Chewing Gum Levy

aodh_rua

There's been a lot of discussion lately about introducing a levy on chewing gum to pay for cleaning up our streets. Frankly - I think its about time something was done but what does everyone else think.

I do see one main problem with the levy idea. There is no cheap way to clean up the chewing gum on pavements so a levy probably wouldn't work. Maybe we could adopt the Singapore solution and ban gum altogether.

Any thoughts???

Imposter

There's been a few opinions here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105503

ReefBreak

There was some graffiti in Hogan's Pub (Dublin) a while back which stated: .

Why do we litter our City?

(A grafitti artist with a conscience). Next to it was a "reply":

"We" don't - the skangers do.

I believe this is generally true. Anyway, I agree with the chewing gum tax - but an extra measure would be to ban the sale of gum to anyone either wearing a Celtic shirt, possessing a ridiculous pubic moustache or owning drainpipe-style jeans, i.e skangers

Turnip

LOL. Just lace the chewing gum with arsenic. Solve the scanger problem overnight.

Saruman

I think all the points are great.. i dont use gum anyway and if i do i always keep the wrapper and put the used gum in that and then in a bin.. or i keep it in my mouth till i find a bin.. i see no reason why no one else can do this.

aodh_rua

Originally posted by Saruman
I think all the points are great.. i dont use gum anyway and if i do i always keep the wrapper and put the used gum in that and then in a bin.. or i keep it in my mouth till i find a bin.. i see no reason why no one else can do this.

Same here Saruman - I mean how difficult is it to do just that? Then again - what about people throwing rubbish out of their car. What's so urgent that it can't be taken home and disposed of properly.

And then there's cigarette butts!!!!

Annasopra

Here's some suggestions for keeping the streets clean:

1. Employ a lot more litter wardens
2. Increase the on the spot fines
3. Put a tax on takeaway food after 9pm

skipn_easy

I'd be quite happy with a chewing gum levy, but I don't know if it will make any difference to the streets. I'd imagine that the same people will throw their gum on the streets, and the money won't get used as its supposed to.

Employ a lot more litter wardens

Could they be given the authority to give on-the-spot fines as well?

Increase the on the spot fines

Actually enforce the on-the-spot fines? I have never seen anyone being fined for littering on the streets or from throwing rubbish out of cars - you just couldn't get away with that kind of behaviour in other countries. Society needs to change its attitude to littering as well - people are too tolerant of the state of the streets.

More bins on streets would be a good idea as well, so that you could actually put your gum in a bin... i have walked along plenty of streets in dublin that do not have any rubbish bins at all on them - and if there is a bin it is often overflowing.

Imposter

Originally posted by Johnnymcg
Here's some suggestions for keeping the streets clean:
...
3. Put a tax on takeaway food after 9pm

Why?
Eliminating environmentally unfriendly packaging is one thing but taxing something because of some peoples irresponsibility and immaturity is not an answer. Many people dispose of waste properly while a minority don't. Why tax everyone who eats fast food rather than just taxing/fining the wrong doers and attempting to change their attitudes.

What if undercover litter wardens were placed outside fast food outlets at 12-4am for a while (obviously with gardai in tow!). Issue high fines and i'll bet this sort of littering will be drastically reduced. Same goes for all littering. Target the right places at the right times and joe public should get the message pretty quick.

The Corinthian

I chewed a lot of gum when I quit smoking.

Were I a cynical sort, I'd think that the government is juts looking to claw back some of the tobacco tax they're going to lose out on with people quitting next year when/if the smoking ban in pubs kicks in... :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Johnnymcg
1. Employ a lot more litter wardens
2. Increase the on the spot fines
3. Put a tax on takeaway food after 9pm

It never ceases to amuse me the number of knee-jerk “more police on the streets” suggestions that seek to impose a quick fix solution to complex problems, you get on these boards.

Probably an accurate reflection of Society and why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea...

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
It never ceases to amuse me the number of knee-jerk “more police on the streets” suggestions that seek to impose a quick fix solution to complex problems, you get on these boards.

Well at least it's better than what you suggest, which is a big fat nothing.

Probably an accurate reflection of Society and why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea...

:rolleyes: Off topic, but go on, give us an idea of what your alternative to democracy is then? Kings and queens? Fascism? Not the Italian kind obviously.

Yeah right.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Well at least it's better than what you suggest, which is a big fat nothing.

What I suggested was not going for a quick fix solution, implying a need to examine the causes of a problem and so deducing a best fix solution for the issue in question.

:rolleyes: Off topic, but go on, give us an idea of what your alternative to democracy is then? Kings and queens? Fascism? Not the Italian kind obviously.

