some. That money is then lent to the system with interest. But where does the extra money come from to pay the interest back to the institutions? Catch 22, the system is set to favor the rich with a better and healthier life. And penalize the poor with inferior products and a substandard life. The only 'free' people are the ones at the top of the pile. But even that is good for them because they have to do things that in some ways deprecate the life of others.

What is the propose of money and economics?
When first used it was to facilitate the movement of goods in a society that had no way of eliminating scarcity. But I believe that we have the knowledge to solve these fundamental problems. It is not that we don't have the intellectual capacity to design a machine that cut and sow any garment that you choose. With an internet connection where you can input new designs. And with the use of GPS and computer guided machines to plant, sow and crop the metarilas. So then you have elimated all thos jobs. If you really had a craving to work on the system. All you have to do is learn the part of the system you want to improve and how you can add to the sum total of the system and input that infomation. So you could still design cloths, be an engineer or a farmer.

Is your economic theory born out of practical experience or again is it just part of this idealistic society you've put together with bits of information gained here and there? No current system is perfect, and we can all devise theoretical models which we think would achieve that Utopian dream of a perfect society, but in between we have reality, and with all due respect I don't think your ideas have anything like that in them!

Originally Posted by Midas

Aren't you moving the goalposts a bit? Initially you said "...in charge of systems and organizations", now you're saying "If they do not have a background in the department they are running", which is a somewhat different thing - organisation and department are patently not the same. If you're talking about department heads it's pretty obvious that they need detailed knowledge of what their department is doing, however as you move up the chain of command, whether it be corporate or government, the need for specialisation decreases, certainly in some areas of management, to be replaced by a better understanding of how organisations as a whole work and how to optimise the efficiency of the people under your control and how to maximise the potential of the organisation as a whole. Obviously there are exceptions, but in broad terms the closer a person is to the work being carried out, the more knowledge he requires, and vice versa - perhaps I should qualify that by saying far more so in non-technical environments.

Have you had actual experience in working your way through the management chain of either a corporate structure or a government department or similar organisation or is all this just theory?

I have not had the experience of working my way up the management chain.

Sorry, it is just semantics between the words systems organizations and department. Is not the national health system ran by the department for health?

With an underlining ethos for profit or cost cutting, we can not expect to get the best out of the organizations and systems we have in place. And that is what these people are in place to do.

Abhorrent is a strong word! I agree that what we have at the moment is far from ideal, however change in politics is an evolutionary process rather than a revolutionary one if you want to maintain stability and growth over a long period (given the normal peaks and troughs of any system) - we've all seen the results where countries have tried the latter. There's certainly plenty of scope for significant change, and thankfully the public are beginning to realise this, however there's security in the status quo for the majority; try to implement too many changes in too short a period of time and the public become suspicious.

Well I am just trying to question the possible ways to advance the human society as a whole. And show that there are other ways of doing things, other than surrendering my self to a flawed system. I want to be part of society not run from it and hide.

I don't follow your logic at all. Irrespective of what you did, what you designed and what its ultimate capabilities were, you as a person would still have to have an income to live! Unless you're talking about a communist style state which looked after you from cradle to grave and provided you with everything you needed to live on. but then where would the state get its resources from to do that; unless its citizens worked to produce them?

lol, I said
"It is not that we don't have the intellectual capacity to design a machine that cut and sow any garment that you choose. With an internet connection where you can input new designs. And with the use of GPS and computer guided machines to plant, sow and crop the materials. So then you have eliminated all jobs. If you really had a craving to work on the system. All you have to do is learn the part of the system you want to improve and how you can add to the sum total of the system and input that information. So you could still design cloths, be an engineer or a farmer."
This would be a closed system of sorts, so there would be no need for citizerns to work to gain the resorces.

As for comunisim, That system failed to take in to account advances in science and tecnoligy to elimate the need for human labour in the system. Also comunisum perputates the social stratifacation of society. While you have people with egos at the top you can not have a fair socitey.

