The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Democracy or bureaucracy > Comments

Democracy or bureaucracy : Comments

By Susan Wight, published 29/5/2017

Bureaucrats are gradually writing themselves more power even though they represent no one and can never be voted out. They are eroding democracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All
Yuyutsu:"it is shameful and irreligious to touch such tainted stolen money that was taken from others by force"

If you are referring to taxpayers' money, I would say "by mutual consent", not simply "by force". In a representative system it's the elected parliament that decides on taxation. The representative system is in accord with majority consent (not mine but the majority must prevail).

An actual democracy (to which we must aspire) would include Binding Citizen-Initiated Referenda (BCIR) - for example the Theft Tax stolen from all people whenever they buy goods and services would never have been imposed.

There is no place in the world where an individual can maintain life while being in sole control of what happens to his or her property. Nor could there be as there would be no property, and nobody to protect him/her from the first predator to come with a gun. It's all a pointless dream of an individual who depends on what organised society offers while disavowing organised society.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Tuesday, 30 May 2017 4:34:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julian,

I don't mind taking money that was paid by mutual consent, but so long as that money includes the tax of even one (1) person who did not consent to have their tax taken, no matter what their reason(s) happen to be, touching this tainted money that is taken from them is a theft.

Now since you mentioned "the majority", the question arises - majority of what?

Why, you could count the chooks in your backyard, perhaps the mice too, you could even get a power-of-attorney to represent them and vote in what you consider their best-interests. What difference is it to me whether I am being included, without being asked, in a majority-system that includes your chooks; or in a majority-system that includes strangers who live 1000's of kilometres away, whom I never met and probably never will, and whom I probably have little values in common with?

Your argument of an individual's inability to survive on their own and have sole-control of their environment is misleading on the following grounds:
1. While it seems that physical survival rates high on your list of values, whether I survive or not is none of your business.
2. We are all affected by nature, the weather, animals, plants, the earth, the sun, etc. While they all can affect what happens on my property, these are not conscious and deliberate attempts to control my life.
3. There are many other options besides living alone and taking part in your continent-scale society of humans. Yours is not the only possible organised society!

Once I get to choose my society, based on our own criteria rather than arbitrarily on having human-bodies that are parked in this continent, once I and all other members of my society voluntarily agree on its constitution, then of course we can elect to have a democracy (or any other management-system that we may agree on), then only a "majority" gets a meaning, then only we can decide on secondary questions such as having BCIR or raising taxes - but not before.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 11:48:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yuyutsu: "Yours is not the only possible organised society!"

So outline an alternative that would better support your personal existence, and that of all the other persons.

Otherwise all you are suggesting is the totally unsustainable and essentially irrelevant ultimate me-me-me.
Posted by EmperorJulian, Wednesday, 31 May 2017 1:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Julian,

If your top value is indeed to support human personal existence (yours and others'), then indeed I am not the expert and, though it may require more research, you could be correct that the best way to do it is through the monolithic mega-state.

In the long term, personal existence is unsustainable regardless. Sooner or later we will all lose our bodies. Not only that, but humanity as a whole will become extinct, it's only a matter of time.

Now if you care for other values beyond mere existence, such as non-violence, freedom of choice, ethics, morality and religion, that changes the picture and then the primary rule becomes "first do no harm". Counting people as part of a society which they are not interested in and forcing them to obey that society's rules, is clearly harmful.

While the forced monolithic and involuntary mega-society could indeed be (subject to further research) more effective in terms of personal survival than smaller and voluntary, self-governing societies, I find mere survival where life lasts longer but its purpose is thwarted and unfulfilled, to be useless, immoral, stupid and unappealing.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 1 June 2017 2:27:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy