Corrupt, incompetent, lazy and self-serving

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
Actually we don't. We choose the best from a fixed group of options, without any ability to say "no, none of these are acceptable".

Could you explain to me how the group of options is fixed?

Explain how, for example, it is impossible for a new party to form, to garner sufficient support, to put forward its candidates of choice, and then elect them???

Which is valid, because our system requires a particular set of attributes to be common amongst all politicians - the important one being that they want their jobs.

Yes, and by threatening to take them from them, you have power over them. By saying "we can do nothing about them but complain ineffectively", you strengthen their position, and make it easier for them to bend to corruption.

And they won't risk those jobs for something they don't have to support.

And if not supporting it would cost them their jobs? You knock the "just another alternative candidate", but refuse to use him/her instead as leverage to bully the established clique.

if I've got mine and my future's secure, why should I give a tuppeny **** about the rest of you plebs?

And yet you claim that if you got yours (i.e. "enough money"), you could fix the situation in two years. So, enough money to buy the political system wouldn't corrupt you, but actual membership of this purchasable system would corrupt you....

And I think that's a lovely sentiment jc, it's just that history proves you wrong. At best protest has calmed the actions of governments - and even then at a price.

I see.

Could you explain to me how protest and pressure failed to implement a 5-year timeframe on forcing a publically mandated referndum in Switzerland then??? Because I coulda sworn that history shows that did happen, and I'm pretty certain that I'm not hallucinating my post above which already highlighted that fact.

You try convincing a 50-year-old with three kids and a morgage to elect a total muppet just to spite FF - they won't do it, through sheer fear of the outcome.

Then I will tell that 50 year old that if they are willing to lend their support to the existing cronies, then they deserve the government that those cronies form. They can wish all they want for a brighter, shinier, happier world, but if its a case of "I want it, but I'm not willing to make a stand for it", then tough noogies....

They reason that FF will screw them over, but not by as much as an incompetent muppet would.

Then they support what they see as the best available option, and thats fair enough. If they support it, though, its a bit hypocritical of them to be turning around and saying that they wish someone would "fix" what they voluntarily chose.

but if you expect someone with a wife, three kids, a job and a morgage to repay to vote for a series of incompetent governments deliberately, without any guarantee that the tactic will work, you're in for a disappointment.

Sparks...I said that if you think FF are screwing you over, hopelessly corrupt, and basically out for themselves. then support someone else. You're arguing that the majority of the public don't think that. OK - so they don't think it. They support the incompetents. So who's to blame here? The incompetents, or the people who believe they are the best option?

You're arguing in circles. You started by saying how unbelievable bad our government is, and disagreed that the problem lies with the public. Now you're saying that the public want these people in government, because they perceive other options as worse. Now, if thats not the public's mindset which is causing this, I don't know what it can be....unless you are wrong in claiming that the government is so bad, and the public are right.

Because that's the best route in my eyes - emphasise how your vote is cheapened, and hope that people get pissed off at not having any real say in policy decision-making and that eventually they decide to change it.

And how do they change it, if not through using their votes - the one possible input into changing the system that they can actually leverage.

For a man who's telling me that talking about long-term solutions is wrong, I notice a suspicious absence of a timeframe on this disenfranchisement plan.

And given the amount of public debate on the topic at the time, it couldn't have been called unplanned or knee-jerk.

But you were complaining that the government making a decision in a similar timeframe was unplanned.....

So, you spend 2 weeks in fervent disagreement with the government, and its planned. The government make a decision in a similar timeframe, and its unplanned....

Bonkey, my point is that we don't have control of the system at present, not in any meaningful form.

You've been arguing that we cant, not just that we don't. I'm saying we can, and that we don't, and that while we are so busy finding reasons in every other possible aspect of the system as to why we haven't, we are never likely to change.

JC, you want to remove the major parties' sphere of influence at local level? Good luck - central government has been steadily working at castrating local government for the last decade or so.

No, I'm saying that removing their interest at local level is one way to start putting pressure on the government.

You have to start somewhere, and shouting "down with that" in the streets, and then "keep it up lads, yer doing great" come vote time is clearly not working as a strategy for you, so knocking something untried while continuing with a failing strategy would seem somewhat foolish...especially when berating me for saying that change will take time.

Or do you think that if you shout just a little bit louder it will all suddenly come right?????

So let me get this straight - we're at fault for not wanting a solution within ten years?

I want a solution tomorrow. I want a cure for cancer, AIDS, and the rest of them as well. Oh, and world peace while we're at it.

Am I being realistic? No. Is wanting these things going to change the situation? No. Will it shorten the timeframe? No. Should I (were I in a position to do so) abandon any approach to these that didn't work within the timeframe I wanted? No.

You can want all you like, but until you accept that it won't happen in 10 years, all you'll see is failure after failure after failure.

I could fix this within a year or two, if I had enough money.

As I said earlier....you could fix it in two years with money, but if you were elected, you'd be just as bad as the rest of them by your own admission.....

Oh - that also implies that you accept that they are no worse than you, as you admit you would do the same thing as them in their position.

So why would money fix it? Wouldn't it corrupt you like all those other rich bastids out there who don't use their money to empower the rest of us mere mortals?????

So it's a bit much to expect us to wait two or three generations for this to finish. I want to benefit from this, after all.

Ask some of the people living in the North of Ireland how long they expect peace to take to arrive, Sparks. Ask them why, given that its outside their lifetime, they don't just abandon whats happening and go back to the failed cycle of violence to find a solution.

That's something I've never figured out. But then again, I've never figured out why people put such faith in parapsychology and other such rubbish either.

The government put faith in it because it works. Same reason that those bastidin' capitalists go around advertising things....they know it works.

