Democracy! What democracy, the very best money can buy, or ours where compulsory preferencing and how to vote cards, manipulates it away from the average mug out there in mugsville!

We have no rights that can't be stripped at the whim and caprice of a legislature, often the personal plaything of a tyrannical autocrat? Why you can't even defend yourself in your own home, with criminals having more rights than the home or business owner!

And names like John howard and Anna Bligh come immediately to mind in connection with that Tyrant description. Mr Howard free to disagree all while rigidly resisting a proof of the pudding, bill of rights.

Recent changes to the senate voting arrangements, have very likely improved our democracy just a tad and need to be also adopted for the lower house or just make preferencing optional!

Political parties need to be far more democratic inside their organisations, with all political donations of more than a thousand dollars needing to be posted within days of donation!

Otherwise, democracy is for sale and to the highest bidder with the deepest pockets? And look how difficult that factor has made, ending tax avoidance?

Direct democracy is probably impossible here, but not a bill of irrevocable rights replete with a citizens initiated referendum and proportional representation.

Just don't expect either of the two major parties to support the concept, unless dragged there kicking and screaming, nor the implications for them, inherent in bona fide democracy!
Alan B.

Australia, one of the 'oldest democracies in the world' as it is often called, is living proof that democracy is lessening rather than growing. Nobody could reasonably call what passes for government in Australia now, democracy. The most obvious sign of this is the abomination called the 'Senate' – an 'unelected swill', as it was correctly referred to by one-time Prime Minister, Paul Keating. Compulsory and preferential voting is another undemocratic imposition on the people.

I like the 'hobbit and hooligans' reference but, as these two classes are in the majority, this Professor Brennan is wrong in saying that “ democratic outcomes are not only not representative of the majority’s true views”. There is nothing wrong with democracy; it is the only way – it is the ignorant majority that is at fault because it simply does not understand how the system is supposed to work. Referring to politicians as 'leaders' and 'the honourable' is the big clue to the ignorance here.

Never was there a more accurate truism than 'we get the politician that we deserve'. We Australians certainly deserve the trash in Canberra and the States that we have now. We have not shown these 'servants' who the boss really is - us! Every day, tales of corruption by politicians reach us – the latest being the awful Senator Cash. Our total tool of a Prime Minister says he is displeased, the perpetrator of the fraud apologises, and that's the end of the matter. If politicians acted they way they do on our dollar in the private sector, their feet would not touch the ground on their way out. Yet, these insults to democracy carry on for years, thanks to the 'hobbits' and the 'hooligans', ripping off the public purse and retiring to massive, unearned pensions with the possibility of a cushy sinecure to continue their corruption in a new field they know nothing about.

And the really tragic thing? Nothing will ever be done about it.

Thank you, Arturo - Indeed, the king is naked!

Although Alan and Ttbn are correct in claiming that democracy was never in fact ever yet tried, this is not a bug, but a feature of democracy:

If others whom you never appointed are able to control your life, directing what you may or may not do, then what difference does it make at the bottom line whether those others happen to be some kind of a majority or say, a monarch?

Having individual and group freedoms has little to do with the type of government: the only way to ensure those freedoms, is to make the states as small as possible, so that those who are unhappy with the regime can migrate nearby relatively easily and so those smaller states will need to compete among themselves over individual and group freedoms in order to retain their productive population.

Hi Alan,

So what are you ripping into, democracy or autocracy ? Surely we have to find ways of improving this imperfect thing called democracy (which belongs to all of us) and oppose any move towards autocracy (which won't) ?

Would you say that Trump represents a strengthening of democracy or a push (putsch ?) towards autocracy ? Right or wrong, idiots or not, I think the people out in the streets are perfectly entitled to exercise their democratic rights to put forward their messages. I don't think that Trump can rule by tweet, or jail whoever he pleases (yes, that might be coming). P. J. O'Rourke calls him the big bully at the back of the classroom. Spot on.

Democracy has to be 'muscular': if you don' exercise it, you lose it.

Cheers,

Joe

Autocrats and bullies my bug bear Joe. The latter I've never bowed to but when still abled bodied shirt fronted a few. With often surprising results, some of which includes running home to mama tears streaming from their eyes. As for autocrats, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

Resolute leaders are never afraid of freedom, nor arguing their case or courage of conviction, or knowing what they stand for! And which lines can never be crossed, or what can't be bought or sold, even with all the gold and treasure in the entire world!

And inside those character traits a Leader can be as muscular as they come, and even have a few flaws!? And you just can't put-in what isn't there, nor trump it with a big fat cheque book filled with other folk's misappropriated funds?