Have I hit a nerve then my little trollbate? :rolleyes:

My criticism of democracy centred on the mob mentality; the politik of the pub conversationalist; the average man on the Clapham omnibus who has an answer for everything, even if he does not understand the question.

People like you.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
What I suggested was not going for a quick fix solution, implying a need to examine the causes of a problem and so deducing a best fix solution for the issue in question. [/i]

There's no logical reason why a suggested quick fix might not also be the best fix solution. New York's zero tolerance policing policy for example.

My criticism of democracy centred on the mob mentality; the politik of the pub conversationalist; the average man on the Clapham omnibus who has an answer for everything, even if he does not understand the question.

And what is your alternative to democracy then? For people to have their decisions made for them by self styled experts who claim to know what's best for everyone? People like... let's see...ahhh people like you? No thanks. Most people, even shinners, have evolved past that point. I prefer a society that operates by consensus in spite of its inherent flaws. On behalf of the mob I apologise to your unfeasibly large all-comprehending brain. But that's the way it is. Grow up. Deal with it. And get over the fascism fetish I suspect you have.

So you detest the notion that even the average man on the street has the audacity to state an opinion? Maybe it might not be all that consequential. Or perhaps he might be speaking plain common sense. But that's not what bothers you. It's the fact that he's not been to the right school or had as privileged an upbringing that perhaps you've had, and your fear that his opinion might actually carry more weight than yours amongst the public that's the problem. Anyway. Take a look at yourself. You're on an internet message board spouting opinions on this that and the other. Just like everyone else here. And I suspect that just like everyone else here, your opinions at the end of the day amount to absolutely nothing.

People like you.

Now now Two can play at that game.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
There's no logical reason why a suggested quick fix might not also be the best fix solution.

That’s akin to arguing that there's no logical reason why picking the first option in a multiple-choice test will also not be the right answer. The reality is that it may, but it would be purely coincidental.

And what is your alternative to democracy then?

I never proffered one, my little trollbait...

And get over the fascism fetish I suspect you have.

As soon as you stop pretending to be a yuppie...

Anyway. Take a look at yourself. You're on an internet message board spouting opinions on this that and the other. Just like everyone else here. And I suspect that just like everyone else here, your opinions at the end of the day amount to absolutely nothing.

Roffle...

Victor

Originally posted by Johnnymcg
3. Put a tax on takeaway food after 9pm

Dublin City Council will be insisting on all takeaway restuarant labeling (or certainly identifying) their packaging. If a disproportionate amount comes from one location, they will have their takeaway licence revoked.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That’s akin to arguing that there's no logical reason why picking the first option in a multiple-choice test will also not be the right answer. The reality is that it may, but it would be purely coincidental.

No it's not. Some problems need radical solutions. And if they've been proven to work elsewhere then theres good reason to believe they'll work here.

I never proffered one, my little trollbait...

Duh. I know you didn't. That's why I asked you for one. If you've no alternative to democracy then you're wasting everyone's time criticising it.

As soon as you stop pretending to be a yuppie...

Yawn. Silly word created by gulty lefties. Means nothing.

I also meant to add that I think it's perfectly ok for people to air their views, whether it's on the clapham omnibus, in the pub or indeed on a message board. You're not a democrat and I suspect you think that only people who are informed to a specified level (probably directly "beneath" you) on issues should be granted permission to have opinions on them, so you don't. Fine. :ninja:

Sparks

No it's not. Some problems need radical solutions. And if they've been proven to work elsewhere then theres good reason to believe they'll work here.

Actually, that's not true.
Example:
In switzerland, unit recently at least, you could carry a pistol anywhere you wanted to without needing a concealed carry permit. You could also have a fully-automatic assault rifle in the cupboard at home without anyone getting on your neck about it. And they had the lowest level of crime in Europe.
Now, would that work here?
Well, no, frankly. Not because the idea's all that crazy - it has in fact been shown to work - but because here is not there. Different mindsets. Plus, they all get trained in the use of firearms during National Service, and we don't.

You see? You cannot take a solution from environment A and expect it to work as well, or even in the same way, in environment B.

If you've no alternative to democracy then you're wasting everyone's time criticising it.

*hits ctrl-alt-f5*
Direct Democracy

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
No it's not. Some problems need radical solutions.

Hmmm... who’s the got the fascism fetish now then? :rolleyes:

And if they've been proven to work elsewhere then theres good reason to believe they'll work here.

That’s not logic, that’s at best a hunch - where is your earlier argument gone now?