Now, while you may be immune to it, and it may seem stupid to you, until you start figuring out why others are susceptible to it - and accepting that they are - then you will never understand the mindset of the people you need on your side to effect change.

...

bonkey

...

So inside ten years, we cannot put into place a system that works where you're sitting, even through you've got twice our population?

Yup...it works. And it took from 1848 until the late 1980s or early 90s to get into place over here in the way that you think it works. Before that, the government generally only ever let things come to a vote if and when they knew the vote would go the way they wanted it to. Again, the only exceptions to that was when there was enough public pressure that would manifest itself in votes come the next election to pressure the issue.

150 years Sparks...thats how long it took to get it over here. You want it in 10. If you want to trace the Swiss movement back to when they started actually moaning and complaining about the government withholding referenda....lets split the difference and say it only took 70 years. You still want it in under 10.

The fact that it works over here is not going to shorten the time it takes to get it. Also, as I've already pointed out, it was achieved over here through the simple means of the public making it clear that they would exercise voting pressure to get what they wanted - exactly what I am saying is the only way you will get anything done in Ireland.

You keep insisting that I am wrong, and yet hold up the results of the Swiss doing exactly what I am advocating as some sort of goal to aim for. Not only that, but you want it in a shorter timeframe than it was achieved in over here.

So you want what they have, but say how they got it is not the way to do it, nor is the timeframe it took them a realistic one because you want it faster.

And even though, with enough money, I could arrange it within two years?

OK, rather than knocking this in the same way for the third time...I'll bite. How could you do it in two years?

But these permanent after-effects have done a very good job of proving to me that I'm not immortal - parts of me can be injured and hell, looking in the mirror shows that parts of me can die.

You're still confusing immortal with invulnerable. I can be hurt. I can be injured. But experience has shown me that none fo these things kill me. In fact, the more I live, the more my experience shows me that I can't be killed.

Yes, I know full well that my logic is broken.....but what I am trying to point out is that anyones experience is both subjective and incomplete.

You argued that you are basing your fatalism on your experience. I am looking at how another nation achieved what you want, and suggesting that for you to say that what they achieved is impossible to achieve in the manner they achieved it is somewhat foolish.

My experience says I am immortal. My reasoning tells me that my experience is flawed. You said your fatalism came from experience. I said that experience is not enough. Go figure.

I think it's more to do with not being willing to sacrifice quality of life for several decades so their grandkids might enjoy a better life, if it all goes well.

Funny, I coulda sworn thats pretty much the entire logic behind the whole "green" movement. We wont realise most of the benefits that come from a cleaner environment, so why do we care?????

We're not talking some academic exercise here bonkey - we're talking about people with huge morgages and families risking taking severe economic hits or worse. If I had a morgage and a family (and in less than two elections I probably will), I wouldn't give support to any plan that carried that much risk for my family without any guarantee of success.

Funny then that you're saying these people will, instead, choose to support the parties that you are convinced will make them worse off and continue screwing them in worse and worse ways over the coming decades.

So, rather than risk being screwed, they'll take the certainty of being screwed.

Or do you think that perhaps...just perhaps...our government (and the rest of the politicians that you despise so much) are not as utterly incompetent as you'be been making out all along, and that it would indeed be possible to do far worse, and that - given that anyone who gets to their position will be as corrupt as them - maybe they're actually not a bad option at all...

And if you're not arguing that, then what you are arguing is that the mindset of the people is one that will not risk squaring off against the politicians. I have given you the perfect example of how voting pressure brought about exactly what you're asking for in another nation, and you are now arguing that its the mindset of Joe Q Public with his mortgage and X kids that is stopping it from happening. Funnily...I've been saying its the mindset all along, only I coulda sworn you started off by disagreeing with that.....

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Could you explain to me how the group of options is fixed?

It's fixed because you can't nominate people not on the ballot and you can't decide not to choose someone on the ballot.

Explain how, for example, it is impossible for a new party to form, to garner sufficient support, to put forward its candidates of choice, and then elect them???

Bonkey, the last new party that actually had any success was the PDs - and they were really just a splinter of FF.

Yes, and by threatening to take them from them, you have power over them.

If the choice is either (1) definitely give up your powers vuluntarily by introducing direct democracy, or (2) risking losing your powers by failing to be re-elected, I know which one I'd take in self-serving mode...

And if not supporting it would cost them their jobs? You knock the "just another alternative candidate", but refuse to use him/her instead as leverage to bully the established clique.

Bonkey, let's assume for a moment that FF will not be re-elected, ever. Do you think for a moment that that would influence Bertie? He knows that he's gone from the FF leadership by the time the election rolls round, he won't want to be in charge for the next round because anyone with eyes knows what's coming up in 2007 when the EU bill rolls in, and even if the entire country decides that he's scum, he's got 4 more years to have fun in. And at his salary and perks, he'll be quite happy, thanks very much. That's why we see private jets instead of using Aer Lingus and so on.

And yet you claim that if you got yours (i.e. "enough money"), you could fix the situation in two years. So, enough money to buy the political system wouldn't corrupt you, but actual membership of this purchasable system would corrupt you....

Bonkey, enough money means approximately billions of euro. The idea being to bribe every TD with millions of euro (thus assuring their financial status for the rest of their lives, and that of their families). And the interest on that money, sitting in my bank account until I pay up after the referendum is run two years later would amount to more than enough money to ensure my financial status for the rest of my life, as well as that of my entire extended family, let alone my immediate one
In other words, I plan on looking out for number one first. I may be a selfish so-and-so, but I'm at least honest with myself about it

Could you explain to me how protest and pressure failed to implement a 5-year timeframe on forcing a publically mandated referndum in Switzerland then??? Because I coulda sworn that history shows that did happen, and I'm pretty certain that I'm not hallucinating my post above which already highlighted that fact.

