‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

hmmm · 26-10-2011 9:37pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So in other words, you're OK with politicians directly and knowingly lying to the public to trick them into giving them votes? You don't find that outrageous?

People lie and cheat, that's life. The nice thing about politicians is that you don't have to vote for them if you don't trust them.

A system where they know their lies will be published if put in writing, perhaps? A system wherein a politician can be penalized if it can be proven in writing that they knew what they were saying was untrue when they spoke to the media about a matter of public importance?

Oh god what sort of world are you advocating. I'm going to get smacked by the moderators, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect a teenager to say.

The general public had to put up with FF for two years after the bailout despite their shambolically low approval rating.

It's impractical to run a country on the basis of opinion polls. We'd have Sean Gallagher elected last week and thrown out of office this week.

I am calling for a mechanism for citizens to impeach a government. That does not mean elections every two weeks. That means that in extreme circumstances, the people, by referendum, can call for an election.

Grand. Go for it. Run on this as a platform, I've no objection to this and would probably vote for it. It doesn't require the complete collapse of our democracy.

More fool me? Do you think I'm a psychic? Did you know Gilmore had lied about this? IF so, how did you know?

I know nothing about Gilmore and whether he tells the truth or not. I knew enough not to vote for a party that promised sunshine and happiness and no pain for anyone except "the rich".

Where's the NAMA for people in negative equity?

You want renters to pay their landlords mortgage? Families who have lived in dingy rental accomodation because they didn't get themselves into massive debt will now be forced to pay for the D4 set who bought mansions they could never afford? You're as bad as developers looking for a bailout.

hmmm · 26-10-2011 9:40pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Imagine if Stalin had run on a platform you believed in, and then when in power it turned out it was all lies. Imagine he ran on a capitalist platform and then simply turned around and said "I'm in power now, I can do whatever I want, forget what I said before let's nationalize everything asap".
Are you saying that you'd resign yourself to his policies because you should have known better? You wouldn't fight to get rid of him? Seriously?

I'd have thought "hmmmmm, Stalin is promising wonderful things, I think I'll vote for him. I know he's murdered millions of people, but surely he wouldn't do something as awful as lying."

Suryavarman · 26-10-2011 9:40pm

davoxx wrote: »

some people do.
and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

People will be able to regularly study and become informed enough to vote on new pieces of legislation "quite quickly"? In the cases where they vote down legislation they will also be able to draw up their own pieces of legislation and offer them as an alternative, "quite quickly"? Most people are hardly bothered enough to inform themselves on tomorrows referendums and you expect them to inform themselves on a regular basis in order to take part in a participatory democracy?

hmmm · 26-10-2011 9:44pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most people are hardly bothered enough to inform themselves on tomorrows referendums and you expect them to inform themselves on a regular basis in order to take part in a participatory democracy?

The other downside is the Californian experience, where the electorate vote down any bill which involves raising taxes, yet will happily vote in endless entitlement programs or financial ringfences. As a result, the finances of that (very wealthy) state are in a dreadful mess with terrible impacts on the poor and public services.

hatrickpatrick · 26-10-2011 9:56pm

hmmm wrote: »

People lie and cheat, that's life.

People also rape and murder, that's life. Should we not bother punishing them for it?

The nice thing about politicians is that you don't have to vote for them if you don't trust them.

No but if you vote for them before you find out it was a lie, you have to put up with them for 5 years. There is no way to force them out unless they willingly resign.

Oh god what sort of world are you advocating. I'm going to get smacked by the moderators, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect a teenager to say.

How so? If someone holding a public office makes a statement to the public and it is later proven, in writing, that they knew the statement was false and deliberately mislead people anyway, there should be a serious penalty. If it happens say three times, the people should have the opportunity of a bye election - if they decide they don't care about those lies then can always vote the person back in.

It's impractical to run a country on the basis of opinion polls. We'd have Sean Gallagher elected last week and thrown out of office this week.

Agreed, but the public should have a way to impeach a government. Two million signatures maybe? That's just under half the population?

Grand. Go for it. Run on this as a platform, I've no objection to this and would probably vote for it. It doesn't require the complete collapse of our democracy.

1: I am not advocating the "complete collapse of our democracy", I am advocating for some reforms to be made to make it more democratic.

I know nothing about Gilmore and whether he tells the truth or not. I knew enough not to vote for a party that promised sunshine and happiness and no pain for anyone except "the rich".

Ok. Have a read of this then.
http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/07/08DUBLIN433.html

Gilmore, who has led calls against a second
referendum, has told the Embassy separately that he fully
expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in
¶2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a
second referendum as "politically necessary" for the time
being.

This is disgusting. Had I known this I wouldn't have voted for him. Now I have to put up with him for 5 years knowing I helped to put a manipulating liar in power. :mad:

You want renters to pay their landlords mortgage? Families who have lived in dingy rental accomodation because they didn't get themselves into massive debt will now be forced to pay for the D4 set who bought mansions they could never afford? You're as bad as developers looking for a bailout.

No I'm not, but I am saying all or nothing. Either we bail out people who made mistakes during the boom and are now in difficulty, or we don't. Bailing out one clique but not others is saying "this social group matters more than this one", and in an equal, democratic society that is unacceptable.

I'd like to get back on topic by the way, most of this debate is fine and interesting but with regard to my specific views on democracy perhaps that could unfold in a separate thread? We haven't spoken much about ODS over the last few pages, which is what I'm in this thread to support :P

hatrickpatrick · 26-10-2011 10:00pm

hmmm wrote: »

I'd have thought "hmmmmm, Stalin is promising wonderful things, I think I'll vote for him. I know he's murdered millions of people, but surely he wouldn't do something as awful as lying."

I'm talking about BEFORE he murdered anyone!!!

I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?

hmmm · 26-10-2011 10:03pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People also rape and murder, that's life. Should we not bother punishing them for it?

Comparing first Stalin, now rapists and murderers to a politician who, you think, didn't tell the full truth. Have problems with perspective much?

Agreed, but the public should have a way to impeach a government. Two million signatures maybe? That's just under half the population?

Perspective again. If you got 100,000 it'd be a miracle and would be about the right number.

1: I am not advocating the "complete collapse of our democracy", I am advocating for some reforms to be made to make it more democratic.

Yes you are. No you're not.

This is disgusting. Had I known this I wouldn't have voted for him. Now I have to put up with him for 5 years knowing I helped to put a manipulating liar in power. >:(

More fool you. Why is that anyone else's fault or problem except your own? Instead of trying to bring down Irish democracy and writing reams on forums, maybe you should go reflect on what caused you to vote for him in the first place and how you can avoid falling into that trap in the future.

No I'm not, but I am saying all or nothing.

:rolleyes:

hmmm · 26-10-2011 10:05pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?

No. Thankfully, I don't think Enda will end up murdering millions of people, but if he does, I hope you will remind me of this thread and my shameful involvement in it.

Godge · 27-10-2011 12:10am

davoxx wrote: »

some people do.
and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

...

This is hopelessly naive. I am familiar with legislation, particularly employment law, much more informed and understanding than the average person, yet I would find it extremely difficult to keep up with all of the legislation being published at the moment. To be honest, I have only read about four new Bills this year which is much less than the total being published. I would say there are very few in the general population who have read as many as that. Just take one out and read it, particularly a Bill that is amending an existing Act, where you have to have the previous Act to hand (as well as any other amendments that have happened in the meantime).

Godge · 27-10-2011 12:12am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm talking about BEFORE he murdered anyone!!!

I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?

But that has never happened in a true Western-style democracy and never would. It is like asking me will I vote for Spiderman in tomorrow's Presidential election - it has no basis in reality.

Bannasidhe · 27-10-2011 12:41am

Godge wrote: »

But that has never happened in a true Western-style democracy and never would. It is like asking me will I vote for Spiderman in tomorrow's Presidential election - it has no basis in reality.

Well, apart from the democratic elections which swept Herr Hitler to power in Germany in 1932...that would never happen...

hatrickpatrick · 27-10-2011 1:25am

hmmm wrote: »

Comparing first Stalin, now rapists and murderers to a politician who, you think, didn't tell the full truth. Have problems with perspective much?

They're analogies. You're telling me that some politicians are liars and we should just put up with it, I'm responding by saying that people do many other bad things, and when they do so, they are punished for it. Why should lying while making statements on matters of public importance from public offices be any different?

Perspective again. If you got 100,000 it'd be a miracle and would be about the right number.

So you're suggesting 100,000 people should be able to impeach a government? Ironically, here's where we switch roles, I think it should be a lot higher than that. However, numbers aside, you agree with the principle that the people should have the power to do this? That's participatory democracy right there. Precisely the kind of thing I'm arguing for, and in line with ODS' fourth demand.

Yes you are. No you're not.

....Any plans to back this up? I'm advocating an overhaul of how the system works, not the end of democracy. These strawmans are absolutely ridiculous tbqf.

More fool you. Why is that anyone else's fault or problem except your own? Instead of trying to bring down Irish democracy and writing reams on forums, maybe you should go reflect on what caused you to vote for him in the first place and how you can avoid falling into that trap in the future.

:rolleyes:

I voted for him because I liked his policies and I felt that FG needed to be tamed a little in power, a single party majority government would be too dangerous in my view.

However, I categorically would not have voted for him had I known he blatantly and deliberately mislead me and others solely for the purposes of tricking us into voting for him. How are you ok with that kind of behaviour?

davoxx · 27-10-2011 11:09am

Godge wrote: »

This is hopelessly naive. I am familiar with legislation, particularly employment law, much more informed and understanding than the average person, yet I would find it extremely difficult to keep up with all of the legislation being published at the moment. To be honest, I have only read about four new Bills this year which is much less than the total being published. I would say there are very few in the general population who have read as many as that. Just take one out and read it, particularly a Bill that is amending an existing Act, where you have to have the previous Act to hand (as well as any other amendments that have happened in the meantime).

does that not tell you that it is needlessly complicated?

i know that a lot of the road traffic act and the rules of the road is rubbish and useless, obvious written by and for someone who has no idea of driving ... would the input of all drives help make i better? and would people actually know it better if they could influence it, i honestly don't know, but it can't be worse than it is now ...

people who have an interest in something will be able to have an input, and people who don't care will waste theirs ...

davoxx · 27-10-2011 11:14am

Suryavarman wrote: »

People will be able to regularly study and become informed enough to vote on new pieces of legislation "quite quickly"? In the cases where they vote down legislation they will also be able to draw up their own pieces of legislation and offer them as an alternative, "quite quickly"? Most people are hardly bothered enough to inform themselves on tomorrows referendums and you expect them to inform themselves on a regular basis in order to take part in a participatory democracy?

you are missing the point. speed is not the issue, doing it right is.

if they are or are not able to study it .. it is no difference to having elected minsters who have not studied it either, just that the majority will have collective wisdom, instead of the minister have personal interest.

if people don't want to, just like those that do not vote, that is up to them.

will we have stupidity ruling the masses? maybe, but we would still have checks in place, supreme court, president, who could check the decisions, just not make them ...

Shakeyspears · 27-10-2011 11:18am

Couldn't agree more with OP. It is a group of people with a lot of nice ideas but they don't seem to have an iota in regards to what is going on and what is achievable.

€20 billion deficit every year and they want the ECB and the IMF to hightail it out of here or "we will sit in this spot until you do"...... If they want to make a difference, get a job, pay your taxes and encourage everyone else to do the same.

ed2hands · 27-10-2011 11:32am

Shakeyspears wrote: »

If they want to make a difference, get a job, pay your taxes and encourage everyone else to do the same.

Get a job? You're assuming they're all unemployed, which is your first mistake.
You're also assuming there are jobs for everyone, which is not quite true is it?

I personally think they're already making a difference. They're creating and doing something positive; getting people talking and discussing the issues and therefore spreading awareness. Fair play to 'em!

Scofflaw · 27-10-2011 11:53am

davoxx wrote: »

does that not tell you that it is needlessly complicated?

i know that a lot of the road traffic act and the rules of the road is rubbish and useless, obvious written by and for someone who has no idea of driving ... would the input of all drives help make i better? and would people actually know it better if they could influence it, i honestly don't know, but it can't be worse than it is now ...

people who have an interest in something will be able to have an input, and people who don't care will waste theirs ...

Unfortunately, the experience of public consultations is that very few people care sufficiently to make a contribution. The consultation on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, for example, which is apparently supposed to be a burning issue, generated something like 300 citizen submissions across the whole half a billion citizens of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear · 27-10-2011 11:58am

This post has been deleted.

davoxx · 27-10-2011 12:24pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

don't look down on taxi drivers, they are just making small talk :pac:

it may have been the national conversation, but now everyone if forced to address it, some dismiss it, some start debating it, some just listen ....

that is the difference between a few lads in the pub whining, and those lads then setting up camp outside and sticking through to it ...

davoxx · 27-10-2011 12:28pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Unfortunately, the experience of public consultations is that very few people care sufficiently to make a contribution. The consultation on the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy, for example, which is apparently supposed to be a burning issue, generated something like 300 citizen submissions across the whole half a billion citizens of Europe.

cordially,
Scofflaw

that is not true, a lot of the time their views are dismissed as either "uneducated nonsense" or "unrealistic answers" in face of a "consultant" who happens to be a friend/family-member of the minister with ties to certain businesses/industries ... it's hardly surprising the decisions made given the conflict on interest?

Shakeyspears · 27-10-2011 12:30pm

ed2hands wrote: »

Get a job? You're assuming they're all unemployed, which is your first mistake.
You're also assuming there are jobs for everyone, which is not quite true is it?

I personally think they're already making a difference. They're creating and doing something positive; getting people talking and discussing the issues and therefore spreading awareness. Fair play to 'em!

They aren't all unemployed but if you intend on staying there until something changes your are making a silly mistake job or not. They aren't even at the right building for goodness sake. It isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Maybe, I'm wrong in this but I'm sure there are a lot of very qualified people there. I'd imagine there is a large contingent of qualified ex-students who can't get a job in their field. I have a lot of sympathy for them but if they want to make a really difference; take a minimum wage job, take any job. Get of the dole so we can use the extra money in revenue to work towards getting our deficit down.

Waiting around and chanting. You have more hope of bringing forth the foul beast Cthulhu than changing the country. If you don't want to take a minimum wage job then carve out a job in the industry of your choice. Don't sit in the street and refuse to move until someone gives you one.

If you think that by doing that you are making a change then perhaps there is a reason you are unemployed.

steve9859 · 27-10-2011 1:15pm

Shakeyspears wrote: »

They aren't all unemployed but if you intend on staying there until something changes your are making a silly mistake job or not. They aren't even at the right building for goodness sake. It isn't going to make a blind bit of difference.

Maybe, I'm wrong in this but I'm sure there are a lot of very qualified people there. I'd imagine there is a large contingent of qualified ex-students who can't get a job in their field. I have a lot of sympathy for them but if they want to make a really difference; take a minimum wage job, take any job. Get of the dole so we can use the extra money in revenue to work towards getting our deficit down.

Waiting around and chanting. You have more hope of bringing forth the foul beast Cthulhu than changing the country. If you don't want to take a minimum wage job then carve out a job in the industry of your choice. Don't sit in the street and refuse to move until someone gives you one.