Duh. I know you didn't. That's why I asked you for one. If you've no alternative to democracy then you're wasting everyone's time criticising it.

No. Just yours, my little trollbait...

Yawn. Silly word created by gulty lefties. Means nothing.

And silly boy’s who think themselves more important than they are, it appears...

I also meant to add that I think it's perfectly ok for people to air their views

Isn’t that the point to all this intellectual masturbation as you would define it?

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
You see? You cannot take a solution from environment A and expect it to work as well, or even in the same way, in environment B.

Stands to reason. Meant to add that providing a solution works in a comparable culture, then it has a good chance of working. Apologies for confusion.

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian

Isn’t that the point to all this intellectual masturbation as you would define it?

Tell you what, please run in the next election on a 'democracy is bad' platform. It'd be interesting to see how your views would be treated by the mob. My guess is, you'd probably replace Justin Barrett as the country's most laughable political wannabe.

Bored with you now. Onto ignore you go.

The Corinthian

Heh... Aspirations of adequacy :rolleyes:

ColinM

About the crowd mentality thing and considering that maybe democracy doesn't work, I think that what Corinthian is saying is very valid. Who says democracy works? I know it's an incendiary question that Corinthian raises - but who says that the "everyone should have a say" method is best?
The notion that one person's opinion is as valid as someone else's is blatantly fallacious if you hold it up to scrutiny. You often hear people crying "everyone is entitled to their opinion" - meant to imply that one opinion holds as much weight as the next - well I don't believe that every opinion is as valid as the next (and that everybody is not "entitled" to their opinion).
Is an opinion as valid as the next even after it has been demonstrated to be misguided? Some people arrive at their opinions after much research and rumination. More often than not, people hold opinions arrived at using much less methodological approaches. Ever listen to the kind of people who call into the 98FM/FM104 late night talk shows? I don't want those kind of morons having a vote. Why should they contribute to making decisions that may affect my life when their decisions are based on poor (or no) reasoning?
At least the situation is less serious because there's not all that much difference between the tweedle-dee and tweedle-dum parties, but referenda are another matter. I know you may think that I am grossly arrogant when I say this, but I believe my vote is more valid than someone who calls Chris Barrie (or whoever does it now), to express opinions made on the fly, only to change them again when the host asks them a leading question.
I believe my opinions are more valid because I make decisions and form opinions based on research and analysis. I'm really setting myself up for a flaming here but I am also more intelligent than most people (sorry, but this is something I have noticed throughout my life) so I am also mentally better equipped to formulate ideas and opinions.

Is what I am saying reasonable, or do you simply want to call me an arrogant tw@?

Nevyn

Yes but thankfully most of the phone show
callers wont vote, dont see the point of it and cant be arsed being the the elcetoral
register.

people in this country dont vaule thier right to vote, maybe it should not be automatic at the age of 18.

bonkey

Originally posted by ColinM
Is what I am saying reasonable, or do you simply want to call me an arrogant tw@?

Its mostly reasonable (although off-topic).

The main thing I would point out is that in order to support your notion of the inequality of opinions, you would need a yardstick by which to measure the value of opinions, and some sort of cut-off point to say "your opinion is not valid enough to be worth including in the decision-making process.

You think your opinion is more valid than the person who phones Chris Barrie because you are more informed on the subject, and therefore you are saying that people such as that should not be entitled to an opinion...or that their opinion should carry less weight or something.

Well what about the people who have studied whatever topic is at hand more than you have? Can they not equally say them same about your opinion because your opinion is less informed then theirs. Will you accept being left out of a decision-making process even if you feel you have something valid to offer (just as I'm sure the many of the Chris Barrie callers feel they have something to offer, but you disagree).

Ultimately one has to consider where can the line be drawn with such elitism....and I personally don't think it can.

Is an opinion as valid as the next even after it has been demonstrated to be misguided?

So, what you're asking is whether or not any opinion which can be shown to be based on any faulty line of reasoning should be considered valid?

Well - given that I can pretty much guarantee there will be faulty or inconsistent logic in almost all expressed opinions, that doesn't leave many valid ones. Of the remainder, we can easily show that the bast majority of those are subjective, and are therefore suspect, as the opinion is being formed based towards satisfying a subjective rather than being based on pure objective fact.

Again - where do you draw the line?

jc

ColinM

Its mostly reasonable (although off-topic).

Ok thanks bonkey, and thanks for being so measured in your reply. Yeah, sorry for being off-topic as well, but I guess the thread had pretty much run its course anyway.