As I already said, the power to call for a referendum on that point already lay with the people - the timeframe (especially such a long one) was just a "tweak", so to speak.

Then I will tell that 50 year old that if they are willing to lend their support to the existing cronies, then they deserve the government that those cronies form. They can wish all they want for a brighter, shinier, happier world, but if its a case of "I want it, but I'm not willing to make a stand for it", then tough noogies....

And they'll look at you funny and say "well, that's good for you kid. I've got mouths to feed, I'm not a political activist. Go get a real job."
(Or words to that effect).

Then they support what they see as the best available option, and thats fair enough. If they support it, though, its a bit hypocritical of them to be turning around and saying that they wish someone would "fix" what they voluntarily chose.

I'm wary of saying they "chose" it bonkey, not when they had no option to choose "none of the above", and especially not when twice as many people spoilt their vote than voted for any individual TD.
Bring in "none of the above", publicise it's availability, and then let's see what happens. No theorising, because for every theory that says nothing will happen, there's one that says everything will happen - so run the actual experiment.

Sparks...I said that if you think FF are screwing you over, hopelessly corrupt, and basically out for themselves. then support someone else. You're arguing that the majority of the public don't think that.

No, I'm saying the majority think that the rest are even worse. Hell, even I think that, when the alternative is Sinn Fein. And a lot of those 50-year-olds that saw FG and Labour put direct tax rates up to 45% remember that (even thought it was necessitated by FF's policies). So they have similar reactions to my SF one, but for FG and Labour.

You're arguing in circles. You started by saying how unbelievable bad our government is, and disagreed that the problem lies with the public. Now you're saying that the public want these people in government, because they perceive other options as worse.

Bonkey, that's not arguing in circles. People are given a fixed choice - they can't say "no, none of these are good enough, give me more options", so they have to pick someone. And given the choices - Sinn Fein, Labour (who many of the over-40s remember as being as bad as Sinn Fein at one point), SP and the SWP who scare the bejaysus out of the middle class workers, and FG who remind the middle class of the days of 55% tax and who just seem to annoy the working class by being "intellectual" :rolleyes:

That's why we saw so much support for independents and smaller parties last time at the polls, IMHO.

For a man who's telling me that talking about long-term solutions is wrong, I notice a suspicious absence of a timeframe on this disenfranchisement plan.

Once again, you're confusing what I think is the best route with what I think is the most realistic route.

But you were complaining that the government making a decision in a similar timeframe was unplanned.....
So, you spend 2 weeks in fervent disagreement with the government, and its planned. The government make a decision in a similar timeframe, and its unplanned....

There's 166 of them. There's 3.5 million of us. Work the math, figure out how many man-hours went into debate and consideration on either side. And remember that there was a lot more than 2 weeks of us watching Iraq and seeing how the situation was going before it came to a head here.

You've been arguing that we cant, not just that we don't. I'm saying we can, and that we don't, and that while we are so busy finding reasons in every other possible aspect of the system as to why we haven't, we are never likely to change.

And I'm saying you're looking at a system that theoretically allows for change and confusing it with a system whose operators will not let that change happen because they stand to loose too much.

Or do you think that if you shout just a little bit louder it will all suddenly come right?????

No, I'm starting to think shouting doesn't work, and underhanded sneaky, wrong tactics are far more successful. And that pisses me off, but it's hard to argue with success.

I want a solution tomorrow. I want a cure for cancer, AIDS, and the rest of them as well. Oh, and world peace while we're at it.

I don't demand an instant solution JC, but one that demands decades of effort and sacrifice with gaurentee of success isn't an option for anyone.

As I said earlier....you could fix it in two years with money, but if you were elected, you'd be just as bad as the rest of them by your own admission.....

I'd prefer to call it a statement JC, "admission" sounds like I've tried to cover it up at some point I'm a selfish, self-interested so-and-so, and I've not claimed to be much else, to be honest

Oh - that also implies that you accept that they are no worse than you, as you admit you would do the same thing as them in their position.

Pah. I'm smarter. Besides, your above sentence is the reason democracy was invented in the first place...

So why would money fix it? Wouldn't it corrupt you like all those other rich bastids out there who don't use their money to empower the rest of us mere mortals?????

Not if I still have more than anyone else afterwards.

Ask some of the people living in the North of Ireland how long they expect peace to take to arrive, Sparks. Ask them why, given that its outside their lifetime, they don't just abandon whats happening and go back to the failed cycle of violence to find a solution.

Can I aske anyone that question JC? 'Cos you know I'll pick Paisley...

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
150 years Sparks...thats how long it took to get it over here. You want it in 10.

Yup. Mainly because I'm used to the idea that you take ages to develop something, but not that long to replicate it...

OK, rather than knocking this in the same way for the third time...I'll bite. How could you do it in two years?

Bribe every TD in the government. All 166 of them. With 20 million euro each. To push forward the referenda needed to implement direct democracy (which, in a worst-case scenario, would be one - namely to allow the electorate to call for referenda on constitutional matters on their own). Simple, direct, and the flaws compensated for by the amount of cash involved.

Funny, I coulda sworn thats pretty much the entire logic behind the whole "green" movement. We wont realise most of the benefits that come from a cleaner environment, so why do we care?????

Because the green movement says that you don't have to take that much in the way of financial sacrifice, and you do have a guarantee that there will be a benefit. It may only be that you won't kill off your great-grandkids in one specific way, but it's a payoff. That's not the case with what you're suggesting.