If you think that by doing that you are making a change then perhaps there is a reason you are unemployed.

I agree that sitting in the street is just not the way to achieve anything. And ironically, the longer it goes on, I think the more people will become completely oblivious to the camp. I go past the St Paul's camp in London on the way to work, and it is becoming so familiar, that I am starting to not really notice it any more. And the only thing they are achieving so far is fighting with the people that run the Cathedral!!

stackerman · 27-10-2011 1:30pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

:rolleyes: who are the most senior counsel that she went to? did she pay them? why not produce their opinions that say that the courts would tie them up? who is her instructing solicitor?

I've read all this thread, and quite frankly I'm tired of the negative comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4klALeFpvc

I know that woman, and for the record

- Yes she did go to counsel
- Yes she did pay, despite the fact that she like the rest of the country, is struggling to make a living. Counsel gave the advice, but are are not willing to take it further (I'll let you figure the reason out yourself, not hard)
I personally don't care if you believe that or not, and I'm not going to debate this with you, I am telling you this as FACT. Not all people have agendas, or are full of s€&t.
I have no involvement in/with the Dame St protest.

Suryavarman · 27-10-2011 3:28pm

davoxx wrote: »

you are missing the point. speed is not the issue, doing it right is.

You're the one that brought up speed.

if they are or are not able to study it .. it is no difference to having elected minsters who have not studied it either, just that the majority will have collective wisdom, instead of the minister have personal interest.

if people don't want to, just like those that do not vote, that is up to them.

The majority is only going to have collective wisdom if the majority reads and understands the bill. I personally have more faith in somebody that is paid to read and understand these bills than hundreds of thousands of people that have plenty of better things to be doing with their time making a correct decision.

will we have stupidity ruling the masses? maybe, but we would still have checks in place, supreme court, president, who could check the decisions, just not make them ...

Why do we need a supreme court or a president to check the decisions? Surely the collective wisdom of people would be able to check the bills themselves.

FreudianSlippers · 27-10-2011 3:42pm

keving wrote: »

I've read all this thread, and quite frankly I'm tired of the negative comments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4klALeFpvc

I know that woman, and for the record

- Yes she did go to counsel
- Yes she did pay, despite the fact that she like the rest of the country, is struggling to make a living. Counsel gave the advice, but are are not willing to take it further (I'll let you figure the reason out yourself, not hard)
I personally don't care if you believe that or not, and I'm not going to debate this with you, I am telling you this as FACT. Not all people have agendas, or are full of s€&t.
I have no involvement in/with the Dame St protest.

You cannot "go to counsel" - it's against the bar council rules and regulations.

If she did go via a solicitor, I'd like to see her proof that they said she can take a case but it would get nowhere.
As the court lists are at the moment, it may take time to get her case going but her claim of years is exaggerated.

davoxx · 27-10-2011 4:32pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're the one that brought up speed.

ahh, yeah that's about physical time in doing something, like voting or reading up on a topic as opposed to time to prepare the legislation or whatnot.

if it takes longer because more people are interested, that seems like a win to me.

but i don't think it will consume a persons life, is the point i meant about time.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The majority is only going to have collective wisdom if the majority reads and understands the bill. I personally have more faith in somebody that is paid to read and understand these bills than hundreds of thousands of people that have plenty of better things to be doing with their time making a correct decision.

i dont' people that are paid, general don't care ... people that want to do it of their own vocation do (that is a generalisation)

as an example, the people paid for the luas, the regulation of banks, etc ... they all failed
so just because you pay for a service does not mean it will be done right.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Why do we need a supreme court or a president to check the decisions? Surely the collective wisdom of people would be able to check the bills themselves.

a fail safe is always good.
the supreme court, to make sure it does not infringe on peoples rights (we currently have it that way)
the president as they'd have better dealing with other countries and can give feedback from that aspect.
we could bypass their decision, but having a fail safe is always a good idea.

Suryavarman · 27-10-2011 4:40pm

davoxx wrote: »

i dont' people that are paid, general don't care ... people that want to do it of their own vocation do (that is a generalisation)

People that are paid to do something, generally do care as they want to keep getting paid.

as an example, the people paid for the luas, the regulation of banks, etc ... they all failed
so just because you pay for a service does not mean it will be done right.

Doesn't the Luas make a profit?

You also seem to be forgetting that the people that paid for these things aren't the ones that spent money on these things.

a fail safe is always good.
the supreme court, to make sure it does not infringe on peoples rights (we currently have it that way)
the president as they'd have better dealing with other countries and can give feedback from that aspect.
we could bypass their decision, but having a fail safe is always a good idea.

So people should just be able to vote away other peoples rights because it suits them?

Scofflaw · 27-10-2011 4:58pm

So people should just be able to vote away other peoples rights because it suits them?