I don't really want to get into a debate about the merits of different ideologies, because basically I don't think I have the energy (or knowledge) for it, but I'll just go down through your post here anyway seeing as you took the trouble to give a reasoned reply to my post (not that Thaed's reply wasn't reasoned - and I had considered that it was likely that many of the proles would not vote alright, Thaed). I really was expecting to be flamed out of it though (and I might yet be!).
Ok, here goes...

The main thing I would point out is that in order to support your notion of the inequality of opinions, you would need a yardstick by which to measure the value of opinions, and some sort of cut-off point to say "your opinion is not valid enough to be worth including in the decision-making process.

Yeah, I know, and I doubt it is possible to define this yardstick if you were going to use it to deny people the right to vote. But in individual cases we all have our own yardstick by which we measure other people's opinions. The criteria we use are level of intelligence, and degree of "informedness" about the topic of opinion. You can refine this further if you have knowledge of the type of ego of the opinion-holder and take into account that person's willingness or reluctance to accept when he or she is wrong.

You think your opinion is more valid than the person who phones Chris Barrie because you are more informed on the subject, and therefore you are saying that people such as that should not be entitled to an opinion...or that their opinion should carry less weight or something.

Well, I suppose I think that my opinion is more valid because I am more intelligent than them. Although the level to which they are informed is related to their intelligence. I mean - only a complete eejit goes on a radio show to express an opinion on a topic about which they know nothing, and yet they ring in night after night! Of course they would be entitled to their opinion if they were well informed about the subject, and had formulated their opinions after considering all the facts available to them.

Well what about the people who have studied whatever topic is at hand more than you have? Can they not equally say them same about your opinion because your opinion is less informed then theirs.

Yeah, they could. And I don't have an opinion on everything. (And I can't know about everything!)

Will you accept being left out of a decision-making process even if you feel you have something valid to offer

That would probably depend on what the decision-making process was about and whether the outcome would affect me or not. If it did affect me, I would make it my business to get informed about the subject so that my opinion would be valid.

(just as I'm sure the many of the Chris Barrie callers feel they have something to offer, but you disagree).

Yeah, but I think they are morons because they feel the need to speak about something which they know nothing about (and are too stupid to realise that this is what they are doing).

Ultimately one has to consider where can the line be drawn with such elitism....and I personally don't think it can.

Yeah, with regard to the right to vote, I doubt it can either without excluding some people who should be allowed vote, and without leaving some people who shouldn't. If there ever is a line drawn, obviously I want it to be just below me!

So, what you're asking is whether or not any opinion which can be shown to be based on any faulty line of reasoning should be considered valid?

Nah, I was asking a rhetorical question really. I suppose I was trying to demonstrate how the idea that "every opinion is as valid as the other" is wrong and that if it can be shown that an opinion is wrong, then it was still wrong before it was shown to be.

Well - given that I can pretty much guarantee there will be faulty or inconsistent logic in almost all expressed opinions

I don't think I will agree to that one. I've always found the first clause of a proof-by-induction the trickiest. Once you get someone to accept the first clause and move on quickly you can very easily prove all sorts of things, I grant you!

, that doesn't leave many valid ones. Of the remainder, we can easily show that the bast majority of those are subjective, and are therefore suspect, as the opinion is being formed based towards satisfying a subjective rather than being based on pure objective fact.

(Jeez - what are you trying to do - disprove everything!)
Anyway, yeah, well of course it's hard to form an opinion where it is based on all the facts of the matter weighted evenly. I didn't mention bias up to now because I didn't want to confuse the idea even more. For the moment, I think lack of intelligence, coupled with a lack of knowledge is enough to say that some people's opinions are indeed less equal than others!

Cheers,
Colin.

Turnip

Originally posted by ColinM
About the crowd mentality thing and considering that maybe democracy doesn't work, I think that what Corinthian is saying is very valid. Who says democracy works?

Considering the improvements in the standard of living in Ireland over the last couple of hundred years, I'd say democracy has worked quite well. Who wants a return to the days when a small gang of inbred, sociopathic, landgrabbing aristocrats had the power to decide what was what? I don't.

Why don't you and Corinthian use your "special" brains and superior research and analysis skills to come up with an alternative to democracy then. If it involves either of you issuing arbitrary orders to the pathetic ignorant masses, I'd give you both about 48 hours before you find yourselves hanging from lamp posts.

Victor

Originally posted by Turnip
Who wants a return to the days when a small gang of inbred, sociopathic, landgrabbing aristocrats had the power to decide what was what? I don't./B]

Yeah, down with Fianna Fáil!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Considering the improvements in the standard of living in Ireland over the last couple of hundred years, I'd say democracy has worked quite well. Who wants a return to the days when a small gang of inbred, sociopathic, landgrabbing aristocrats had the power to decide what was what? I don't.