Funny then that you're saying these people will, instead, choose to support the parties that you are convinced will make them worse off and continue screwing them in worse and worse ways over the coming decades.

Actually, I think that crowds like Sinn Fein would screw them worse than Fianna Fail. But when there's a better, third option - that of changing the game instead of the players - it's bile-inducing to watch that third option be ignored.

So, rather than risk being screwed, they'll take the certainty of being screwed.

Yes, but you're missing two key modifiers:
Rather than risk being exceptionally horrendously screwed, they'll take the certainty of being just screwed.
And so would you if you were responsible for a family, I suspect.

Or do you think that perhaps...just perhaps...our government (and the rest of the politicians that you despise so much) are not as utterly incompetent as you'be been making out all along, and that it would indeed be possible to do far worse, and that - given that anyone who gets to their position will be as corrupt as them - maybe they're actually not a bad option at all...

Bonkey, you have to understand - the people I think would be worse than Fianna Fail have got criminal records for serious offences, like gun-running and terrorism and so on. Saying that the junta in Burma is better than Year Zero in Cambodia is no doubt true - but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't choose to live in switzerland if the choice was available.

And if you're not arguing that, then what you are arguing is that the mindset of the people is one that will not risk squaring off against the politicians. I have given you the perfect example of how voting pressure brought about exactly what you're asking for in another nation, and you are now arguing that its the mindset of Joe Q Public with his mortgage and X kids that is stopping it from happening. Funnily...I've been saying its the mindset all along, only I coulda sworn you started off by disagreeing with that.....

JC, one is brought about by the other.
If you've no better choice in the system, you're better off sticking with the least worst option.
But the best option in that case is to change the system. The only problem is that those in the system are needed to change the system, and they are the people with the most interest in seeing the system remain static.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
It's fixed because you can't nominate people not on the ballot

Can you explain this? I did not think elections were about nominating people, but rather voting or not voting for people who have put themselves forward.

How does not being able to nominate people mean that it is fixed? No nominations are necessary in any case.

Perhaps you mean it is fixed because you can't vote for people who are not standing for election. If so, would it not seem bizarre not to limit the choices to those who actually wish to be elected?

Sparks

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Can you explain this? I did not think elections were about nominating people, but rather voting or not voting for people who have put themselves forward.

http://www.noneoftheabove.ie
The idea is that you choose whom you think should be your representative. If none of the options adaquately represent you, you vote for none of the above. If that option "wins" a seat, or several seats, then a new election is called to fill that seat, with new candidates.

If so, would it not seem bizarre not to limit the choices to those who actually wish to be elected?

Well, I'd have to agree - though that wasn't always true. After all, the usual sign that someone isn't fit to hold a political office is their desire to hold that office

Redleslie

Originally posted by Man
you are a bit dismissive of yourself there Sparks.
I'm convinced most reasonably intelligent people have it within themselves to become wealthy and powerfull.

In my view most reasonably intelligent people aren't very interested in being wealthy and powerful. They want to be happy. Only a fool measures "success" in purely monetary terms.

This very weekend I was speaking to someone who is only 21, has over 20 people working for him already and drives a 03 beemer.
This person has no college education but has a lot of get up and go, I wonder where he'll be in 30 years time

I can think of at least five or six more people here locally who have started their own business and are now in their fifties and are either very wealthy or actually millionaires.

None of them are involved in politics, but maybe they should be.

I know a lot of very wealthy publicans. Why don't we let them run the country. Oh wait they already do so they say. There's a difference between private enterprise and what is supposed to be public service you know. The former is entirely self serving and the latter should not be. An employer sacks his employees, the public sacks politicians. I find this worship of "beemer" driving yuppies rather pathetic.

Originally posted by Redleslie

In my view most reasonably intelligent people aren't very interested in being wealthy and powerful. They want to be happy. Only a fool measures "success" in purely monetary terms.

Errr I was measuring sucess in that case in terms of the results of hard work.
Monetary compensation is by product of that.

In any case had you read what I said in it's proper context you would have seen that I was replying to Sparks's indication that he could or would never be wealthy or powerfull.
I was simply pointing out that he could be.

I find this worship of "beemer" driving yuppies rather pathetic.

Where did I say or imply that I worship or that anyone should worship someone that drives a Beemer??
Again it's just something perhaps that this person wanted, and worked hard to be able to afford and kudo's to him for that.
If anything I detect a level of resentment in your attitude.

mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
onkey, the last new party that actually had any success was the PDs - and they were really just a splinter of FF.

Ah yes...experience shows us that if it hasn't happened, it can't and won't happen. Just like me saying that experience shows me that I don't die, ergo I am immortal.

Same logic, but funnily, you see one as correct and the other as flawed. Your perogative....we'll just have to differ.

If the choice is either (1) definitely give up your powers vuluntarily by introducing direct democracy, or (2) risking losing your powers by failing to be re-elected, I know which one I'd take in self-serving mode...

Yes, and you believe all politicians must be self-serving....

So explain to me again why the top house in Switss government (which, once elected is not subject to reelection from teh populace) and the regular government (who are subject to re-election) handed over power voluntarily?

As I've said before, either they have differing standards to those you insist apply to all politicians, or your argument and assumptions do not hold universally true. In either case, Sparks, they did what you said politicians will not do.

As I already said, the power to call for a referendum on that point already lay with the people - the timeframe (especially such a long one) was just a "tweak", so to speak.

A tweak????? You call changing a system where a non-governmentally-friendly call for referendum could be shelved forever to a system where it can be offset for a maximum of 5 years "a tweak"???

Jesus Sparks, you're kidding me, right? YOu don't see that they gave up complete control over what can and cannot be achieved by the public?