Is your economic theory born out of practical experience or again is it just part of this idealistic society you've put together with bits of information gained here and there? No current system is perfect, and we can all devise theoretical models which we think would achieve that Utopian dream of a perfect society, but in between we have reality, and with all due respect I don't think your ideas have anything like that in them!

I am not claming to know every thing about the monetry system. I have read a lot of infomation on the fractional reserve banking system. And can see it as the fraud that it is.

Socity is always emerging. And as of that fact there can never be a utopian society.

In some countries its the law to vote, do you think it should be the law here?

Originally Posted by SussexWithLove

In some countries its the law to vote, do you think it should be the law here?

I think 'no' to that one. When you vote, all you're doing is choosing to opt for one of the available choices you have. If none go any way to representing you, then you're being literally forced to choose something that you don't want to choose .. that's to say, you don't really honestly choose anything that has meaning to you.

Of course, in a selection of hardline Leftie countries, voting is mandatory .. for the Leftie power in charge ...

If I read this correctly ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba_and_democracy

... Cuba insists you vote for the one Party they have .. the Communists, naturally .. but that you do so by secret ballot !!

As secrets go, somehow I don't have much faith in their ballot system, I must say .. or .. even their sanity ... !!!!

And of course, with that unassailable a power-base, all manner of atrocities become possible. Under that arch-Leftie, Stalin, there were massacres ... and he wasn't the only one of his kind in the world to thus indulge ...

So anything that detracts from the freedom to vote should be resisted, in my view. You should be free to. You should be just as free not to. Chip away at such freedoms, and you see a Governmental system starting to tell you what to do.

It's a dangerous road to travel. Better not to try.

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

No, I don't

If people don't want to participate in a corrupt system they should not be forced to

This is a surprise, coming from you !!!

Surely .. (!!) .. the harder-line the Leftie regime, so the more dictatorial it becomes ? Can you name me one Communist country that has a genuine democracy (i.e NOT a one-Party State, run along ludicrous Cuban lines) ?? And with that great a concentration of unassailable power at the top, MN .. doesn't that just beg for corruption to infect it ?

I think the main establishment put certain people off voting, as they would not like the outcome.

Like young ethnically English males.

Voting should be compulsory.
However, there should be a None of the Above option

"but lets slow down this lefty bashing a bit..."
Only if you slow down your righty bashing... which you do on an hourly basis...

Originally Posted by Baldilocks

This is a surprise, coming from you !!!

Surely .. (!!) .. the harder-line the Leftie regime, so the more dictatorial it becomes ? Can you name me one Communist country that has a genuine democracy (i.e NOT a one-Party State, run along ludicrous Cuban lines) ?? And with that great a concentration of unassailable power at the top, MN .. doesn't that just beg for corruption to infect it ?

The idea that the far right are any better is absurd. They are just perhaps more honest about the fact that they create dictatorships. Pinochet springs to mind as a far right dictator, as does Hitler (though he combined left and right so perhaps not such a good example as Pinochet). It seems to me, Baldilocks, that everything you think and say is permeated with this absurd idea that all left-wing people are neo-fascist dictator anti-democracy terrorist communists, which clearly isn't the case.

What is true is that far left communism has been more successful than far right ideology, so you have more examples of extreme ideologies leading to dictatorship. It has nothing to do with which end of the political spectrum it is, it is more to do with extremism.

Chavez is an example of a left-wing leader who has been lawfully and fairly elected into power, and continues to be so. Regardless of whether you dislike his policies or not, he has been fairly elected by the people.

Also remember that there are benefits. I don't agree with Cuba's system, but they do have the best healthcare system in the world, while many in America still live well below the poverty line with regards to medical assistance. Food for thought, perhaps?

