If true can (Irish)mankind learn from the past?

ShooterSF

Ok this has to do with reading the thread about whether libertas is telling the truth or not. I posted a reply but realized it was off topic so im bringing it here. Seemingly there is a rumour going round that we have already lost our Commissioner in that facist move by the government of shoving the nice treaty down our throats when democracy had already said no (the vote till you get the right answer debacle) Even as I right this maybe it should go in general politics as it points to a HUGE f**k up by FF in actually giving the Irish people as say in whether to give up our commissioner or not.
It also leads to direct questioning of the integrity behind them pushing for a yes vote. Is it really because Lisbon is better for us or they don't want us to notice we have already lost and if we vote no and still loose our commissioner they are going to have to own up to one big f**k up on their part when they pulled dictatorship (aka veiled democracy) over nice!

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Seemingly there is a rumour going round that we have already lost our Commissioner in that facist move by the government of shoving the nice treaty down our throats when democracy had already said no (the vote till you get the right answer debacle) Even as I right this maybe it should go in general politics as it points to a HUGE f**k up by FF in actually giving the Irish people as say in whether to give up our commissioner or not.

I'm utterly confused about what your point is here.

We did have a say; we voted for Nice. Fascism blah blah whatever, more people voted the second time around and it was accepted by a bigger margin than it had been rejected.

It also leads to direct questioning of the integrity behind them pushing for a yes vote. Is it really because Lisbon is better for us or they don't want us to notice we have already lost and if we vote no and still loose our commissioner they are going to have to own up to one big f**k up on their part when they pulled dictatorship (aka veiled democracy) over nice!

I really don't understand what the fuss is about. We won't always have a commissioner - big deal. When was the last time Charlie McCreevey "delivered" something for Ireland from the Commission?

Call Me Jimmy

People seem to equate not having a commissioner for five years out fifteen (which every other country agreed to for some reason) with us not having a voice in europe and that they can make bring into law a "surveillance cameras in everyone's house" bill if we dont have a commissioner there.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'm utterly confused about what your point is here.

I'll try and simplify so. There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should. Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty, which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

ShooterSF

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

People seem to equate not having a commissioner for five years out fifteen (which every other country agreed to for some reason) with us not having a voice in europe and that they can make bring into law a "surveillance cameras in everyone's house" bill if we dont have a commissioner there.

Irrelevant.

That's not the point I'm making. Try and stay on topic. The point is that we're led to believe that it's up for debate when FF have already gave it up!

Call Me Jimmy

Sorry but it's hard to understand all the stuff you come out with.

Yes you have already agreed to reduce the number of commissioners to less than 27. Your country voted for that. I think people should have to live in a fascist country for a week before they can throw that term around...

Lisbon has proposed a fair implementation of this prior agreement.

I have read your post a couple of times and I still don't know what your point is other than FF are fascists. Is that your gripe?

Call Me Jimmy

ShooterSF wrote: »

I'll try and simplify so. There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should. Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty, which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

I think I understand this slightly better. This country did agree to losing the right to a commissioner all the time. The government supported this decision. Now a fair implementation of this agreement has been proposed and the government agree with it. How does that have anything to do with a **** up etc?

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

There's a huge debate going on about whether or not we should accept a treaty that takes away our right to nominate a commissioner to EU. The no side say's we shouldn't they yes side says we should.

If your point is that we shouldn't even be having the debate because it's a moot point, then we're in agreement. My objection is to it being offered as a "no" point by people who know full well that the situation will change either way.

Now it looks like the yes side already gave him away in said nice treaty...

Sorry, what? We, the electorate, agreed to allow the government to ratify the Nice treaty.

...which sorry was not democratically passed, it was shoved down our throat (with most people voting yes the second time just so we wouldn't have to vote a third .....) and are now may be pushing the yes for the wrong reasons i.e to cover there ass in said f**k up. Ya get it now?

I reject your premise, unless you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion as to why people voted in the second Nice referendum.