Have you even studied the Swiss system? Do you even know the difference that this "tweak" has made? It has brought about the first time in the nations history where the people actually had power to force an issue rather than making it strongly noticeable that they wanted a decision?

Prior to this amendment, the reality was that the swiss had no more power than the Irish - if there was demand for something, and it was politically expedient to grant it, then it was granted. It is for this reason Ireland had numerous referenda, for example, on divorce and abortion. The Swiss were no different - as long as it was plitically unimportant, the referendum could be held. If it was important, then the publics demands fell on as deaf a set of ears as yours do in Ireland.

And then that all changed, and you want to call it a "tweak". But making the same change in Ireland wouldn't be a tweak...because the theory[/] is slightly different although the reality is the same.....

(I'd argue one side or the other - theory or reality - only you seem to vacillate between telling me my arguments are fine in theory to telling me to "imagine that....." Clearly you don't want to limit yourself, so I don't see why I should.)

Or would you see the reverse as a "tweak" as well? Say, changing the electoral system so that once elected you held office until you agreed to allow your position to go for re-election??? Thats the same type of difference that we're talking about that was brought about over here.

Would you see that as a "tweak"??? No? I didn't think so.

Bring in "none of the above", publicise it's availability, and then let's see what happens.

Now, would that be a "tweak" or a change? If you see it as a tweak, then by your own argument, it should be readily achievable in the manner the Swiss achieved it.

Pah. I'm smarter.

OK, other than stroking your own ego, what relevance is that?

I was discussing that you said you - and anyone else in their position - would be at least as corrupt as them. Indeed, if you are smarter, then you'd be even more capable of corrupting the system to yoru own ends....so you'd be an even worse choice.

don't demand an instant solution JC, but one that demands decades of effort and sacrifice with gaurentee of success isn't an option for anyone.
....
Yup. Mainly because I'm used to the idea that you take ages to develop something, but not that long to replicate it...

And so, any solution which is "too slow" will not be attempted, resulting in a system which - over the timeframe that the solution might have worked in - changes not a bit.

That makes great sense Sparks. You want balanced, debated change. You want it brought in sensibly and slowly. You don't want to wait for it, and won't consider anything that may involve doing so.

So, rather than being willing to attempt to bring change about slowly, you'd rather sit there and tell people that the system can't be changed. Thats brilliant logic : "well, we could implement this in X years, but thats too long to wait, so we'll just leave it as it is for the next X years instead."

Bonkey, you have to understand - the people I think would be worse than Fianna Fail have got criminal records for serious offences, like gun-running and terrorism and so on

Sparks.....go back and read the first post you made on this subject? See the bit where you said that an alternative candidate was not the solution? Now, show me where you have hithertofore in this discussion clarified that by saying "an alternative candidate, who happens to have a criminal record for one or more serious offences" please.

I have been saying "elect anyone else". Not "elect Sinn Fein", not "elect Fine Gael". Surely you're not telling me that every candidate on every ballot that isn't FF has a serious criminal record?????

These alternate candidates that you sais in yoru first post are not the solution are exactly who I am saying are the solution. You say the ballot is fixed I say that these people are attempting to change it, and more like them would change it even more given the chance of some support.

Saying that the junta in Burma is better than Year Zero in Cambodia is no doubt true - but that doesn't mean that you wouldn't choose to live in switzerland if the choice was available.

Hold on a sec....you argued that anyone who gets to such a position of power will be corrupted by it. I'm concluding from this that Fianna Fail are therefore not so bad in the relative picture. You can get people far more corrupt, and by your own logic anyone who got to their position would be as corrupt as them.

So they are already the Switzerland in your argument above - the "least worst option" as you put it.

Or alternately, if they're not the least corrupt option, then why couldn't the more honest people put themselves on the ballot????

If you've no better choice in the system, you're better off sticking with the least worst option.

Which you are now saying is Fianna Fail?

But the best option in that case is to change the system. The only problem is that those in the system are needed to change the system, and they are the people with the most interest in seeing the system remain static.

Yes, and those in the system can be changed, and there is nothing to prevent the election of people who's interest is to change the system. You don't want to believe that such people exist....which is your perogative. However, if you don't believe they exist, then how can change ever come about?

You can't have it.

Ever.

No-one will give you what you want. They may promise to, but once they get there, they won't deliver.

Thats what you believe. Your experience - which you still put faith in - tells you that this is undeniably true. Several million Swiss know otherwise, because of their experience, but hey - you want to continue believing that they didn't force the government to hand over power that it wanted to retain, you go do so.

In the meantime, I'll sit here and reap the rewards of their experience, while watching you reap the rewards of yours, and we'll see who gets on better.

jc

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
http://www.noneoftheabove.ie
The idea is that you choose whom you think should be your representative. If none of the options adaquately represent you, you vote for none of the above. If that option "wins" a seat, or several seats, then a new election is called to fill that seat, with new candidates.

I was just making the point that not being able to vote for people not on the ballot paper doesn't mean that the election is 'fixed'.

Your idea is interesting, but I don't think it would necessarily lead to better candidates to choose from. At the end of the day, people have to choose to go forward. If a new election was held and better candidates happened to be present, why weren't they standing in the first election?

There seems to be an underlying assumption that there's some entity that needs to be punished for not providing decent candidates. No such entity exists. There are multiple political parties and independent candidates can put themselves forward too.

star gazer

Sparks
Rather than risk being exceptionally horrendously screwed, they'll take the certainty of being just screwed.