Are we not voting on exactly that today?

cordially,
Scofflaw

davoxx · 27-10-2011 5:10pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

So people should just be able to vote away other peoples rights because it suits them?

suits who? everyone sure why not .. we do that when children are involved do we not?

but the point was, which you missed, that having a fail safe is good.

i'm not saying it has to be implemented this way, i'm just saying it is possible and would not require people giving up all their free time to participate in "running" the country as such.

hatrickpatrick · 27-10-2011 7:40pm

hmmm wrote: »

No. Thankfully, I don't think Enda will end up murdering millions of people, but if he does, I hope you will remind me of this thread and my shameful involvement in it.

Is your response of "No" an indication that you agree with me on the concept that a government shouldn't be able to abandon its mandate without a further election?

hmmm · 27-10-2011 8:18pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is your response of "No" an indication that you agree with me on the concept that a government shouldn't be able to abandon its mandate without a further election?

It was a "no" to your ludicrous suggestion that the people could vote in a Stalin without being aware of the consequences. Stalin was not elected in a democracy. People sometimes forget that Hitler fulfilled the mandate that got him elected.

I've already said I agree with your point that the citizenry should be able to recall a government in extreme circumstances. I know you only invented that point yesterday, but nevertheless it is nice to hear an argument, any argument. I'm just not that interested in bringing down the entire Irish democratic state for what is a simple constitutional point.

hmmm · 27-10-2011 8:23pm

davoxx wrote: »

but the point was, which you missed, that having a fail safe is good.

If your doctor gives you a recommendation to address a sore toe, do you spend several years studying medicine to decide whether you agree with his recommendation or not? Before you board a plane do you spend time pouring over schematics and flight manuals to decide whether you're happy with the pilots decisions?

The modern world is built on delegation, politics is no different. You're asking an entire populace to instead educate themselves to a level that would allow them understand and adequately decide on potentially complex legislation which is ridiculous. We'll end up with another x-factor election, like most of our referendums have been recently where few understand the issue and people are making decisions based on who said what.

TheRealPONeil · 27-10-2011 8:25pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

.... It's a typical Irish version of an international protest, with all the meaningful content replaced with some kind of ignorant whinge - a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

It's only better than nothing if you've nothing better to do.

regards,
Scofflaw

I'm a cynical crank too,
Can I have 39 "thanks" ??

ei.sdraob · 27-10-2011 8:41pm

hmmm wrote: »

If your doctor gives you a recommendation to address a sore toe, do you spend several years studying medicine to decide whether you agree with his recommendation or not? Before you board a plane do you spend time pouring over schematics and flight manuals to decide whether you're happy with the pilots decisions?

The modern world is built on delegation, politics is no different. You're asking an entire populace to instead educate themselves to a level that would allow them understand and adequately decide on potentially complex legislation which is ridiculous. We'll end up with another x-factor election, like most of our referendums have been recently where few understand the issue and people are making decisions based on who said what.

There are plenty of threads on direct democracy in the politics theory forums, maybe the occupy protesters could read then while camping out

steve9859 · 27-10-2011 8:42pm

hmmm wrote: »

If your doctor gives you a recommendation to address a sore toe, do you spend several years studying medicine to decide whether you agree with his recommendation or not? Before you board a plane do you spend time pouring over schematics and flight manuals to decide whether you're happy with the pilots decisions?

The modern world is built on delegation, politics is no different. You're asking an entire populace to instead educate themselves to a level that would allow them understand and adequately decide on potentially complex legislation which is ridiculous. We'll end up with another x-factor election, like most of our referendums have been recently where few understand the issue and people are making decisions based on who said what.

Absolutely. And every decision in a 'participatory democracy' would be populist. There would be no mechanism by which difficult decisions could be taken, like raising taxes in a boom. It would effectively be Bertie Ahern policy, but worse, and reached in a long winded way!

Suryavarman · 27-10-2011 10:21pm

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are we not voting on exactly that today?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sadly we are, hopefully neither pass but I feel there is a chance both could. I personally believe we should require a larger majority of the vote before the constitution can be amended.

davoxx wrote: »

suits who? everyone sure why not .. we do that when children are involved do we not?

I hope you'll have the same attitude if someday people decide to vote away your rights.

When do we vote away other peoples rights when children are involved?

but the point was, which you missed, that having a fail safe is good.

Not giving people a chance to vote away peoples rights is better again.

i'm not saying it has to be implemented this way, i'm just saying it is possible and would not require people giving up all their free time to participate in "running" the country as such.

If people are going to be running the country they are either going to have to give up their job or give up their free time. Politicians work full time for a reason.

hatrickpatrick · 27-10-2011 11:52pm

hmmm wrote: »

It was a "no" to your ludicrous suggestion that the people could vote in a Stalin without being aware of the consequences. Stalin was not elected in a democracy. People sometimes forget that Hitler fulfilled the mandate that got him elected.

I've already said I agree with your point that the citizenry should be able to recall a government in extreme circumstances. I know you only invented that point yesterday, but nevertheless it is nice to hear an argument, any argument. I'm just not that interested in bringing down the entire Irish democratic state for what is a simple constitutional point.

Just in my defense here, I didn't just invent it yesterday, I've been arguing for it on Boards for a good few years, I think since just before Lisbon II :P

Could I develop this a little more if you don't mind?
What about a single TD rather than impeaching an entire government? If a massive scandal breaks about a TD and you can again get the consensus of a high enough percentage of his or her constituency, should a bye election be able to be called for?
Note that I would never suggest that the impeached candidate not be allowed to run in the bye election - if the people decided it wasn't a big deal, they could simply vote that person back in.