I believe war hero President Kennedy was just such a leader, even with his reported "flaws".

I watched in open mouthed admiration as he dressed down colluding price gouging industrialists, much as in the manner of a principle, dressing down errant schoolboys, or the leader speaking frankly and fearlessly to a bunch of treacherous Benedict Arnolds.

And he successfully embarrassed them beyond belief and forced free fair open market competition once again, as the first consequence. And that is why he was assassinated, I believe, still in his prime?
Alan B.

Is this guy for real?

Why should only citizens have the vote.
Why do you have to be over 18.
Why can’t I vote in American elections.
We shouldn’t vote on Brexit because future generations might disagree with our decision, but then again, they might not.

“democracy … protects the lower class against the excesses of any ruling minority. However this premise was recently proven wrong [in a] study … that showed democracy does not seem to have any significant effect on income inequality.”
So democracy is only good if it helps “the lower class” rip off the wealthier class to the degree that there is no longer income inequality?

Generally speaking those who complain about current democracies are really complaining that their point of view isn't given sufficent weight. "If only people thought and voted like me, then democracy would be much improved."

Its the authoritarian impulse trying to usurp democracy and wear its banners for their own aims.

The author thinks that those who oppose Trump are "a significant minority of people [who] behave rationally, gather data and vote with full information - the vulcans." These are the anti-Trump protestors,apparently. The Trumpites are hooligans and hobbits.

Now I'm sure the author considers himself to be a vulcan - who wouldn't? So its clear, apparently, that if only there were more peoplelike him, things would be much improved.

Of coarse this misunderstands the function and purposes of democracy entirely.

We see quite a number of OLO-ers who also constantly rage about how we haven't got a real democracy and it almost always comes down to them complaining that their opinions don't win. True democrats to a man <sarc off>.

A lot of this comes down to the fact that government and control thereof is much too consequential. Government is so big and has insinuated itself into so much of our lives, that the movement of a few percentage points of opinion has enormous consequences for people's futures, near and far term. Wouldst t'were is not so.

Democracy is about preserving liberty. It isn't the most efficent form of government. It doesn't provide stability. It protects liberty and through that, as Hayek opined, it promotes economic advancement.

We can fiddle with the institution here and there, but preservation of individual liberty against the vulcan wannabes is more important.

…and another thing.

I would suggest our professor be more discerning in his choice of a reference for declaring how democratic countries are. The Economist Intelligence Unit does NOT give its findings based strictly on objective criteria, ie, if universal franchise, one-person-one-vote, secret ballot, 3 yr terms or 10 year, electing the executive as well as the legislative, a free press, whether technically a party can lose the popular vote and still win the election, etc. Of the 60 questions it asks of all countries, to quote Wikipedia,
“Most answers are "experts' assessments"; the report does not indicate what kinds of experts, nor their number, nor whether the experts are employees of the Economist Intelligence Unit or independent scholars, nor the nationalities of the experts. Some answers are provided by public-opinion surveys from the respective countries. In the case of countries for which survey results are missing, survey results for similar countries and expert assessments are used in order to fill in gaps.

Hi Mr. Ed,

You ask, in turn:

"Why should only citizens have the vote."

There are perhaps four billion adults in the world. Are you suggesting that they all should vote in every election, everywhere ?

"Why do you have to be over 18."

Good question: should it be put up to 21, or 25 ? So that only mature adults can vote ?

"Why can’t I vote in American elections."

If you are an American, you can. If not, then no. See first question and answer.

You suggest: "We shouldn’t vote on Brexit because future generations might disagree with our decision, but then again, they might not."

Australians couldn't and didn't (except for dual citizens) vote on Brexit. Most of us are not British citizens. It was a British matter. But in a democracy, those who are citizens here and now can vote: when the next generations reach voting age, then they can vote on the issues of the day then. Yes, they may vote differently to the way we do now. That will be their democratic right.

I hope this helps.

[Don't you hate priggish posts ?]

Joe

I'll leave Edward the pleasure of making mince-meat of your misplaced sarcasm. But it'll be fun.

Priggish indeed.

What nobody can ever explain, is why everyone should have an equal "right" to vote themselves the fruits of their neighbour's labour.

"You can in fact argue that when there are massive demonstrations in the United States opposing a recently elected president, people are protesting against a dictatorship of hobbits and hooligans."

Only if you assume that the demonstrators were all vulcans - well-informed, sensible, rational, ethical persons.

One glance at the demonstrators will prove that this assumption - which the author himself regards as improbable - is wrong.