Originally Posted by Baldilocks

I think 'no' to that one. When you vote, all you're doing is choosing to opt for one of the available choices you have. If none go any way to representing you, then you're being literally forced to choose something that you don't want to choose .. that's to say, you don't really honestly choose anything that has meaning to you.

Of course, in a selection of hardline Leftie countries, voting is mandatory .. for the Leftie power in charge ...

Voting is compulsory in Australia. I suppose that they are a load of commie lefty satan-worshipping baby-killers?

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

I agree with the post, but lets slow down this lefty bashing a bit..

Actually, I was consciously restraining myself ... oh, yes ... you should see some of my output as registered on American sites .. for which I get widespread approval, by the way ...

Of course multi party system is not the only way to define democracy. A country can be democratic with just one party. The USA in the early 1800s is one example - they even called it their 'golden age of democracy'.

The Americans have a very distinctive sense of humour, obviously.

I've never heard of what you say you're referring to, and my favourite Metacrawler isn't coughing up any obvious links, either. I'm assuming you have in mind the events occurring in America in that general period ?

But democratic process is nearly meaningless if you don't have alternatives to vote for !! This is what makes the Communist version in Cuba such a sick joke !

There are many ways you can define democracy as it is a very contested term. However the idea that party politics = democracy is something, especially now, I think we should all be calling seriously into question..

.. and one can intellectualise oneself into cloud cuckooland, as well. Yes, I saw the differing definitions offered earlier. But none of that really impacts on the nuts-'n-bolts reality that says you need alternatives to choose between as part of the process.

As to your point about 'party politics = democracy' as something that can be questioned .. that's all very well in theory. For a democratic choice to be applied in our Society, though, would need quite a bit of manpower, organisation ... the very things which Party machinery can best cope with.

Question all you like, but to be practical in today's age, and with all the various issues in play, a Party setup has to be applied.

If you believe it doesn't, I invite you to show me how that could realistically work.

Originally Posted by Liberal Authoritarian

"but lets slow down this lefty bashing a bit..." Only if you slow down your righty bashing... which you do on an hourly basis...

Heh heh. Nice one ...

Originally Posted by DougieG

The idea that the far right are any better is absurd. They are just perhaps more honest about the fact that they create dictatorships. Pinochet springs to mind as a far right dictator, as does Hitler (though he combined left and right so perhaps not such a good example as Pinochet)

I concede the Pinochet example - I can't fairly do otherwise. However .. unless I've forgotten other notable examples, and I don't think I have .. I can't nearly as readily recall Right-wing examples of dictatorships or dictator-like control exercised, as I can Left-wing versions of it.

Stalin, Mao. Pol Pot. Castro. Chavez. These names, and their regimes, readily spring to mind in that regard.

I'm glad you spotted that Hitler had some Leftieness in his brand of politics .. even the name of his Party suggested it, as in 'National Socialist' Party (formerly German Workers' Party). But I do think you're underestimating just HOW Left-wing Hitler was.

[Do you know that, initially - when he was building his power-base and still using the democratic system, big business in Germany refused to offer campaign funds because they considered him too Left-wing to trust ? Then, there's Hitler's fondness for Nationalisation programs in his 25-point Manifesto programme ..]

Then .. there's this .. which I've a funny feeling you'll dismiss out of hand ...

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/hitler.html

It seems to me, Baldilocks, that everything you think and say is permeated with this absurd idea that all left-wing people are neo-fascist dictator anti-democracy terrorist communists, which clearly isn't the case.

Not at all !! I can easily believe that there are people out there who BELIEVE all the pap that the Left puts out, and genuinely believe that some sort of utopia, some 'workers' paradise' is maybe realisable one day. Well ... in dreams, possibly. Never in the real world (otherwise .. where is it ?). The real world, combined with certain realities about human nature, breaks that down into the control-obsessed system it really is.

What is true is that far left communism has been more successful than far right ideology, so you have more examples of extreme ideologies leading to dictatorship.