Actually, for the “last couple of hundred years” that “small gang of inbred, sociopath, land grabbing aristocrats” (and frankly some of them are quite nice) had been running the show, here and pretty much anywhere else. Democracy is something that was wrested from that oligarchy, slowly and most notably in the aftermath of the First World War.

But let’s not let facts get in the way of your capricious rants, shall we...

Why don't you and Corinthian use your "special" brains and superior research and analysis skills to come up with an alternative to democracy then.

Why do you find it necessary to get personal and offensive to try and get your point across? I mean, you seem pretty intrangedent for one who seems to revel in pointing the finger at others and accusing them of conceit or arrogance. Are you the only one who fails to see the irony of this?

ColinM

Turnip, as I said before in PI, I think you are able to express yourself well, and I am going to take on board what you have said and chew on it for a while (The vague pun is the best I can do at the moment to post anything vaguely related to the original topic). I think we will probably find that we may have (at least) some common ground.

Oh, and lol bigtime there Victor! (edited because I forgot to add the lol!)

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Actually, for the “last couple of hundred years” that “small gang of inbred, sociopath, land grabbing aristocrats” (and frankly some of them are quite nice) had been running the show, here and pretty much anywhere else. Democracy is something that was wrested from that oligarchy, slowly and most notably in the aftermath of the First World War.

Democracy could not have been wrested from the aristocrats because they were not democrats to begin with were they? :rolleyes:

Modern democracy essentially began following the enlightenment which influenced the American war of independence which in turn influenced the French revolution which in turn influenced political reform in England; and so a process of liberalism and democratisation which began just over 200 years ago has carried on right up to today. Perhaps ironically it was through various wars that the stupidity of anti democratic monarchism was found out for what it was as Orwell's Eton quote points out. Anyway, I think it's safe to say that the reformation was the real origin of modern democracy, but imo things really got moving 200 years ago due to the impact of the industrial revolution. In summary, we live in a democratic republic where if people work hard they do well, and the stupid cult the catholic church is on the run. Hurrah I say.

The film The Remains Of The Day is set in the 30's, when some of the British aristocracy were quite openly siding with Moseley, HItler et al. There's a scene where some old brandy swigging geezer bombards the butler Anthony Hopkins with economics questions. Hopkins is unable to answer - all he cares about is polishing doorknobs - so the geezer takes this as proof that democracy is fundamentally a bad idea. Hmm...The scene reminded me of this whole argument for some reason.

I'm aware that this has nothing to do with chewing gum but it's a far more interesting topic. Maybe it belongs on the history board. People seem to know what they're talking about there.

Why do you find it necessary to get personal and offensive to try and get your point across?

Because you are evasive, and despite requests to do so, you won't elaborate on points you've made. Fair enough. I realise that you're unlikely to respond to barracking though.

Imposter

Corinthian,
What exactly does 'intrangedent' mean?
Google only returns one site with it's use and dictionary.com is clueless as to it's existence!

Turnip, wrt government types surely all/most types of government down the ages have improved the lot of the people. What's to say something better than democracy can exist and surely you'd agree then that that would be a good thing.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
Maybe it belongs on the history board. People seem to know what they're talking about there.

...

I realise that you're unlikely to respond to barracking though.

Maybe he isn't, but I'll tell you one thing for sure.....I am incredibly likely to respond to barracking and the general insults you're throwing around like the one above (implying people don't know what they're talking about here).

Only, I'm more likely to respond with bannage then discussion, so you might want to tone your bile down a few notches.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
(implying people don't know what they're talking about here).

No. I meant that people on the history board seem to have a much more detailed knowledge of history than the more common kind of general knowledge some people here (including me) do.

Turnip, wrt government types surely all/most types of government down the ages have improved the lot of the people.

I'm not sure what examples you're referring to. Christianity effectively halted progress in science, art, medicine etc for a very long time for instance. Some periods in China's history make for interesting contrasts I think. But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Imposter
What exactly does 'intrangedent' mean?
Google only returns one site with it's use and dictionary.com is clueless as to it's existence!

Upps! My bad - I meant intransigent - typo

Originally posted by Turnip
Democracy could not have been wrested from the aristocrats because they were not democrats to begin with were they? :rolleyes:

So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries, and when it’s pointed out that we’ve really only had democracy over the last century, you change your argument completely.

And I’m evasive... :rolleyes:

Living conditions have improved for humanity for a myriad of reasons. Democratic accountability is one of them, but so are the advances in medicine and science, as well as the gradual expansion of trade.