What if it could be shown to the electorate the least screwed option and then work towards changing that least screwed option into something at least partially beneficial to the electorate?
Realistically the fallout from a revolution isn't going to be positive in the short term (ie our lifetimes) and the upheaval from a two year shift would be too much for the populice to accept. As bonkey says changing a whole society will take time. While it is important to measure where we are at (ie being screwed) there comes a time when one has to actually do something actively or even pro actively to effect change in the small little patch an individual calls his/her own. In a democracy the people decide what happens (in theory) so while one person cannot do all that much, provoking a re-evaluation of what is going on in people's minds can slowly shift the families who only support one party into truely excersing their democratic right and changing who they vote for to get the best outcome from having a vote...a vibrant democracy where people vote on the basis of a job well done or incompetently done and not on inherited party allegiences.

originally posted by bonkey
150 years Sparks...thats how long it took to get it over here. You want it in 10. If you want to trace the Swiss movement back to when they started actually moaning and complaining about the government withholding referenda....lets split the difference and say it only took 70 years. You still want it in under 10.

what about eighty years of Irish independence, isn't that long enough for us to find our democratic voice, add to that ten years of driving for change and more responsive government I think sparks has a point. In a sense there is no starting or finishing point in this but time constraints do focus the mind. Without a belief that change can be effected within a reasonable period of time very few would be convinced to give credibility to the ideal of direct democracy.

The institutions of the state like the media, the executive,the judiciary etc. and the belief system of the society as a whole are the basic elements of the puzzle. The checks and balances within each to counteract the all power corrupts factor are what need to be in place. Change the system all you like if the level of power isn't counteracted by the level of accountability/transparency, then we replace one system for being horendously screwed with another.

Redleslie

Originally posted by Man
Errr I was measuring sucess in that case in terms of the results of hard work.
Monetary compensation is by product of that.

In this case? Or are you saying that as a rule, only the wealthy work hard?

In any case had you read what I said in it's proper context you would have seen that I was replying to Sparks's indication that he could or would never be wealthy or powerfull.
I was simply pointing out that he could be.

It's likely that he works at something he enjoys doing and values job satisfaction over cash. He could get rich by starting up a debt collection agency but maybe it's not something he'd enjoy.

Where did I say or imply that I worship or that anyone should worship someone that drives a Beemer??
Again it's just something perhaps that this person wanted, and worked hard to be able to afford and kudo's to him for that.

Sorry, I'm just not impressed by people whose chief accomplishment is that they drive a "beemer" and I'm not impressed by people who say "beemer" instead of BMW roysh? Personally I'm most impressed by people who are above simpleminded moneygrubbing and greasy till fumbling.

If anything I detect a level of resentment in your attitude.

And I detect a level of envy in yours. You've got this daft notion that anyone who's made a million from god knows what should be in politics on that basis alone. Should Ronan Keating be in government? Eamonn Dunphy? Graham Norton? They've all made oodles of cash from being at the top of very competitive industries after all.

Denis O'Brien for Taoiseach!

Originally posted by Redleslie
In this case? Or are you saying that as a rule, only the wealthy work hard?

I'll just quote something from this boards charter which is very true

but please bear in mind that the written word conveys less information than the spoken.

I was saying hard work and brains can make you wealthy.

It's likely that he works at something he enjoys doing and values job satisfaction over cash.

My comment was directed at Sparks assertion that he will never be wealthy and powerfull. I was saying that he could be if he wanted.
If he values what he does now over and above something that would bring him more wealth , well thats his choice, it's not the issue I was addressing.

Sorry, I'm just not impressed by people whose chief accomplishment is that they drive a "beemer" and I'm not impressed by people who say "beemer" instead of BMW roysh? Personally I'm most impressed by people who are above simpleminded moneygrubbing and greasy till fumbling.

Well then I'd say you are welcome to that opinion but bear in mind that very few humans are not greedy.
In the example I gave to which you are taking exception, I never said that the "Beemer" was the guys chief acomplishment. If he can afford it, and he wants it, then he's entitled to have it, in my honest opinion.

You've got this daft notion that anyone who's made a million from god knows what should be in politics on that basis alone.

Please do me the curtesy of pointing out where I said that or are you going to make a habit of attributing things to posters that they have not said .
What I will say, yet again and repeated often in the Right to Run thread, competent business people would have ample qualifications for a career in politics.
The voters ultimately have the decision on whether they suceed in politics and the voters are at the end of the day responsible for who they elect.

mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie
In this case? Or are you saying that as a rule, only the wealthy work hard?

The economics of capitalism would argue that working hard is only one of the factors that determine personal wealth or remuneration. Another one, often overlooked by leftists, is risk. Many if not most entrepreneurs will often leverage themselves to the hilt, place themselves in substantial debt and pay themselves next to nothing, even though statistically they will probably fail (leaving themselves in debt) in the expectation of future wealth.

Without that incentive, who would take the risk? Who would often go without paying themselves so as to be able to pay their employees? Who would work the long hours with no certainty of getting a penny for it? Being your own boss only goes so far.

It's likely that he works at something he enjoys doing and values job satisfaction over cash. He could get rich by starting up a debt collection agency but maybe it's not something he'd enjoy.

So what? How does this invalidate Man’s point that he could go out and get rich? What’s your point?

Sorry, I'm just not impressed by people whose chief accomplishment is that they drive a "beemer" and I'm not impressed by people who say "beemer" instead of BMW roysh? Personally I'm most impressed by people who are above simpleminded moneygrubbing and greasy till fumbling.

Other than being a rather churlish personal attack, I’d have to say that it is also the dumbest things I’ve seen posted here in a few weeks. First of all he never intimated that it was this individual’s chief accomplishment, second what business of yours is it what accent or language he uses?