Er'm, aren't you going some way to making my point for me ? It's been more 'successful', in that there have been more examples of it, yes. And they ultimately FAIL, because, in order to succeed, oppression, mixed with propagandist indoctrination, are applied to keep people subservient to them.

It has nothing to do with which end of the political spectrum it is, it is more to do with extremism.

There's a grain of truth in that .. but I suggest only a grain. Socialism is all about control of the masses, it is in fact a control system which devalues the individual. The idea is supposed to be to value humanity and society as a whole .. which leads to the devaluation of any one individual .. which in turn cheapens the individual's experience of existence, and self-worth.

The result is a far more malleable individual, and a predisposition towards crushing control from the top on down. And this is why Left wing dictatorships are more likely than Right wing ones .. because Right-wing philosophy VALUES the individual, instead.

Chavez is an example of a left-wing leader who has been lawfully and fairly elected into power, and continues to be so.

Hah !!

Chavez is an example of a Leftie who first tried to SEIZE power via a military coup. ONLY when that failed, did he try the democratic route !!!

We see the result. Continued efforts to make himself Life President, which he's put to the vote more than once .. he had to, since the voting public got it wrong, the first time around !!!

And what does he do with those who too readily defy him ? He calls them 'enemies of the Revolution' and demonises them.

How does he deal with a hostile Press ??

http://newsblaze.com/story/20071106074716tsop.nb/topstory.html

Quote ...

The crackdown on press freedom in Venezuela continues unabated, human rights and press freedom groups say.

Over the last six months, the Venezuelan government of President Hugo Chávez has committed more "transgressions" against the press than has any other country in the Western Hemisphere, the Miami-based Inter-American Press Association (IAPA) said in an October 18 statement.

The IAPA's finding follows the May shutdown of Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) by the Chávez government, which then used the station's equipment to create a new state-run television channel.

Hardline Left wing politics lends itself more readily to that sort of behaviour. And with an unfair press .. how skewed from reality will the electorate be, in assessing Chavez's true worth ?

Regardless of whether you dislike his policies or not, he has been fairly elected by the people.

As I say - with the Press increasingly under his thumb, how questionable is that ??

Also ...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/chavezs-new-election-strategy-threaten-opponents-with-jail/2/

Quotes ..

'The current campaign is testing as never before the democratic nature of the Chavez regime, and so far it is flunking the test.

The first example comes from within Chavez’s own rank and file.

A primary was organized inside the PSUV but it quickly was shown as a way to impose in certain states the candidates that Chavez wanted. We saw for example the nasty expulsion of the Carabobo state governor, Acosta Carles, worthy of Stalinist days.

Of much worse consequence was the highhanded manner in which the PSUV excluded from its nomination system its minor allies of the PPT and Communist Party, creating local divisions which could deprive Chavez of his very home state of Barinas.'

'Chavez, after having invented yet another assassination attempt on him, has decided to jail notable opponents. (The dozens of previously claimed assassination attempts have resulted so far in no blood spilled nor any trial or convicted figure or even a picture of the plotters in the press.)

Rosales, who ran against Chavez in 2006, is the last big name still allowed to run and thus has become his main target, accused of all sorts of conspiracies. Chavez has stopped measuring his words and before threatening Rosales with jail he called him “desgraciado” (without divine grace), which in religious Zulia is akin to biblical cursing.'

... So much for the Chavez version of 'fairness' ... and the reputability of his brand of Leftieism.

Also remember that there are benefits. I don't agree with Cuba's system, but they do have the best healthcare system in the world

I'm not sure how true that is, for the very good reason that Michael Moore insists it is ...

... But if it is ... and how many sacrifices in other areas were necessary to help bring that about ?

Cuba claws in all the revenue it can from whatever source it can, just to keep things moving. Did you know that around ninety percent of all profit taken from tourism goes straight into State coffers ?