I'm pretty sick of repeating myself too, but: there were two referenda on the Nice treaty. The second had additional wording in it to address some of the chief concerns expressed the first time around. The second had a higher turnout, and a bigger margin. Roughly the same number voted no in both referenda, with a bigger "yes" turnout swinging the result.

I don't know what form of democracy you envisage where nobody's ever allowed to change their mind about anything ever, but I want no part of it.

ShooterSF

Oh god! No of course not, and thanks for the mental image of cowen waving his hands in the air screaming in german with his bingo wings flapping everywhere. My point MOST people are voting because they think the commissioner thing is up for debate and regardless of belief about the passing of nice, maybe FF's pushing for a yes is less about whether or not we benefit (which is supposed to be their interest) rather than having to deal with a backlash from people if a no vote passes and poof our commissioner nomination still goes. It's more questioning their statements integrity (Whilst also pointing out their past involvement in us loosing that right)

Again the biggest thing that put questions originally in my head and is part of another topic was one of the (now slowly with logic in mind) points they made as a REASON to PASS the treaty was we would keep our tax veto. But from my point of view thats not logical. We have it already we can't loose it by voting no so why is it a REASON to vote YES (Say it we me its not a gain its an irrelevance!) unless they're struggling for real reasons (Real Gains). And if so why are they pushing it unless theres an ulterior motive (see above). I really am trying to make this point as clear as possible but people keep missing it

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

If your point is that we shouldn't even be having the debate because it's a moot point, then we're in agreement. My objection is to it being offered as a "no" point by people who know full well that the situation will change either way. Sorry, what? We, the electorate, agreed to allow the government to ratify the Nice treaty. I reject your premise, unless you can come up with a reliable source for your assertion as to why people voted in the second Nice referendum.

I'm pretty sick of repeating myself too, but: there were two referenda on the Nice treaty. The second had additional wording in it to address some of the chief concerns expressed the first time around. The second had a higher turnout, and a bigger margin. Roughly the same number voted no in both referenda, with a bigger "yes" turnout swinging the result.

I don't know what form of democracy you envisage where nobody's ever allowed to change their mind about anything ever, but I want no part of it.

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time. I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote. And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS) Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

Call Me Jimmy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Oh god! No of course not, and thanks for the mental image of cowen waving his hands in the air screaming in german with his bingo wings flapping everywhere. My point MOST people are voting because they think the commissioner thing is up for debate and regardless of belief about the passing of nice, maybe FF's pushing for a yes is less about whether or not we benefit (which is supposed to be their interest) rather than having to deal with a backlash from people if a no vote passes and poof our commissioner nomination still goes. It's more questioning their statements integrity (Whilst also pointing out their past involvement in us loosing that right)

Again the biggest thing that put questions originally in my head and is part of another topic was one of the (now slowly with logic in mind) points they made as a REASON to PASS the treaty was we would keep our tax veto. But from my point of view thats not logical. We have it already we can't loose it by voting no so why is it a REASON to vote YES (Say it we me its not a gain its an irrelevance!) unless they're struggling for real reasons (Real Gains). And if so why are they pushing it unless theres an ulterior motive (see above). I really am trying to make this point as clear as possible but people keep missing it

The keeping our tax veto point is a rebuttle of the No argument that it's in danger. They're basically discounting it as a No argument (the same has been done with a lot of the more outlandish No arguments). That doesn't mean that you should vote YES solely because we get to keep something we already have, but not to let it sway you towards no because its not an issue.

Call Me Jimmy

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time. I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote. And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS) Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

So as the No side say we should go back and get a better deal, and the treaty is changed and there is another referendum on it... Is that Saddam Husseinesque?

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok so you're saying had it passed maybe we would have had a second vote in case anyone changed their mind since last time.

No, I'm not saying that at all.

I think your taking the questionabily out of whether the fact that the government's opinion differed with majority's the first time was the reason why we had a second vote.

You're carefully avoiding the realpolitik of the situation. The government signed up to the Nice treaty (as they have with Lisbon). They were committed, along with the other member states, to getting it ratified.

Then, as now, there was a lot of scaremongering and FUD in the debate. Then, as now, the government failed to inform and engage the public. They screwed up the first referendum.