Then, to crown it all off, you use some deranged logic to jump to the conclusion that anyone who speaks in a certain way must be into moneygrubbing and greasy till fumbling.

And I detect a level of envy in yours.

Where did you detect that? Really? Go on, tell us.

You've got this daft notion that anyone who's made a million from god knows what should be in politics on that basis alone.

Again, where does he say that the rich should be in politics simply because they’re rich?

Quit with the personal attacks. At least until you actually get competent at them.

Redleslie

Man
Well then I'd say you are welcome to that opinion but bear in mind that very few humans are not greedy.

Are you a sociologist or something? Have you any documented evidence to support that opinion? Or is it the load of "man in the pub" type rubbish I strongly suspect it is?

Please do me the curtesy of pointing out where I said that or are you going to make a habit of attributing things to posters that they have not said .

You mentioned that there's a few millionaires who live locally, that none of them were involved in politics but "maybe they should be". Why? Because they're rich? What about Eddie Irvine? Very nice man, I've met him, he's young, stinking rich, shags models, drives cars that make your friend's "beemer" look like a tricycle, risked his life every time he went to work, and owns a few swanky pubs now. According to you he should be in politics. I'm afraid I just don't get it. Yours is the kind of crazed logic of a topsy turvy Matrixesque world that got Arnie elected governor of California.

The Corinthian
The economics of capitalism would argue that working hard is only one of the factors that determine personal wealth or remuneration. Another one, often overlooked by leftists, is risk.

Is it really? Where did you get that from? "Leftists" do not believe in taking risks? That's absolutely ridiculous. Are you suggesting that people with left leaning political views are incapable of starting a business? Are they incapable of doing anything at all with their lives that involves taking a risk? Elaborate. Do.

The rest of your post consists of irrelevant trolling and standard issue spoilt yuppie drivel about some fantasy land where "many if not all" of our heroic captains of industry live some kind of ascetic existence for the benefit of their employees, instead of raking in cash by engaging in large scale tax evasion, or just old fashioned exploitation like Mike Hogan (who sacked all his staff without paying redundancies and fecked off owing some of them two or three months pay) so if you don't mind, I won't waste my time responding to any of it.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie
Are you a sociologist or something? Have you any documented evidence to support that opinion? Or is it the load of "man in the pub" type rubbish I strongly suspect it is?

I suggest you open a history book. You’ll find all the documentation you need there.

Otherwise, would you have credible documented evidence to support the contrary?

You mentioned that there's a few millionaires who live locally, that none of them were involved in politics but "maybe they should be". Why? Because they're rich? What about Eddie Irvine? Very nice man, I've met him, he's young, stinking rich, shags models, drives cars that make your friend's "beemer" look like a tricycle, risked his life every time he went to work, and owns a few swanky pubs now. According to you he should be in politics. I'm afraid I just don't get it. Yours is the kind of crazed logic of a topsy turvy Matrixesque world that got Arnie elected governor of California.

You’ve still not explained where he said that “that anyone who's made a million from god knows what should be in politics on that basis alone”. That’s what he asked you and you’re avoiding the question.

Less noise, more fact please.

Is it really? Where did you get that from? "Leftists" do not believe in taking risks? That's absolutely ridiculous. Are you suggesting that people with left leaning political views are incapable of starting a business? Are they incapable of doing anything at all with their lives that involves taking a risk? Elaborate. Do.

I never even implied that people with left leaning political views are incapable of starting a business, let alone stated it. Where did I say that? Go on - or are you going to avoid that question too...

I merely pointed out that risk is an input into determining remuneration - hard work (or labour) is not the sole determinant. This is basic economic theory. Where lefitists disagree is that risk is a determinant in the first place or the importance of it as a determinant, depending upon specific ideology.

The rest of your post consists of irrelevant trolling and standard issue spoilt yuppie drivel about some fantasy land where "many if not all" of our heroic captains of industry live some kind of ascetic existence for the benefit of their employees, instead of raking in cash by engaging in large scale tax evasion, or just old fashioned exploitation like Mike Hogan (who sacked all his staff without paying redundancies and fecked off owing some of them two or three months pay) so if you don't mind, I won't waste my time responding to any of it.

No - the rest of my post to you was challenging you to back up your assertions, accusations and personal attacks against Man. Now you’ve conveniently ignored all those challenges to your points I made and just vomited out another rant. So you seem to think that responding to a post with a rant, whose relevance is at best accidentally related to what it is addressing, is a valid argument.

It’s not. It’s a rant. It’s just noise.

So back up what you accuse people of with facts and reason. Respond to points made against you and address points made by others rather than what you wish they said. Otherwise I would agree that we’re all better off if you refrain from responding again.

Redleslie

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I suggest you open a history book. You’ll find all the documentation you need there.Otherwise, would you have credible documented evidence to support the contrary?

An unsatisfactory response to a question that wasn't even directed to you, but anyway I suppose much depends on how you define greed and whether you think it's learned behaviour or not. Anyway, thanks for your brilliantly insightful take on the history of mankind but if people are so naturally greedy why did something like Buddhism catch on? How did hunter gatherer societies function? Why do people, incredibly bright people, spend so much time creating art, music or literature and scarcely making a living out of it while they could have been working in a cushy job in the bank or whatever? You throw the word history at me, well how about you go away and have a look at some Irish history and tell me that people like Jim Larkin, De Valera, Michael Collins, Parnell, Joyce, Mary Robinson god love her etc were in what they were in for the money. Everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning, but them's the people who are the real risk takers, not your grubby pawed "beemer" driving, secretary bullying, toytown Gordon Gekkos. Loadsamoneys without the jokes. It's only greedy spoiled brats who assume that everyone else must be a greedy spoiled brat. Maybe it's the only way they can justify their existences.