Oh, yes. Hardline Socialism HATES any one individual to prosper !!!

while many in America still live well below the poverty line with regards to medical assistance. Food for thought, perhaps?

Not really. They are still a free people, regardless of imperfections in their Society. Better that than to sell your soul for a comfortable bed ... which you get from a mixture of being obedient to State diktat and being able to place a cross against the ONE candidate available .. !!

A year or two ago I read of the case of an individual who was arrested and given three years in jail (and Cuban jails are not particularly nice places !!). The crime committed ? Well, it was a rather heinous one, by State standards. Yes ... shocking stuff, this .. the Cuban flag had been flown upside down ... !!!!

No, Dougie. Better the system that allows for the greatest of voting freedoms. Chip away at those, and the chipping away just keeps on going, until .......

compulsory voting and democracy or compulsory voting and freedom, even if you are able to put a tick next to none of the above. What happens with someone like me that has come to the conclusion that there is a better way. This would mean that what ever choice you put in front of me, I would be validating a system that I know is corrupt.

Marxist Nutter, If you read the description of that little idea that I expressed I say
'If you really had a craving to work on the system. All you have to do is learn the part of the system you want to improve and how you can add to the sum total of the system and input that information. So you could still design cloths, be an engineer or a farmer.'
So there would not be a restriction placed upon you. If you want to be a creative, a designer, a teacher or any other type of work you would be able to do it. With the added bonus that you do not have to do things that you don't like, just to make money for bankers. You would have more time to dedicate to your own likes.

You see if we used engineers and scientists to build machines that can provide us with our food, cloths, housing, transport and other products. Have a complete survey of the planets resources and its capacity for producing raw materials. Then we would have a true idea of the capability of the planet.

For as long as we allow profit and politics to be put first, how can we expect to have a sane society?

We would be free to expand the sum total of human knowledge, while eliminating social stratification and reducing crime

Originally Posted by Marxist Nutter

Come and 'ave a go if you think you're bald enough!!!!

Oh, I know I am. That avatar of mine looks too accurate for comfort ..

But it'd not be before tomorrow, assuming I give it a go. It's getting late, and I've still things to do ...

as do I

No argument there.

I was joking referring to the events around 1824 which had seen one party in government after the dissolving of the federalist party

I see and can agree. You did indeed have to be joking, all considered ..

The Uk is the same sick joke then as we don't have alternatives either just different brands of the same thing. same is true of the USA. How is this any different from Cuba?

I disagree. You think, for example, that the Conservatives are as keen on EU membership as Labour and the Lib Dems ? Or that UKIP are as 'keen' on that as the Conservatives would be, under certain circumstances ?

Cuba would never throw up such debate. Why would it .. unless .. its leadership is prone to talking to itself ?

I wonder who'd win a debate like that ?

There are many ways you can define democracy as it is a very contested term. However the idea that party politics = democracy is something, especially now, I think we should all be calling seriously into question..

See my example above, which goes some way to disproving that contention.

This is where you are wrong. democracy was created by intellectuals - it's an idea. there is no escaping this.

But Society, as we know it, was ITSELF just a concept at one time !! Just how far do you take this ?

Typical conservative simply cannot think outside of embedded traditions! Well did you look at the idea of deliberative democracy. This goes on all the time in countries like the Netherlands. This could perhaps be expanded out. This is just one other option.

If it ain't broke, why try and fix it ? Sometimes, tried and tested systems do work, as the very fact that they ARE tried and tested readily testifies !!

I daresay you'll immediately think 'MP Expenses' (and maybe an associated expletive or few) in answer to that, but .. you see ... the system of DEMOCRACY EMPLOYED is not of itself the problem. Rather, it's the administration of just one particular aspect of it, done in a highly questionable way, and needing reform BECAUSE the people OPERATING it were predisposed to abuse that system !

The people involved were rather more at fault than the system they ran.