Faced with the choice of either (a) addressing some of the concerns raised by the public, and asking us again, or (b) going back to Europe and saying "sorry boys, we f*cked it up so that's the end of the whole European project" - do you really believe they did the wrong thing?

As someone who voted "yes" to both Nice referenda, I would have been pissed not to get a chance to vote again. The same is true this time: if we reject this treaty because of a combination of lies from the "no" camp and incompetence from the "yes" camp, you're darned tootin' I want another chance to vote on it.

And that as far as I can see is not democracy. The re-vote was because we didnt agree with the leaders of the country. Hate to make a comparison like this but did you know that saddam hussein all the time was elected democratically (though no one ran agaist him out of fear) (NOW I KNOW THATS AN EXTREME BUT I HATE THAT PEOPLE JUST REWRITE THE HISTORY OF A SITUATION TO IGNORE THE UGLY BITS)

Like the Mugabe comparison made earlier, if you think the two are comparable, you need to get your sense of perspective surgically adjusted.

Sure why didn't we have a best 2 out of 3? 3 out of 5? etc....

See above. If you want to continue to refuse to understand the realities of the situation, feel free.

ShooterSF

But again it was listed directly under "Reason's to vote yes". Maybe if nothing else so they should be more careful how they word things because that kinda illogical stuff really makes me suspiocious when I read it.

Call Me Jimmy

Do you see those banner ads in the top right hand corner of your screen? None of them are reasons to vote no on their own without explanation. The yes side also have to compact things into small digestable chunks. So when you see "Reasons to Vote Yes: We keep our tax veto" that doesn't mean that on it's own is a reason to vote yes, but it's an attempt to counter the outright lies being spread by the No campaign.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

No, I'm not saying that at all. You're carefully avoiding the realpolitik of the situation. The government signed up to the Nice treaty (as they have with Lisbon). They were committed, along with the other member states, to getting it ratified.

Then, as now, there was a lot of scaremongering and FUD in the debate. Then, as now, the government failed to inform and engage the public. They screwed up the first referendum.

Faced with the choice of either (a) addressing some of the concerns raised by the public, and asking us again, or (b) going back to Europe and saying "sorry boys, we f*cked it up so that's the end of the whole European project" - do you really believe they did the wrong thing?

As someone who voted "yes" to both Nice referenda, I would have been pissed not to get a chance to vote again. The same is true this time: if we reject this treaty because of a combination of lies from the "no" camp and incompetence from the "yes" camp, you're darned tootin' I want another chance to vote on it. Like the Mugabe comparison made earlier, if you think the two are comparable, you need to get your sense of perspective surgically adjusted. See above. If you want to continue to refuse to understand the realities of the situation, feel free.

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?
But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

And as i said I know my example was extreme. You gave me a much better way to explain my point

Call Me Jimmy

ShooterSF wrote: »

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?
But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

And as i said I know my example was extreme. You gave me a much better way to explain my point

Look you're distorting it. If we vote no and try and get a better deal (which is one of the big arguments of the no side) and they come back with an amended lisbon treaty should we not vote on it again?

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

True I completely realize the true reasons behind the re-vote but (last time I checked) as an equal voice in a fair democracy, and someone who voted no both times shouldn't I equally get another chance to vote if i think the yes side was telling lies and the no side was incompetent?

Absolutely. All you have to do is elect a government that will hold such a referendum.

But where's my re-vote? Oh I see I don't agree with the "democratic" proccess required to give Europe what my government had already promised them. That in itself is my point it wasn't democratic the government had already agreed to back it BEFORE asking the people, then they just needed to manipulate the answer. Now sorry but which is that closer to democracy/facism?

Rather than keep going round in circles: which of the two Nice votes do you think was a more accurate representation of the views of the electorate? Give a reasoned answer, please.

ShooterSF

Jimmy you actually do make alot of sense. And im back to my original belief before reading everything. Dont believe anyone (they all have agenda's) and vote completely on my understanding ot it so. Unfortunately I ain't able to make head nor tale of the thing it's the size of the bible so as with a contract, cant understand it reject it.