What say you? Or if you have a similar, better idea what kind of form could it take?

I'm basically talking about participatory democracy in the form of higher accountability. The status quo where a government can run on any mandate and completely ignore it, and then the people are totally powerless to stop a train wreck in progress, is a bit mad.

Anita M. · 28-10-2011 12:24am

I read from their site that the banks will be taking more from the government on Saturday? Do not really grasp it. Can anyone explain?
http://www.occupydamestreet.org/

Godge · 28-10-2011 12:26am

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, apart from the democratic elections which swept Herr Hitler to power in Germany in 1932...that would never happen...

Hitler did not win the election in 1932.

What happened in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s is very chilling in its parallels. Hitler built up a protest movement in the 1920s around the idea that the little man got screwed while the elite got away with everything with a little bit of anti-immigration built in. With his mob sitting outside the Central Bank Reichstag in 1932, he claimed victory even though he did not have a majority. To the great delight of the unwashed mob that brought him to power, he then eliminated the elite, thus removing all opposition (echoes of the nobody in politics can be trusted rhetoric of the neo-fascists outside the Central Bank today). That allowed him to insert his own security force (giving power back to the people, where did I hear that recently) and policies descending Germany into the Dark Ages.

Thankfully, the mob at the Central Bank does not appear to be as organised as the Hitler mobs but some of their demands such as let us default on our debts (Versailles payments) and take back our oil (give Germany back to the Germans) are eerily and chillingly similar to the early demands of Hitler's party.

Anita M. · 28-10-2011 12:53am

Apples and pears godge. This seems to be a lot of people who are dismayed at the banks and government, not affiliated with politics or anything.
Where as hitler, well see this link perhaps? Somewhere in the middle of it, or search for a link?
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/128/215-med-revolutions-tyrants-and-wars/

CrystalLettuce · 28-10-2011 3:19am

Godge wrote: »

Hitler did not win the election in 1932.

What happened in Germany in the late 1920s and early 1930s is very chilling in its parallels. Hitler built up a protest movement in the 1920s around the idea that the little man got screwed while the elite got away with everything with a little bit of anti-immigration built in. With his mob sitting outside the Central Bank Reichstag in 1932, he claimed victory even though he did not have a majority. To the great delight of the unwashed mob that brought him to power, he then eliminated the elite, thus removing all opposition (echoes of the nobody in politics can be trusted rhetoric of the neo-fascists outside the Central Bank today). That allowed him to insert his own security force (giving power back to the people, where did I hear that recently) and policies descending Germany into the Dark Ages.

Thankfully, the mob at the Central Bank does not appear to be as organised as the Hitler mobs but some of their demands such as let us default on our debts (Versailles payments) and take back our oil (give Germany back to the Germans) are eerily and chillingly similar to the early demands of Hitler's party.

The problem with this is that any sort of movement against corporate greed and political corruption taking much the same for, would look like this regardless. And is automatically the new Nazis. So who are the good guys exactly? What's the right thing to do? The "Little bit of immigration fear" isn't there. If you talked to any of the people at these camps you would see they're clearly not fascists of any kind. They're nearly all social liberals which makes the comparison completely redundant, since the issue with fascism and Hitler's national socialism was that it was a kind of extreme social conservatism.

Please go over these ideas before you embarrass yourself by posting them.

CrystalLettuce · 28-10-2011 3:25am

Scofflaw wrote: »

...a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

What saddens me here is that the time to protest about the folly of the system was during the Celtic Tiger, but the only protests during the Tiger years were by people looking to get yet more money. Standing at the graveside roaring and shouting about how it died and how we don't want to pay the death duties is largely meaningless.

cordially,
Scofflaw

That in no way invalidates the protests that are going on now. It would be far worse is that even AFTER all that, people STILL didn't protest. It'd be very "Irish". And even the protests we do have are small.

There were plenty of people against deregulation, who are probably largely the kind of people you'll see at these amps. The issue is that the corruption has gotten to a grander scale than before and is seriously affecting the quality of people's lives.

You can't expect everyone to be politically/economically savvy enough to know things would turn out like this.

CrystalLettuce · 28-10-2011 3:27am

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

And what about people that can't? It's not a case of "everyone" here. People on the bottom rungs have no choice but to demand more. People on the top do not need as much. The equation is pretty simple.

CrystalLettuce · 28-10-2011 3:31am

What I hate about threads like this is the nasty comments and general attitude towards protesters, and those on the left in general(though not all protesters are necessarily left). A lot of these people with snarkily complain that someone like me is somehow oppressing their opinion, when it's not so much about that as the inherent lack of respect and general underlying malice to most of their posting.

It's why I can't stand the right wingers on this board. It's one thing if I don't agree with them, conversation can be had. But some of the off-hand remarks do nothing but spur further hatred. They are just nasty people, and I think we need to stop writing off our social and moral character as something that's political and can therefore be excused.