Mere fine tuning of that system will fix it in time. The democratic process itself is alive and well, and shouldn't be confused just the with one small aspect of its daily administration.

Originally Posted by DougieG

Voting is compulsory in Australia. I suppose that they are a load of commie lefty satan-worshipping baby-killers?

Well, if you feel you've a way of convincing me of that, go right ahead ...

I don't believe I said that this ONLY happens in hardline Leftie countries. But even so .. as with the idea of Right-wing dictatorships, this more lends itself to the Left than the Right.

.. oh, and besides .. how many Commies DO believe in Satan, anyway ? I thought that regimes like those spawned by hardline Lefties were opposed to religion predominating .. which would rather rule out, 'by default', any belief in Satan ... ??

.. Of course, such Commies may not necessarily retain large portraits of their preferred Leftie hero/despot to help fixate them on such thinking ... and State medicine might just be good enough to minimise child mortality rates.

Care to consider the 'Baby P' case ? Haringey Council, in N London, is .. I believe .. a Council that's been CONTINUALLY under Labour control for DECADES !!! It was the same area as the Victoria Climbie case, several years earlier.

There, we have the case of a Council that could have done far more to properly care for Baby P than it did. And they did not learn from the Climbie case earlier.

What marks out that Council for consideration within this debate is the thought that too many people in Haringey just blindly vote for the Lefties time, and time, and time, AGAIN. Result .. well, I suggest that complacency set in; with lethal results.

If Haringey isn't an example of a case of where an area is crying out for electoral change, for people to get out there and electorally OUST them, I don't know what is !!!

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

compulsory voting and democracy or compulsory voting and freedom, even if you are able to put a tick next to none of the above. What happens with someone like me that has come to the conclusion that there is a better way. This would mean that what ever choice you put in front of me, I would be validating a system that I know is corrupt.

We all know that whatever system there is, it's corrupt to one degree or another, so I don't really see why if you selected a NOTA option, effectively the same as registering your disapproval or disenchantment with the other options, validates the corruption. If anything I would have thought it said the opposite, albeit not explicitly.

Marxist Nutter, If you read the description of that little idea that I expressed I say
'If you really had a craving to work on the system. All you have to do is learn the part of the system you want to improve and how you can add to the sum total of the system and input that information. So you could still design cloths, be an engineer or a farmer.'
So there would not be a restriction placed upon you. If you want to be a creative, a designer, a teacher or any other type of work you would be able to do it. With the added bonus that you do not have to do things that you don't like, just to make money for bankers. You would have more time to dedicate to your own likes.

You see if we used engineers and scientists to build machines that can provide us with our food, cloths, housing, transport and other products. Have a complete survey of the planets resources and its capacity for producing raw materials. Then we would have a true idea of the capability of the planet.

I know you've addressed this to MN, however after rereading it, several times, I'm still as confused as to exactly what you're driving at as I was to start with. It still seems to me that you've come up with a pipe dream society without any thought as to either the social or economic implications. We know what's theoretically possible by way of automation, however all it does is shift the balance of employment from one sector to another. If say farming becomes more automated, ex-farm workers will be forced to find jobs elsewhere; they will be in no better position "not to do things that you don't like" than they were before.

For as long as we allow profit and politics to be put first, how can we expect to have a sane society?

I'm tempted to agree with you regarding politics, however given that the substantial majority of people need controls, constraints and leaders, we're rather stuck with it. The trick will be to find a true democratic system that satisfies the majority most of the time! As regards profit, without it why will anyone take any financial risk? If you stand a chance of not getting your money back in a venture, would you invest in it unless there was a far better than 50/50 odds of your making a profit?

We would be free to expand the sum total of human knowledge, while eliminating social stratification and reducing crime

As far as social stratification is concerned, we'll always have it, people are innately different in many respects. Some are intelligent, some are not; some are leaders, some are followers; some are diligent and enquiring, others are lazy; some have drive and ambition, others do not...... Everyone will find their own level in society quite naturally; it's the socialist concept of trying to eliminate these natural differences and force people into 'equality' which is a significant cause of much unrest and disquiet.