There's only two other optiond (Dont vote). The worst. Irish people died for your right to decide. People who don't sicken me.

Or 2) believe a "neutral" commission that say's "we keep some of our vetoes" but leaves out the logical following "and loose others" which if truely neutral it would have stated.

I know this is all over the shop but people's issue change so quickly on this debate.

Thanks though you were at least logical in explanation.

Call Me Jimmy

I completely agree about trusting nobody and everybody has an agenda, but if you weigh up what different people's agendas might be then you make it easier to see who to trust (if anyone). For me personally, I don't see what the politicians have to gain from getting us into something that limits our influence any more than other countries.

Their interests are in this country (whatever they are) so if they thought this was going to cause us to I dunno, give up our corporation tax, what is in it for them? Then we lose investors, the irish economy could take a massive hit and people would be calling for their heads ye know?

I understand skeptisism towards politicians on a lot of issues but not on this because I can't see what Enda Kenny gets out of purposefully leading us down a dangerous path.

And that is just if I was going on what the politicians said and did not reading of my own. Having read the stuff ye realise how sensationalist the No side is and that even if the yes side wanted to they just don't have the headlines the No side have with their lies. I see lies from the No side and can't find much if anything the Yes side are saying that isnt true.

ShooterSF

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Look you're distorting it. If we vote no and try and get a better deal (which is one of the big arguments of the no side) and they come back with an amended lisbon treaty should we not vote on it again?

Im not im simply saying it wasnt above board democratic. Im not arguing the case there why i should or shouldnt reject it I was simply saying that the govenment manipulated said situation because as he said it was that or go back to the EU looking like clowns!

As for which was a better representation who knows? For all we know logically from the stats, Other than you and I (which have confirmed) no ther person may have voted in both as the turn out would still be shy of 100% or any other combination. Anything else would just be my or your or someone elses diluted opinion.

oscarBravo

ShooterSF wrote: »

As for which was a better representation who knows?

Who, indeed? All we can do is look at the numbers and make an educated guess.

A bigger turnout would logically suggest a more accurate reflection of the national sentiment, no?

ShooterSF

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

I completely agree about trusting nobody and everybody has an agenda, but if you weigh up what different people's agendas might be then you make it easier to see who to trust (if anyone). For me personally, I don't see what the politicians have to gain from getting us into something that limits our influence any more than other countries.

Call me skeptic but isnt it possible years from now when their support for this gone out of our short term memories it'll be a great scape goat if something goes wrong e.g "It was out of our hand's its a brussell's thing" Just an idea why??

Call Me Jimmy

Imo if you thought as much about all the possible permutations of a No vote and the people who are asking us to vote No (us military contractors) then you would come up with some great stuff about that too.

Obviously it's your choice but I'm just trying to get some perspective and calm. The arguments against it seem to go off all over the place it seems like people are dreaming out loud. I don't say blindly vote for whatever the government tell you but there's skeptical and there's skeptical.

ShooterSF

oscarBravo wrote: »

Who, indeed? All we can do is look at the numbers and make an educated guess.

A bigger turnout would logically suggest a more accurate reflection of the national sentiment, no?

Not at all unless the winning side outnumbers the loosing side and the unvoted. Which the closer to a 100 it gets the better. Its a possible assumption maybe even probable but in no way definite.

ShooterSF

Call Me Jimmy wrote: »

Imo if you thought as much about all the possible permutations of a No vote and the people who are asking us to vote No (us military contractors) then you would come up with some great stuff about that too.

Obviously it's your choice but I'm just trying to get some perspective and calm. The arguments against it seem to go off all over the place it seems like people are dreaming out loud. I don't say blindly vote for whatever the government tell you but there's skeptical and there's skeptical.