Regardless of whether they're right or wrong - most of these protestors have a genuine will to help people, and at least when they're out doing their thing, don't fall back on the same lazy archetypes(or rather don't rely on them) as the right wingers do here. I'm sure someone will come up with a clever response to that though, and a bunch of obnoxious "Conservative Libertarians" will like it, and won't listen to my point elaborating on it, and that's part of the problem too.

The thing I hate the most about those moaning about the protesters, and again the right on this board is this idea that they're somehow more mature than the lefties, when all they're doing is throwing out childish insults and poor logic. If you dress a twat up in a suit, he's still a twat. Putting on the illusion of maturity does not mean you are mature.

Though their "opinion" is mostly formed on that, and their sense of privilege in the first place, so perhaps you can't distinct the two to that extent.

PeadarCo · 28-10-2011 7:40am

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

What I hate about threads like this is the nasty comments and general attitude towards protesters, and those on the left in general(though not all protesters are necessarily left). A lot of these people with snarkily complain that someone like me is somehow oppressing their opinion, when it's not so much about that as the inherent lack of respect and general underlying malice to most of their posting.

It's why I can't stand the right wingers on this board. It's one thing if I don't agree with them, conversation can be had. But some of the off-hand remarks do nothing but spur further hatred. They are just nasty people, and I think we need to stop writing off our social and moral character as something that's political and can therefore be excused.

Regardless of whether they're right or wrong - most of these protestors have a genuine will to help people, and at least when they're out doing their thing, don't fall back on the same lazy archetypes(or rather don't rely on them) as the right wingers do here. I'm sure someone will come up with a clever response to that though, and a bunch of obnoxious "Conservative Libertarians" will like it, and won't listen to my point elaborating on it, and that's part of the problem too.

The thing I hate the most about those moaning about the protesters, and again the right on this board is this idea that they're somehow more mature than the lefties, when all they're doing is throwing out childish insults and poor logic. If you dress a twat up in a suit, he's still a twat. Putting on the illusion of maturity does not mean you are mature.

Though their "opinion" is mostly formed on that, and their sense of privilege in the first place, so perhaps you can't distinct the two to that extent.

The problem is even though the protesters have a genuine will to help people their solutions don't seem to me at least to be grounded in reality and would end up hurting the people who thay claim to support. They seem to be just angry and shouting impossible and contradictory statements. Also I don't think just because you are angry you have a right to do anything. An example being just because you are angry with a person not matter how justifibly you can't kill them. And secondly why didn't they stand for election in March and if they did they were rejected. So some of them a least seem to be ignoring or refusing to take part in the democratic proccess we have in this country. That process may not be perfect but at least under the system we have it is relativly easy for an independent to be elected. Also given that the majority of people seem to support the current democratic proccess I don't think it is suprising that they would take a dim view to people who are ignoring it especially given some of the demands the protesters are making.

Permabear · 28-10-2011 10:00am

This post has been deleted.

davoxx · 28-10-2011 10:21am

hmmm wrote: »

If your doctor gives you a recommendation to address a sore toe, do you spend several years studying medicine to decide whether you agree with his recommendation or not?

i weigh it against my common knowledge and will consult a second opinion if i need to.
unfortunately for you, i have more medical knowledge than most gps, because they were so crap that i needed to educate meyself. there are A LOT of bad incompetent doctors ... that is a different rant though

but if a doctor said "mmh sore toe, drink 3l of horse piss and squeeze a lemon on your toe, 50 euro" would you go .. "sure i don't want to think about it myself and even read up about my own body ... because it would take time and i don't want to." and then after your toe rots off, would you be happy? you paid for his opinion so it can't be wrong is your argument.

hmmm wrote: »

Before you board a plane do you spend time pouring over schematics and flight manuals to decide whether you're happy with the pilots decisions?

i would, it is known that several airlines had flown dangerously just to make money ... insurance companies and regulation have helped put an end to that, but there are times when i've thought "they really should have known better"

so if you're boarding the plane and you can smell fuel and you see sparks from the engine, do you say, "gee whizz i don't know nothin about these here planes, but i lets the pilot fly so its okay, shucks" and not raise it immediately?

we all have to think for ourselves, even if we really are to lazy to ...

hmmm wrote: »

You're asking an entire populace to instead educate themselves to a level that would allow them understand and adequately decide on potentially complex legislation which is ridiculous.

why is it ridiculous, don't people live under them? they understand real world implications better than anyone else ... remember the 30km limit on the quays? that could have done with more input ...

hmmm wrote: »

We'll end up with another x-factor election, like most of our referendums have been recently where few understand the issue and people are making decisions based on who said what.

end up with? we already have x-factor elections ... there are stupid people, and yet they can still vote so your point is null and void here.
having to spend time and effort will remove the lazy, and having active debates will educate them.

hmmm wrote: »

The modern world is built on delegation, politics is no different.

it is always the modern world ... things change and we aim to change for the better.

davoxx · 28-10-2011 10:24am

Suryavarman wrote: »

I hope you'll have the same attitude if someday people decide to vote away your rights.

we already have for a lot of things ...

and my attitude is irrelevant, if i don't want it i would participate in it, as opposed to now when it is just passed and i'm left wondering why.