We all joined the Jury Team for precisely the same reason ....total disillusionment with party politics.

Scandals like using the special allowance as a surrogate bank account live on behind closed doors because no-one, not even those 'angels' who were not on 'the take', were too afraid to blow the whistle out of fear it would end their careers in the 'Party'.

Its the 'Party' that leads its members to be so disingenous with the public as to redefine the word 'transparency' to mean telling in private a consenting adult of a fees office clerk but not the very people whose money was being stolen , ie you and me.

Its the 'Party' that leads its members to be so patronising with the public as to claim entitlement to compensation for a lost opportunity to re-invest in a series of 'small houses' (Ben Chapman) when many of his constituents would be content to have just one small house to live in.

Well as Nat King Cole said 'the Party's over. They burst their pretty ballons and taken the moon away ' ...so most are now planning to resign.

UKIP any better? - try this

Jury Team is the answer . Honest independent minds working as a team to listen to the public and develop improvements to our way of life. No political careers, no manifestos rammed down our throats, no herding into the lobbies, just hard work and common sense.

We are the people the BBC would rather you did not know about. .see the letter on at www.tinyurl.com/juryteamross

Graham Ross
(Jury Team candidate, North West)

The Jury Team advocating the Jury Team...
Nope I am sure he has no bias...

Oh I see- candidates should recommend another party? OK , that would be fun.

BTW, I forgot to mention. If you are looking for something different and ground breaking well how about a candidate who enables the public to enter into a legally binding contract, empowering the constituent to obtain a court order forcing resignation for breach of any of 22 promises. Is that not real direct accountability? Its ready for you now at www.tinyurl.com/juryteamross

It still seems to me that you've come up with a pipe dream society without any thought as to either the social or economic implications. We know what's theoretically possible by way of automation, however all it does is shift the balance of employment from one sector to another. If say farming becomes more automated, ex-farm workers will be forced to find jobs elsewhere; they will be in no better position "not to do things that you don't like" than they were before.

The idea I have been formulating would eliminate the need for people to work for money. OK so you might ask what is there to motivate people to help the system work. In 2001 11.1milion people volunteered 1 day a month. That is over 1 billion hours a year. The majority of people are generally nice and want to help the society they live in. Just a lot of people don’t have the energy to participate because of work. This would only increase as the need to earn money was eliminated.

The substantial majority of people need controls, constraints and leaders, we're rather stuck with it.

Where did that come from? I would say that the vast majority of people do not need controls. I bet for every person that says yes you will find another that says no.

As far as social stratification is concerned, we'll always have it, people are innately different in many respects. Some are intelligent, some are not; some are leaders, some are followers; some are diligent and enquiring, others are lazy; some have drive and ambition, others do not...... Everyone will find their own level in society quite naturally; it's the socialist concept of trying to eliminate these natural differences and force people into 'equality' which is a significant cause of much unrest and disquiet.

OK so people are different, I am able to juggle 7 balls 5 rings or 5 clubs. I am able to teach people about performing on stage and I can build web sites. How does this differ from someone with a PhD in physics, or someone that designs cloths or houses? None of these people have a real reason to be set any higher than others. The only reason that stratification happens in society is because of the system we perpetuate blindly and without question.


You see I have a problem with left and right wing rhetoric. Nether offer a change to the system. Both promote social stratification in differing quantities. And this means that people will always be trodden on, as other people scramble to get further up the social ladder. That leads people to lie and cheat so they can get up the social ladder.

This is true for the people at the bottom who end up breaking laws to feed habits or just to feed their self.
The people in charge of companies that use inferior materials, or processes that pollute the environment.
And governments that go to war just to inflate their own economies and egos.