I guess that comes down to personalities so Oh and the US military thing never bothered me. Afraid of diluting our neutrality? Did you know in world war two planes flown by the british to protect its and the u.s's vessels in the atlantic couldn't along with the U.S cover the entire sea due to fuel levels so there was a black spot. Now our neutrality meant british planes had to divert around our airspace (including donegal) and make the blackspot larger however they didnt and it was given a blind eye. Now anyone who argues about our Neutrality better be disgusted by that fact or else they're using our neutrality to flame their personal war against the u.s (sorry again for off topic)

Call Me Jimmy

Man I don't what the F*CK you just said... but you're special to me. Just to be clear, I wasn't saying I necessarily thought anything of the US contractors issue, just that if you thought about all the possible evil aspirations of the No side as much as ye did for the Yes, ye'd come up with some pretty hot stuff worthy of the conspiracy theories forum!

ShooterSF

Yea I guess this is heading that way lol (Can never stay focused on one point cause something always sets me off on another issue) And yea I think theyonly safe thing to take from it is everyone has their own agenda. We can probably debate all day but I have (more important ) Euro cup to watch hehe. Anyway all I'll say is I hope for a good turnout and if (IF) the No's win that there's no are ya sure re-vote. Later thanks for the convo guys.

ixtlan

On the matter of a higer turnout being more democratic...

ShooterSF wrote: »

Not at all unless the winning side outnumbers the loosing side and the unvoted. Which the closer to a 100 it gets the better. Its a possible assumption maybe even probable but in no way definite.

The closer the turnout is to 100%, surely the more democratic.

It is true that you can never say with certainty whether a majority of the public supports a measure unless as you say the yes vote exceeds 50% of the total electorate.

It's a very sad reflection on the public that we would find 65% a very impressive turnout. I say on the public. Politicians can only do so much. I'm sure you will vote and I will but I find it depressing the number of people who really cannot be bothered. I would favour a minimum turnout for acceptance of a referendum, but I suspect in order to achieve this we would need some monetary inducement which could be a real mess with it's own issues.

I do believe there is enough information available to form an opinion one way or the other. If a person cannot, because they are unable to favour one side over the other, I have respect for that too, as long as they vote, and spoil their vote. That way they show that they want to participate in the process, and the yes and no sides can see that they failed that person.

Ix

ShooterSF

ixtlan wrote: »

On the matter of a higer turnout being more democratic...


The closer the turnout is to 100%, surely the more democratic.

It is true that you can never say with certainty whether a majority of the public supports a measure unless as you say the yes vote exceeds 50% of the total electorate.

It's a very sad reflection on the public that we would find 65% a very impressive turnout. I say on the public. Politicians can only do so much. I'm sure you will vote and I will but I find it depressing the number of people who really cannot be bothered. I would favour a minimum turnout for acceptance of a referendum, but I suspect in order to achieve this we would need some monetary inducement which could be a real mess with it's own issues.

I do believe there is enough information available to form an opinion one way or the other. If a person cannot, because they are unable to favour one side over the other, I have respect for that too, as long as they vote, and spoil their vote. That way they show that they want to participate in the process, and the yes and no sides can see that they failed that person.

Ix

Before I go and completely (as usual) Off-topic I totally agree with this and have long supported the idea that (Australia i think) use of simply fining you if you don't vote. But again skepticism inside me says it would be more left wing that don't turn out so the government have no (self) reason to bring in any such act. Think ya'll be blue in the face if you're holding you're breath on the idea though

Call Me Jimmy

Ok forgive me for this as it really is veering off-topic, but the way you're thinking about lisbon, if our government brought in a fine for not voting on stuff they'de be accused of using it as a way to "take more of our money" and being a nanny state etc.

FionnMatthew

I would think rather the opposite. If it weren't for the endemic risk of abuse, I'd think that citizenship ought to be contingent on passing regular examinations, put in place to determine whether the electorate is intellectually acute enough to vote, understands the mechanisms and reasoning behind democratic systems, understands what democracy is in a substantive sense, and is informing itself to an acceptable level of the data that are pertinent to its political activity. If one doesn't make it their business to know that sort of thing, they shouldn't be voting. And if one isn't bothered enough about keeping their vote to make the effort to pass such an exam, then one won't mind disenfranchising oneself (as so many people do.)

But, of course, it would be abused, and the system would be manipulated, and it could never work.