Suryavarman wrote: »

When do we vote away other peoples rights when children are involved?

we did not vote them away, laws are passed and we loose them ... like having your children taken away from you ...

(though i think the referendum on children being born in the state was one example where we did)

Suryavarman wrote: »

If people are going to be running the country they are either going to have to give up their job or give up their free time. Politicians work full time for a reason.

that's not true. have you given up your job to reply on boards? have you given up some free time .. yes
if you don't want to 'waste'' your free time, why spend it on boards arguing against doing so?

Suryavarman wrote: »

Politicians work full time for a reason.

coz they can't do anything else? coz the kickbacks are fecking excellent? coz you get paid more that a qualified doctor?, coz it is a clique and they would fail in real life, where results are expected? then pension?

Godge · 28-10-2011 10:38am

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

The problem with this is that any sort of movement against corporate greed and political corruption taking much the same for, would look like this regardless. And is automatically the new Nazis. So who are the good guys exactly? What's the right thing to do? The "Little bit of immigration fear" isn't there. If you talked to any of the people at these camps you would see they're clearly not fascists of any kind. They're nearly all social liberals which makes the comparison completely redundant, since the issue with fascism and Hitler's national socialism was that it was a kind of extreme social conservatism.

Please go over these ideas before you embarrass yourself by posting them.

Read my post. I never ever said that there was a little bit of anti-immigration mixed in the Central Bank protests, I said it was there in the very early stages of the rise of Hitler (that later developed into something much much worse). The anti-foreigner parallel with the Central Bank protests is the anti-EU/IMF rhetoric, the people who have come to our rescue, they are the bad foreigners now being villified as well as the accusation that we have given away our oil and gas resources. Like it or not, there is an anti-foreigner undertone to the Central Bank protests albeit to German and French bondholders as well as foreign oil companies.

The main parallel I was drawing was between the post-Versailles situation whereby Germany was paying vast reparations to the Allied powers that were holding back its own economy and Hitler's movement started with a demand for the reparations to stop. Today, the case being made by the protesters is that we are paying vast money back to foreign (German and French in particular) bondholders and have handed away our oil and gas with our economy suffering as a result of both. The demand now is that we should stop paying the foreign bondholders. If you cannot see the similarities.......

Hitler also eschewed the democratic process, using demonstrations and protests as a means to spread his views, all the while maintaining an anti-Government and anti-reparations rhetoric. His movement also failed to garner support in early democratic elections (parallels with the failure of ULA and SF to capitalise on anti-government sentiment in the last election) and resorted to street protests instead.

So, to sum up, I am saying there are parallels between the picture painted by Hitler's movement in the early 1920s (long before his rise to power in the 1930s) and the picture painted by the Central Bank protests. It is far too early to say if the Central Bank protests could develop in the same way - Hitler's own personality played a major role and the hyperinflation economic shocks of the time were greater than those we face today.

Many think we are repeating the economic mistakes of the post-Wall Street crash 1929, let us make sure that we do not make the same political mistakes. The way to do that is to stay within the legitimate democratic processes that work (the FF government was thrown out, remember) and stay away from mob rule through protest and demonstration.

Godge · 28-10-2011 10:47am

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

What I hate about threads like this is the nasty comments and general attitude towards protesters, and those on the left in general(though not all protesters are necessarily left). A lot of these people with snarkily complain that someone like me is somehow oppressing their opinion, when it's not so much about that as the inherent lack of respect and general underlying malice to most of their posting.

It's why I can't stand the right wingers on this board. It's one thing if I don't agree with them, conversation can be had. But some of the off-hand remarks do nothing but spur further hatred. They are just nasty people, and I think we need to stop writing off our social and moral character as something that's political and can therefore be excused.

Regardless of whether they're right or wrong - most of these protestors have a genuine will to help people, and at least when they're out doing their thing, don't fall back on the same lazy archetypes(or rather don't rely on them) as the right wingers do here. I'm sure someone will come up with a clever response to that though, and a bunch of obnoxious "Conservative Libertarians" will like it, and won't listen to my point elaborating on it, and that's part of the problem too.

The thing I hate the most about those moaning about the protesters, and again the right on this board is this idea that they're somehow more mature than the lefties, when all they're doing is throwing out childish insults and poor logic. If you dress a twat up in a suit, he's still a twat. Putting on the illusion of maturity does not mean you are mature.

Though their "opinion" is mostly formed on that, and their sense of privilege in the first place, so perhaps you can't distinct the two to that extent.

Given your response to some of my posts, you are probably including me in your list of right-wingers.

I am surprised to be the subject of hatred, it is not a word I associate with political debate. I may dislike or reject an idea but I have respect for those who genuinely hold opinions. So while I may disagree with the likes of Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd-Barrett, I respect them because I accept that they genuinely believe what they stand for (in contrast I would have little respect for Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness, FF politicians and David Norris).

Using language such as hatred for people who hold certain views is a dangerous road to go down.

As for the protesters, most of them have a genuine anger but instead of respecting the democratic processes of the country, they are throwing the toys out of the pram and ignoring the democratic will of the people as expressed in the recent general election. They also appear to have been subverted by serial protesters as evidenced by the few demands they have made to date.

‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

Comments