What we need is to facilitate a process of eliminating peoples need to choose sides. You only choose a side because of a mix of social pressure and personal experiences. It would be quite easy for someone on the left or right to change sides depending on the environment they are in.

So if we designed a system that can automatically find, grow and cultivate raw materials. Then process them into the products we desire. We would have eliminated the need for this insane system we are using now. Products are only scarce because people want to patient it so they can make money from it. Would it not be a better idea for people to share there ideas so they can produce the most efficient and environmentally friendly products.

Originally Posted by JuryTeam

Oh I see- candidates should recommend another party? OK , that would be fun.

Didn't say anything of the sort.
Let's look again at what I wrote:

The Jury Team advocating the Jury Team...
Nope I am sure he has no bias...

Look at the bold text. It is the important part of the statement. Notice the sarcasm??

Originally Posted by Twisted Juggler

The idea I have been formulating would eliminate the need for people to work for money. OK so you might ask what is there to motivate people to help the system work. In 2001 11.1milion people volunteered 1 day a month. That is over 1 billion hours a year. The majority of people are generally nice and want to help the society they live in. Just a lot of people don’t have the energy to participate because of work. This would only increase as the need to earn money was eliminated.

[ ... ]

Firstly, where did you get those figures from, what do they relate to, why did people volunteer and to do what, what geographical regions do the figures cover...? As just a statement without context I'm afraid they're meaningless.

Secondly I will repeat that I think you're being completely idealistic and unrealistic in your expectations, contrary to both human nature and basic economics, and quite honestly I see little point in my pursing this particular part of the discussion, it's not going to achieve anything.

Have a think about this.

The central role of government is the invention of regulatory legislation to handle the functioning of society. Idealistically, the broad interests of the public would be the first priority of government.

This has sadly not been the case. Because of the perception that wealth and not well being is often placed higher. In the last 100 years we have used technology to eliminate the need for most manual labor.

So where have all these people gone?
well they have moved to the service industry. But as more and more systems become automated, we will lose theses jobs as well. The fact is that technological unemployment is unstoppable.

Ether we take charge of our future, or will we let the so called rich and elite carry on with a system that keeps the majority of people as an underclass.

How can it be right that 2.7 billion live on less than $2 a day?
Most people in the west would spend more than that on a coffee.

If you can't see that there is a major problem with this system, then you have been blinded by your own comfort.

If something is not broken then why fix it?
If you ask me then a system that perpetuates the need to fight for your place is one that is broken. At some point economics was a good way of facilitating the exchange of goods. But with all the advances in science and technology, we are able to put in place process that can eliminate the need for work. And then we can concentrate on evolving and furthering society. Most of the scientific advances that have been made by people were not done to make money, but to make life easier and advance society.

Originally Posted by Midas

Firstly, where did you get those figures from, what do they relate to, why did people volunteer and to do what, what geographical regions do the figures cover...? As just a statement without context I'm afraid they're meaningless.

Key Volunteering Statistics

Secondly I will repeat that I think you're being completely idealistic and unrealistic in your expectations, contrary to both human nature and basic economics, and quite honestly I see little point in my pursing this particular part of the discussion, it's not going to achieve anything.

What do you mean by 'human nature'. That is such a debatable term. The way I would describe it is,

1st Biological and physiological needs (basic needs; air, food, drink, shelter, warmth, sleep etc...)

2nd Safety needs (security, stability, protection, order, ect...)

3rd Personal needs (family, affection, relationships, ect...)

4th Esteem needs (achievement, dignity, social belonging, ect...)

5th Need for self-actualization (personal growth and fulfillment)

Just because we have lived in this system does that not mean that there might be a better way to run this world we live in. Just look at the way that big business has raped areas of the world for resources just to boost the bank balance. As this is driven for the need for profit, would it not be better to devise a way to clean the world up.

We have the resources to provide the world with clean energy.
And the technology to stop using the internal combustion engine.

Why do we not do it? because of money.