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

I would think rather the opposite. If it weren't for the endemic risk of abuse, I'd think that citizenship ought to be contingent on passing regular examinations, put in place to determine whether the electorate is intellectually acute enough to vote, understands the mechanisms and reasoning behind democratic systems, understands what democracy is in a substantive sense, and is informing itself to an acceptable level of the data that are pertinent to its political activity. If one doesn't make it their business to know that sort of thing, they shouldn't be voting. And if one isn't bothered enough about keeping their vote to make the effort to pass such an exam, then one won't mind disenfranchising oneself (as so many people do.)

But, of course, it would be abused, and the system would be manipulated, and it could never work.

Wow no that's terrifying. Who would even set that test and how would they keep the questions neutral? Impossible. Everyone is entitled to a vote or how would they share a say in a collective voice. That is one step closer to psuedo (sp?) fascism!

As for the point earlier that I'd accuse them of nanny state, hardly. I think it's a disgrace that people aren't forced to vote. If 100% voted we would clearly end up with the result that benefited the majority (and democracy would unquestionably have worked) Oh and I'll drop some of my skepticisms if a no vote wins and isn't forced into a revote. Actually I'll come on here and congratulate the govt. on upholding democracy

Call Me Jimmy

But the people you are forcing to vote are the ones least likely to know anything about the subject and are just doing it to avoid the fine, no? Is that better than them not voting?

IRLConor

ShooterSF wrote: »

Oh and I'll drop some of my skepticisms if a no vote wins and isn't forced into a revote.

Even if the second referendum addresses some or all of your concerns by modifying what you're voting on?

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Wow no that's terrifying. Who would even set that test and how would they keep the questions neutral? Impossible.

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable, and why we are stuck with a situation where many many people go to the polling station without anything but the faintest idea of what their civic duty entails.

It wouldn't be terrifying if it wasn't a system open to abuse.

But you could make it the duty of a governmental department. And I don't care to speculate on the nature of the examination, beyond saying that testing someone's knowledge of, say, the Lisbon treaty can be done without risk of bias.

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.

Everyone is entitled to a vote or how would they share a say in a collective voice.

Everyone is not entitled to a vote. In many jurisdictions, certain types of criminal are stricken from the electoral register, for instance, and most people would think this was a good idea.

Nothing I said suggested that any rational, capable person who was willing to do their civic duty, and to prove that they could be relied upon to do so, was not entitled to a vote. I only suggested that, in an ideal world, that entitlement could be conditional (or alternatively, the measure wouldn't be needed.)

One is given to wonder, however, how people who haven't a clue what they're doing might be able to share in the collective voice, either, or precisely how useful the collective voice of many many people who are largely ignorant of what they're doing actually is.

That is one step closer to psuedo (sp?) fascism!

I presume that, by prefixing with "pseudo," you mean "not-fascism, but something equally shocking!!"

Because otherwise you'd be guilty of using the word "fascism" in a way that many many ignorant people are guilty of using it. The truth is, just as most people don't understand what "democracy" means, the same applies to the word "fascism." If you are one of these people, the following is for your benefit. (if you are not, please ignore.)

Wikipedia's definition is nicely concise.

Wikipedia wrote:

Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by placing the nation or race above the individual and promoting cults of unity, energy and purity.

Fascists promote a type of national unity that is usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, national, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, economic planning (including corporatism and autarky), populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism.

A glance back at what I suggested, which was a minimum requirement for electoral privileges, so as to ensure that the ideals of democracy are upheld, and that nobody who is not sound of mind or unwilling to inform themselves adequately so as to be able to contribute to the rule of the people, will show that any democracy which organised itself the way I suggested would not necessarily (and would preferably not) promote national unity based on ethnic, cultural, national, racial or religious attributes. If anything, national unity would be based only on civic attributes, and nothing more, at the risk of interference from these. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with xenophobia, patriotism, nationalism, militarism, anti-communism or economic planning. It is decidedly incompatible with a selection of other tenets of fascism, such as totalitarianism, populism and autocracy.