ColinM

Originally posted by Turnip
But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

I think that's a key point there Turnip, but what you're implying is that all unjust governments are undemocratic. I don't think it has to be that way. I don't see why there shouldn't be very just governments or rulers that make good decisions for the citizens and make the country a great place to live.

So let's assume that battles were fought and democracy was wrested at some stage then. Let's even assume that what we have now is actual democracy (and not some horrible kind of perverted corrupted democracy where it doesn't matter who you vote for because the crooks get into power anyway). Who says democracy is the ideal system of rule? Why is it? Is it ideal because it is guaranteed to make the country as nice a place to live as possible? Look around the place here now - is this some kind of utopia that we can attribute to the wonders of democracy?
(In case you dare answer that one, it is a rhetorical question, and the answer is a distinct no!)

I'll say again that I think you are able to express yourself well, and you demonstrate that you have sought to inform yourself and think about things. You are pro-democracy, so you want everyone to have a say. Why do you want people who are not prepared to do the research to inform themselves and don't have the mental capacity to formulate ideas based on the knowledge they have garnered, to share the decision making with you?

About the Remains Of The Day reference you make - I don't remember whether I've seen the film. I'm certainly aware of it, but I may only have seen bits of it. I may not be aware of something else about the scene that helps to underly your implication that anyone who would think that it would be a good idea to deny the Anthony Hopkins character the right to vote would be wrong. However, if I asked someone's opinion on an "economics" question that affected the country and directly or indirectly its citizens, and their response was that they couldn't care less, I wouldn't think them deserving of a right to a say in the running of the country.

I share your sentiments that the catholic church is a stupid cult, so there is our common ground. I am also delighted that they seem to be on the run, but I am wary of the "spiritual vacuum" that is being left after their demise. These days, I am always mindful of G. K. Chesterton's observation that once a man stops believing in god, he will believe in anything.

You are being very antagonistic when you write, Turnip. You also do use implied and direct insults. I would put this down to the fact that you just must feel passionately about democracy, but you have been insulting on other threads also, so I think it's probably true to say that you need to be more calm in general. Being polite will follow naturally.

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
But in general anti-democratic (or at least unjust) governments usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Actually, in general, all governments regardless of type usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Democracy is too young to expect this to happen widescale amongst democratic nations....but democracies have failed and will fail again....just live every other form of government.

jc

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries, [

Yes.

and when it’s pointed out that we’ve really only had democracy over the last century, you change your argument completely.

Not at all. The process of democratisation has been slow, granted, but the ideas expressed 200 years ago still form the basis of our society. I'm still waiting for you to tell me why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea.

At what point in history should the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom have been halted?

Living conditions have improved for humanity for a myriad of reasons. Democratic accountability is one of them, but so are the advances in medicine and science, as well as the gradual expansion of trade.

I don't disagree. In fact I said that advances in medicine and science were continually frustrated by anti-democratic elements like the church. The paradox surrounding power is this: the tools created by anti-democrats to retain it are the same ones that are used eventually by democrats to take it.

Turnip

Top 20 countries in the UNDP's human development index, graded according to indicators like life expectancy, educational standards and income.

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then? :rolleyes:

Turnip

Originally posted by bonkey
Actually, in general, all governments regardless of type usually collapse in on themselves sooner or later.

Democracy is too young to expect this to happen widescale amongst democratic nations....but democracies have failed and will fail again....just live every other form of government.

jc

Yes, but excepting external factors like natural disasters and alien invasion, democracies can only fail when they are destroyed by anti-democratic elements, people who think democracy is a bad idea in the first place. They must be guarded against. :ninja:

How long has the Swiss system been going now?

bonkey

Originally posted by Turnip
How long has the Swiss system been going now?

Since 1848....which technically makes Switzerland younger than the US as a nation.

Its system is actually a "refinement" of the US implementation, incidentally....

And it gives the Extremists as much of a voice as they choose to exercise democratically.....so its not impervious by any means. :ninja:

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
Not at all. The process of democratisation has been slow, granted, but the ideas expressed 200 years ago still form the basis of our society.

But that’s not what you said. You said:

Considering the improvements in the standard of living in Ireland over the last couple of hundred years, I'd say democracy has worked quite well.

Implying that the improvements over the last few hundred years were as a result of democracy, even though this did not realistically incarnated until a century ago.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me why democracy is fundamentally a bad idea.

I did not proffer one because:

1. It was off topic to this thread
2. You seemed happy just to fling insults
3. You had already managed to illustrate one flaw in democracy without my help

At what point in history should the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom have been halted?