The more probable explanation is also the true one. We were witnessing mass demonstrations of high indignation and infantile rage of the parasite class when the tit is popped out of their mouth.

What the author is calling the vulcan class, pre-supposes the morality and legitimacy of democray - that a "right" is whatever the government says it is.

The Nazi totalitarians also claimed legitimacy through democratic elections. It is a little-known fact that the notorious 'Nuremberg defence' - 'just following orders' - was actually only one leg of their defence at the Nuremberg trials. It it is a subsidiary branch of their main defence, which is that a right is whatever the government says it is.

This is precisely the ethic presupposed by the author in his approval of the vulcans, and disapproval of the hobbits and hooligans. It is the ethic assumed by all defenders of democracy.

It is where we get such talk of the so-called "right" to kill an innocent human being, the "right" to threaten people with prison and rape to get what you want by violating their freedom and property, the "right" to "free" education, and "free" this-that-and-the-other.

Democracy is morally contemptible, but its one redeeming feature is that it gives us the occasional pleasure of seeing the elitist hypocrites and parasites get a good kick in the teeth like they deserve.

Joe / Loudmouth,
One often suspects that some posters only read the title to an article as well as the one line precise, and then go straight to the comments section.
Might this be you Joe for this article?
The three questions plus a statement were quotes from the illustrious professor, author of the article. Because they were paraphrased they were not in inverted commas.

So in fact, your sentiments are similar to mine with regards to what the author wrote.

B.T.W. You seemed to misinterpret the over 18 question. The claimant was protesting the age was too high, not too low. Shouldn’t the appropriate sarcastic response be, “Good question, let’s drop it down to 13 so all teenagers have an input on how the country is run.”

Hi Mr. Ed,

That's funny, I thought the country was already being run by a bunch of adolescents. Actually, I think the voting age should be put up to 25 or even 30, just for a while, and then carefully brought back down, in step with the reduction in GetUP! donations, to 21.

That should alienate pretty much everybody on OLO :)

Cheers,

Joe

One part brain, one part brain-fart.
That's how I'd sum this up.

The reason there is no real democracy is because there is no real balance of power.
If they make the rules for us, we should make the rules for them.
If they make their own rules, that's not democracy.

"You can in fact argue that when there are massive demonstrations in the United States opposing a recently elected president, people are protesting against a dictatorship of hobbits and hooligans."

Whining about Trump; that is actually democracy at work that you're complaining about, and I'd submit you dont have a clue what's really going on in regards to Trump and democracy.

"In fact, there is no reason why only citizens above 18 years of age should be allowed vote."
First you complain about uninformed voters, then you supporting them make up your mind.

"Pope Francis supported a “Yes” in the Colombian referendum. Since he is protected by dogma, he must be right."
Only a moron would listen to that globalist shill.

"Interestingly, we previously generally accepted that democracy is by nature redistributive, and therefore protects the lower class against the excesses of any ruling minority."

Why would we accept that; or is that what academics told us?
Why would we need to read an article from academics, to simply acknowledge that most high level members of government come from a University background which is usually 'left' in nature.
Is the sky blue?

"Therefore, we can only claim the triumph of democracy if we acknowledge the problems of any of the alternatives."

You must have a pea sized brain.
First you acknowledge it's pitfalls, now you're claiming its triumph.
If you want to judge democracy by it's merits, then look at the pro's and con's of democracy.

As in democracy allows a nation to be stripped of it's wealth by corporations.
Tell me one self-respecting dictator that would allow all his nations assets sold off.

Ironic, I never went to University.

All the self respecting dictators I ever heard of were just to busy stripping their nation's wealth for any multinational to get a look in, whereas we here in our so called democracy, are all but giving it away, with the only visible result the rich getting a tad richer and the gap between the haves and have nots just getting wider?

And could so much different, with everybody getting a larger slice from a larger pie, except the ever avaricious insatiable multinationals!
Alan B.

Hi AC,

"Therefore, we can only claim the triumph of democracy if we acknowledge the problems of any of the alternatives."

"You must have a pea sized brain.
"First you acknowledge it's pitfalls, now you're claiming its triumph.
If you want to judge democracy by it's merits, then look at the pro's and con's of democracy."

That's right, democracy is an imperfect system, and it will always be like that. There will never be perfect system, a Utopia, unless you count those self-proclaimed as such, such as fascism and socialism. All Utopias lead quickly to fascism, no matter what they're called.

The craving by many people for a 'strong leader', an 'autocrat', a dictator, is very worrying.

You remark: "Ironic, I never went to University."

No ! I don' believe it.

Joe