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 > Inequality and democracy > Comments

Inequality and democracy : Comments

By John Wright, published 28/11/2013

The hope is that by allowing the already wealthy to become even wealthier they will use the surplus to create work for the less fortunate.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Our "democracy" is sliding away from us all the time.
We have now reached the point where one man, say John Howard, decides to go to war against a country that has made no threat to us, so that we can claim that it is to support an Ally.
So one man can take us to war ands invade another country.
This is the same as Adolf Hitler invading Poland and then a succession of other countries.
Where is the democracy here?

Recently a billionaire spat the dummy because he did not get his own way with a party he had been supporting and having the money to spend, sets up his own party, throws money at advertising then wins a seat for himself and enough Senate seats to possible hold the balance of power. Fine you might say that's his democratic right.
But is it really democratic?

There are no doubt a lot of people who could and would be able to be more representative in parliament than the billionaire but who do not have the money.
The system needs to be adjusted.

A step in the right direction would be to limit the amount that could be spent on an election by any individual and none spent by a party.
Make it a low figure so that most people could afford to stand for a seat.
Next would be to totally ban all donations to parties or individuals.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 28 November 2013 9:01:54 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
Continued

Lastly the Swiss have a good system in place where referendums can be called by petitioning with a set number of signatures.
The referendums are fitted in with elections and costs are not exorbitant.
In some cases referendums are held on an important policy, at any time.

Now we would be getting close to democracy.

The last thing would be to have all voters pass an intelligence test when they register to vote.
The reason for that is that I know of cases where voters have had dementia and still had a vote.
They are not to blame for this of course but it makes a mockery of democracy.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 28 November 2013 9:02:26 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
John Wright is a philosopher who publishes on "ethical issues of economic rationalism", yet he can spin his first paragraph so hard to try to produce a false understanding on his subject, you'd have to be blind, or left, not to see it. I can't imagine why anyone would read any further after that start.

Then we get Robert LePage telling us "Recently a billionaire spat the dummy because he did not get his own way with a party he had been supporting" claims it is a sign of failing democracy. To my mind it is an indication that at least one party can't be bought, & at least there democracy is alive & well.

The fact that our ABC then picked up said "billionaire", courted & promoted him, shows just how dumb our lefty, publicly funded media really is.

Then our Robert wants an IQ test for voters, no doubt written by him. I can see it now, anyone not left of Khrushchev would be considered not smart enough to vote. God help us, what next?
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 28 November 2013 10:18:54 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
The wealthy have been using the lie that their wealth trickles down to the proles for centuries.

The Barbie Bishop and Phoney Tony coalition work for the rich and, as politicians, when they help the rich, they enrich themselves.

What the rich most fear is that the proles will revolt and take their riches and, in re-distributing their ill-gotten gains, spoil their little game forever.

Howard was the darling of the rich. Phoney and Barbie plan to do likewise.

How much longer are we going to tolerate this capitalist-coalition con, condone gross inequality and greed?
Posted by David G, Thursday, 28 November 2013 10:21:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why does the author think we are not already in a plutocracy?

I don't think we should give up so easily on each person having a meaningful say. The invention of the internet could be just the thing to reverse the slide, but we would also need to adopt the principle of "subsidiarity" a concept first described formally in Catholic social teaching (http://www.helmut-zenz.de/hznellbr.html).

"Subsidiarity is an organising principle of decentralisation, stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralised authority capable of addressing that matter effectively." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity)

While the neighbourhood is not currently a recognised "authority", with the advent of the internet for personal input and collaborative organisation it could easily become an authority. With collaborative development & storage of know-how, and with easy access to that knowledge on the internet, it's easy to start to imagine just how much neighbourhoods could take control of for themselves - from training & service provision to food production & housing (see internet prototype http://www.createvillage.net/village/forum/id/18).

Empowered neighbourhoods would be a force for councils & governments to respect.

There'd be plenty of non market place opportunity for all, & housing security rather than paid employment could replace the current idea of "mutual obligations" which are market place rather than community focussed. (see http://ntw.net46.net/NTWmodel/NTWModeloverview.htm)

Chris Baulman
@landrights4all
Posted by landrights4all, Thursday, 28 November 2013 10:53:09 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"To my mind it is an indication that at least one party can't be bought, & at least there democracy is alive & well."

Especially as they have already been bought by another billionaire.

"shows just how dumb our lefty, publicly funded media really is."

And the alternative Murdochracy is better?

"IQ test for voters no doubt written by him."

Nowhere can I see where I have said that I want to write an IQ test but words in other peoples mouth especially if they are out of context is normal with some on this forum.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 28 November 2013 11:24:58 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. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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