Should children be given the right to vote? Should the electorate be given licence to vote and debate every individual law? Should we ban political party whips, as they are fundamentally undemocratic? Or just ban political parties altogether? If a town, suburb, street, or even an individual, decided to succeed from a democratic State, should they be allowed to do so? Should we have the individual freedom to do as we wish? Even if affects another? Even if we don’t believe that it affects another?

The list to where democracy and individual freedom are halted is endless.

I don't disagree. In fact I said that advances in medicine and science were continually frustrated by anti-democratic elements like the church. The paradox surrounding power is this: the tools created by anti-democrats to retain it are the same ones that are used eventually by democrats to take it.

What’s that got to do with the point I made?

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then? :rolleyes:

Again I would point to progress in medicine, science and trade as factors in life expectancy, educational standards and income. To assume that the reason that some countries are higher than others in the UNDP's human development index because of democracy, is just an assumption on your part.

Remember: Correlation does not imply causation.

One could use the same list - which with the exception of Japan is entirely composed of racially European dominated nations - as a proof for European racial supremacy.

Add to this Hong Kong (26th) and Singapore (28th), neither Western democracies, come in on the list shortly after your cut-off point, way above many democratic countries such as Brazil (65th), Turkey (96th) or India (127th).

Hence your argument does not really bare scrutiny.

Yes, but excepting external factors like natural disasters and alien invasion, democracies can only fail when they are destroyed by anti-democratic elements, people who think democracy is a bad idea in the first place. They must be guarded against.

Is that one of those points where the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom should be halted? :rolleyes:

Victor

Originally posted by The Corinthian
So you postulate that living conditions have improved as a direct result of democracy over the last few centuries,

Originally posted by Turnip
Yes.

Then how did the countries of central and eastern Europe develop so much in the period 1500-1990 in the near complete absence of democracy? Most went from monarchies to dictators to pseudo democracy to communism. Admittedly not as much as others, but more than most.

echomadman

Top 20 countries in the UNDP's human development index, graded according to indicators like life expectancy, educational standards and income.

1 Norway
2 Iceland
3 Sweden
4 Australia
5 Netherlands
6 Belgium
7 United States
8 Canada
9 Japan
10 Switzerland
11 Denmark
12 Ireland
13 United Kingdom
14 Finland
15 Luxembourg
16 Austria
17 France
18 Germany
19 Spain
20 New Zealand

Where's the anti-democratic utopias then?

on a side note (this thread cant get anymore off-topic) i would like to compare and contrast this with with suicide and depression statistices

Utopias... pfft


I HATE CHEWING GUM (back on topic)

Turnip

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Implying that the improvements over the last few hundred years were as a result of democracy, even though this did not realistically incarnated until a century ago.

I didn't imply it, I said it. Democracy did not pop out of thin air and it was not granted to the people by venal landgrabbing aristocratic scum out of the goodness of their little hearts. It had to be argued and fought for.

I did not proffer one because:

1. It was off topic to this thread
2. You seemed happy just to fling insults
3. You had already managed to illustrate one flaw in democracy without my help

Yet more evasion and patronising comments. I can just assume that either you don't actually have an alternative and don't think before you post your ill-formed opinions or else you hold some pretty unpopular and thoroughly discredited political views and you're too cowardly to stand by them when challenged.

Should children be given the right to vote?

Children don't have the vote, but thanks to democracy, neither are they expected to be shoved down mines or sold for the amusement of bored aristocrats. Children are encouraged to get involved in political issues anyway.

Should the electorate be given licence to vote and debate every individual law?

I would like to see greater participation in the decision making process, down to the lowest level possible. Why not? Political systems based around consensus building rather than simple majority rule produce more stability.

Should we ban political party whips, as they are fundamentally undemocratic? Or just ban political parties altogether?

No need to ban anything. You're the one who claims that democracy is [/b]fundamentally[/b] a bad idea remember? Since you refuse to explain your position, that can be taken many ways. I take it to mean that you oppose the very principles of democracy, things like votes for women (and anyone else you might object to), equal electoral districts, vote by secret ballot, and the abolition of the property qualification to stand for election. Or you could just be an unreconstructed fascist or a monarchist, who knows.

If a town, suburb, street, or even an individual, decided to succeed from a democratic State, should they be allowed to do so? Should we have the individual freedom to do as we wish? Even if affects another? Even if we don’t believe that it affects another?

What is it exactly that you want to do that our tyrannical democratic system stops you from doing? Even a child knows that he can't get everything he wants and understands why. But if you want to give up your responsibilities to the state then why should the state afford you any legal protection or property rights?

