.

Dear Grim and ybgirp,

.

When all is said and done, I can't help feeling that "true democracy", like "true love" is largely an unattainable ideal.

In any event, despite the wonders of the internet, I am not convinced that either can be achieved at a distance.

Ever tried affectionately holding someone in your arms at a distance? Understanding the intricacies of their hopes and fears? Do you feel that human touch?

We may think we are communicating via the internet but are we really? Communication is not just words or images. It's looking people in the eyes, face to face. It's getting to know them. Growing up with them. Sharing the same experiences with them. There is something physical and psychological about communication. It's not just intellectual. It's a gradual process, nothing to do with love at first sight or instant coffee.

Distance is not" tyrannical". It is inhuman. Nature did not equip us with long distance communication skills as it did other mammals such as whales and elephants. To communicate properly (without artificial means) we must be within hearing, speaking and touching distance of each other.

The Ancient Athenians understood that, people like Solon, Cleisthenes, Ephialtes and Pericles.

It seems to me that "true democracy", like "true love" is more likely on a purely local level than on a State level or on a national level.

I agree that abolishing political parties might be an improvement on the present system. We could give that a try. Hopefully the inconveniences would not outweigh the advantages.

By the way, Grim, the shock waves from the Japanese bombs on Pearl Harbour propulsed me out of my mother's womb and she somehow managed to house, feed and (more or less) clothe my brother and I on her meagre shop assistant's wages until we were old enough to fare for ourselves.

But I never felt obliged to vote like her and never did. She always voted hard right.

.

G'day Banjo,
A post on the tyranny and inhumanity of distance, particularly concerning effective communication, posted on an Australian forum by a bloke who professes to live in Paris.
Oh-kay...
What is “natural”? Homo Sapiens' greatest claims to fame might be as tool users and language utilisers. As far as I'm aware, no other species does either as effectively as humans. Does that make it unnatural?
Only for other animals, I would suggest.
I entirely agree with your sentiment:
“It seems to me that "true democracy", like "true love" is more likely on a purely local level than on a State level or on a national level.”
I can easily imagine a system whereby the local progress association elects a representative to argue their case at the shire council level, who in turn elect a rep to represent them at the state level...
Is the world really better served by shoe-horning the maximum no. of people into the minimum no of pigeon holes?
Would the world be worse off if Lincoln had lost his war? Imagine, instead of the USA a Union of American Nations.
Sadly, the great (overwhelming) advantage of the Republican model is, most people just don't care that much. Whinging about politics is one thing, but doing something about it? A lot of people I know consider having to vote every few years to be an onerous burden. They'd much rather have someone else make the hard decisions for them -and then complain when they get it wrong.
True democracy would be more of a responsibility than a right, and definitely not a “spectator sport”.
It grieves me greatly that we have largely given up the greatest tool ever invented to protect the rights of individuals against evil governments and exploiters, simply because the majority of voters consider the possibility of being called upon (perhaps just once in a life-time!) for jury duty, too much of a civic burden.

Hi RObert,
In Australia, many of the unemployed have public housing so an arrangement for access to land is already in place there, although not yet by any right. There is one opportunity I can see for the unemployed to demonstrate the benefits of recognising their right of access to land in their access to public housing. see http://bit.ly/S4EjvG

People on higher incomes than the unemployed already have more than their rightful share of access to land & so have no birthright by which to claim more.

@landrights4all
Chris Baulman

It seems to me the problem with this article and the following discussion is that if you define a right to mean whatever the State says it is, as everyone so far implicitly seems to so, then a bill of rights would be redundant.

Also I can't seem why people think democracy is the ideal form of government.

By democracy I'm referring to the principle of majority rule.

Even if we had theoretically perfect democracy in which every person had an equal vote on every issue, and there were no intervening parties or even parliament to miscarry their intentions, why would that be ideal? It certainly wouldn't be any guarantee of a protection of liberty, any more than the system of government in Australia now. In many ways democracy is just an ongoing infringement of liberties.

The very idea that what is right is whatever the majority or the government say it is, is morally contemptible. The people putting it forward don't even accept it themselves

Jardine, I'm inclined to agree.
Since we're clearly in an era of merging dialectics, the primary argument for the adversarial system appears to be failing. As I intimated earlier, a true democracy would only suit a fully engaged community, -which Australia, at least, certainly isn't.
I think a stronger adversarial system could be achieved with a genuinely independent executive; a popularly elected President (“chief”, “honcho”, “top dog”, “boss”...) with a specific mandate.
If a democratic parliament has a specific mandate to abide by the wishes of the majority, then the Pres. Should have a mandate to protect the rights of minorities, right down to minorities of one.
As such, he/she would be bureaucratic chief of Ombudsmen, corruption and anti-competitive commissions and legal aid.
Essentially a father/mother figure individuals could turn to if they felt they were being bullied by opponents too big to fight, up to and including the gov. itself.
A classic example for the need of an independent executive was the recent amalgamation of councils by the Beatty gov. of Qld; despite clear opposition by the vast majority of Qlanders. An independent CE should be able to veto any law so clearly outside the Parliament's mandate.
Primary attributes for such a figure would be a proven sense of fairness and incorruptibility. Judges with impeccable records would certainly be eligible, but so too would many sportsmen and other, less exposed persons.
I for one would enjoy the opportunity to vote for someone to achieve a position of power, for reasons other than political acuity, ruthlessness and naked ambition.
Sadly, mandates are essentially contracts, and -like Bills of Rights- must be written very carefully to close off loopholes and misunderstandings; at least while we have courts of Law, rather than courts of Justice.