You’ve still not explained where he said that “that anyone who's made a million from god knows what should be in politics on that basis alone”. That’s what he asked you and you’re avoiding the question.

Why don't you pay attention?? I've replied twice and I'm still waiting for Man to explain why his local millionaires should be involved in politics. He's got it completely arseways. Even the normally confused conservative economist Philippe Legrain understands that business and politics should be kept as separate as possible, to ensure that commercial interests do not have undue influence over policies.

I merely pointed out that risk is an input into determining remuneration - hard work (or labour) is not the sole determinant. This is basic economic theory. Where lefitists disagree is that risk is a determinant in the first place or the importance of it as a determinant, depending upon specific ideology.

But what "leftists" are you talking about? Labour Party voters? Denis O'Brien's mythical communist bogeymen? Where do you get this stuff? Regarding risk, I'm sure you've heard of the concept of limited liability. Should it be done away with to make capitalism a bit more exciting? The greater the risk the greater the return after all.

No - the rest of my post to you was challenging you to back up your assertions, accusations and personal attacks against Man. Now you’ve conveniently ignored all those challenges to your points I made and just vomited out another rant. So you seem to think that responding to a post with a rant, whose relevance is at best accidentally related to what it is addressing, is a valid argument. It’s not. It’s a rant. It’s just noise.

If I don't reply to any part of any post, it's probably because either my time is limited, there's nothing in it worth replying to or else I'd like to try keep the thread at least sort of on topic by ignoring crap.

So back up what you accuse people of with facts and reason. Respond to points made against you and address points made by others rather than what you wish they said. Otherwise I would agree that we’re all better off if you refrain from responding again.

I don't think I need a lecture on social etiquette from the likes of you, thanks all the same. Now run along and find someone else to patronise.

Cork

Originally posted by Man



What I will say, yet again and repeated often in the Right to Run thread, competent business people would have ample qualifications for a career in politics.
The voters ultimately have the decision on whether they suceed in politics and the voters are at the end of the day responsible for who they elect.

mm

It is a pity that more business people don't run for public office. When you look at state companies like An Post, RTE, CIE etc - Some direction from the private sector might steer these companies into profit.

The whole left/right atitude to tax is certainly pretty redundant. People are not willing to pay higher taxes for the promise of better services.

People like Michael O Leary have delivered much to this country. Their efforts should be applauded. There is nothing wrong at making a PROFIT.

PROFIT is not a rude word.

Regarding risk, I'm sure you've heard of the concept of limited liability. Should it be done away with to make capitalism a bit more exciting? The greater the risk the greater the return after all.

What is wrong with return?

The government has no plans to change any limited liability laws.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Redleslie
Anyway, thanks for your brilliantly insightful take on the history of mankind but if people are so naturally greedy why did something like Buddhism catch on? How did hunter gatherer societies function?

Like any religious philosophy Buddhism is often not adhered to by its followers. After all, Christianity shares many of the principles of Buddhism too - proverbs about the eye of the needle spring to mind. As for how hunter-gatherer societies, they often functioned as authoritarian and patriarchal groupings surviving at a subsistence level of existence. Hardly a model for utopia, is it?

Why do people, incredibly bright people, spend so much time creating art, music or literature and scarcely making a living out of it while they could have been working in a cushy job in the bank or whatever? You throw the word history at me, well how about you go away and have a look at some Irish history and tell me that people like Jim Larkin, De Valera, Michael Collins, Parnell, Joyce, Mary Robinson god love her etc were in what they were in for the money. Everyone needs a reason to get up in the morning, but them's the people who are the real risk takers, not your grubby pawed "beemer" driving, secretary bullying, toytown Gordon Gekkos. Loadsamoneys without the jokes. It's only greedy spoiled brats who assume that everyone else must be a greedy spoiled brat. Maybe it's the only way they can justify their existences.

People pursue their interests and careers for numerous reasons. I never denied that. All I took you up on was unsubstantiated arguments. You’ve not defended those yet, btw.

Why don't you pay attention?? I've replied twice and I'm still waiting for Man to explain why his local millionaires should be involved in politics.

And where did he say that his local millionaires should be involved in politics? That’s what I asked you. Perhaps you should pay attention.

But what "leftists" are you talking about? Labour Party voters? Denis O'Brien's mythical communist bogeymen? Where do you get this stuff?

It was a general term to describe the left wing of economic ideology - from social democracy, through to socialism, communism and anarchism. If you have a better umbrella term feel free to suggest it.

Regarding risk, I'm sure you've heard of the concept of limited liability. Should it be done away with to make capitalism a bit more exciting? The greater the risk the greater the return after all.

Limited liability does not really protect one from all that much. Many debts (such as to the bank) will inevitably be personally secured and there are numerous financial penalties to corporate insolvency.

Additionally, you have to consider the risk of labour involved. Most entrepreneurs will pay themselves little or nothing at the start or during leaner times. Most start-ups will fail and the entrepreneurs will find themselves in debt after often months or years of paying themselves substantially less than they would be earning as an employee. That kind of risk cannot be underestimated.

If I don't reply to any part of any post, it's probably because either my time is limited, there's nothing in it worth replying to or else I'd like to try keep the thread at least sort of on topic by ignoring crap.

Or because you cant back it up. Given that you have plenty of time to post rants, I suspect that might be the reason.

I don't think I need a lecture on social etiquette from the likes of you, thanks all the same. Now run along and find someone else to patronise.

Very droll. If you manage to address any of the questions in my previous posts I’ll be even more amused.






Edit: Cleaned up a superfluous QUOTE tag