The list to where democracy and individual freedom are halted is endless.

If you have problem with any aspect of democracy then run for election. Heck, you might even get elected, end up holding the balance of power and be in a position to bring in some wacky reforms.

Again I would point to progress in medicine, science and trade as factors in life expectancy, educational standards and income.

So it was purely a coincidence that progress in those areas coincided with the development of democratic ideals then. Ok.

One could use the same list - which with the exception of Japan is entirely composed of racially European dominated nations - as a proof for European racial supremacy.

One could but one would be wrong. The Irish are not anglo saxons for a start. But is that how you prefer to see it then?

Add to this Hong Kong (26th) and Singapore (28th), neither Western democracies, come in on the list shortly after your cut-off point, way above many democratic countries such as Brazil (65th), Turkey (96th) or India (127th).

Some democracies are more democratic than others and their systems are at different levels of sophistication. However, Brazil and India will undoubtedly emerge as the economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

Hence your argument does not really bare scrutiny.

At least I have an argument. You continue to be evasive.

Is that one of those points where the ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom should be halted? :rolleyes:

Well, in democracies we can't just round up and shoot, gas, or torture anyone who expresses an opinion no matter how stupid or dangerous it might be.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Turnip
I didn't imply it, I said it. Democracy did not pop out of thin air and it was not granted to the people by venal landgrabbing aristocratic scum out of the goodness of their little hearts. It had to be argued and fought for.

Then, as has been pointed out by others, how did democracy improve in the standard of living over the last couple of hundred years if it was not in a position to do so for the majority of that time?

Yet more evasion and patronising comments. I can just assume that either you don't actually have an alternative and don't think before you post your ill-formed opinions or else you hold some pretty unpopular and thoroughly discredited political views and you're too cowardly to stand by them when challenged.

You can hold all the assumptions you like about me. Assumptions appear to be the only thing of consistency in your argument.

Children don't have the vote, but thanks to democracy, neither are they expected to be shoved down mines or sold for the amusement of bored aristocrats. Children are encouraged to get involved in political issues anyway.

That has nothing to do with my point. You asked about limits on democracy I gave you a few. Get off the soapbox.

I would like to see greater participation in the decision making process, down to the lowest level possible. Why not? Political systems based around consensus building rather than simple majority rule produce more stability.

Sorry, but weren’t you challenging the halting of the “ineffable trend towards democracy and individual freedom”? So, you’re saying that limited democracy is preferable?

No need to ban anything. You're the one who claims that democracy is fundamentally[/b] a bad idea remember? Since you refuse to explain your position, that can be taken many ways. I take it to mean that you oppose the very principles of democracy, things like votes for women (and anyone else you might object to), equal electoral districts, vote by secret ballot, and the abolition of the property qualification to stand for election. Or you could just be an unreconstructed fascist or a monarchist, who knows. [/B]

“I don’t have a clue what you stand for, so I’ll just assume something instead”.

What is it exactly that you want to do that our tyrannical democratic system stops you from doing? Even a child knows that he can't get everything he wants and understands why. But if you want to give up your responsibilities to the state then why should the state afford you any legal protection or property rights?

You’re contradicting yourself again. See above.

If you have problem with any aspect of democracy then run for election. Heck, you might even get elected, end up holding the balance of power and be in a position to bring in some wacky reforms. ?

And you accuse me of evasion? :rolleyes:

So it was purely a coincidence that progress in those areas coincided with the development of democratic ideals then. Ok.

Of course it could. Prove otherwise.

One could but one would be wrong. The Irish are not anglo saxons for a start. But is that how you prefer to see it then?

Stop trying to twist the point, so that you can accuse me of racism rather than address what I’ve said. The logic of your point was built on sand and could have been used to back up any hair-brained theory, as with the racist one I demonstrated, or your democratic one.

Some democracies are more democratic than others and their systems are at different levels of sophistication. However, Brazil and India will undoubtedly emerge as the economic powerhouses in their respective regions.

So the regimes in Hong Kong and Singapore are more democratic than those in Brazil or India then?

At least I have an argument. You continue to be evasive.

You’re looking for an alternative not an argument from me, and I’ve none to give you, I’m afraid. You on the other hand, in your constant need to answering questions with unrelated points, are being the evasive one.

Well, in democracies we can't just round up and shoot, gas, or torture anyone who expresses an opinion no matter how stupid or dangerous it might be.

Again nothing to do with the point I made.

bonkey

This is getting out of hand, and is hopelessly off-topic.

Locked.

jc