The thing to understand about democracy is that it doesn't give us complete freedom:

We're not free to float skywards.

We're not free to kill each other.

And we're not free to think that the words "democracy" and "fascism" mean whatever we want them to mean, or whatever we get the feeling they mean from the way ignorant people erroneously use them.

The word "democracy" has specific meaning, and describes a specific mode of government and social organization. It's all very well to think that it means that everyone is entitled to vote how they like, but it actually stands that voting blind, or remaining ignorant and voting, or voting randomly, runs counter to the ideals that democracy sets in place.

In that recognition, since attitudes are so widespread which advocate "asking the politician what he'll do for us" and since election campaign posters tend to reduce political discourse to the most banal and meaningless of campaign slogans, and since the electorate at large is mostly distracted with the more pressing engagements of their lives, and is willing to regard politics as an amusing diversion which arises once or twice every couple of years, or as something to do when you want to blame someone for something, or something that happens in the papers, we ought to realize that what passes for democracy in Western states, particularly the US, but even here to a great degree, is not, in fact, democracy, but democracy's poorer cousin.

It's this poor cousin of democracy, which gives the people comfort in the superficial platitudes that let them believe they "understand things," when actually, the first thing we ought to admit is that we anything but understand them.

It's the sort of social order which makes of the process of democracy itself a mode of entertainment, to be commented upon in the mass media, to be masticated and prepackaged into digestible chunks which are ready for easy consumption on the 6:01 news, and which masks the fact that to fulfill your civic duty properly is really a rather hard job, which takes a lot of reading, self-education and hard deliberation.

It's the sort of social phenomenon that distracts us with the superficial semblance of political order, and obscures the difficult and sophisticated truth of politics.

It's the sort of social attitude that has us all sailing into the Atlantic unmanned while we all happily pretend we're piloting the vessel from down in the VR lounge.

It's the sort of perverted democracy which, in one form or another, has preceded every lapse from democracy to willing, populist totalitarian government, because it's the sort of democracy which sends the nightwatchmen away while everyone's asleep, and leaves the door open to the wolves.

Besides all of which, the suggestion I made was sandwiched between two disclaimers of how, being open to abuse, it isn't even a viable sort of idealism. But make no mistake here, it's wrong for many reasons, but none of them sit unequivocally on a ready-made, simplistic, "everyman's understanding" type of scale which spreads from democracy at one pole to fascism at the other.

lucozader

i don't trust the gov't

Scofflaw

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable, and why we are stuck with a situation where many many people go to the polling station without anything but the faintest idea of what their civic duty entails.

It wouldn't be terrifying if it wasn't a system open to abuse.

But you could make it the duty of a governmental department. And I don't care to speculate on the nature of the examination, beyond saying that testing someone's knowledge of, say, the Lisbon treaty can be done without risk of bias.

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.


Everyone is not entitled to a vote. In many jurisdictions, certain types of criminal are stricken from the electoral register, for instance, and most people would think this was a good idea.

Nothing I said suggested that any rational, capable person who was willing to do their civic duty, and to prove that they could be relied upon to do so, was not entitled to a vote. I only suggested that, in an ideal world, that entitlement could be conditional (or alternatively, the measure wouldn't be needed.)

One is given to wonder, however, how people who haven't a clue what they're doing might be able to share in the collective voice, either, or precisely how useful the collective voice of many many people who are largely ignorant of what they're doing actually is.


I presume that, by prefixing with "pseudo," you mean "not-fascism, but something equally shocking!!"

Because otherwise you'd be guilty of using the word "fascism" in a way that many many ignorant people are guilty of using it. The truth is, just as most people don't understand what "democracy" means, the same applies to the word "fascism." If you are one of these people, the following is for your benefit. (if you are not, please ignore.)

Wikipedia's definition is nicely concise.



A glance back at what I suggested, which was a minimum requirement for electoral privileges, so as to ensure that the ideals of democracy are upheld, and that nobody who is not sound of mind or unwilling to inform themselves adequately so as to be able to contribute to the rule of the people, will show that any democracy which organised itself the way I suggested would not necessarily (and would preferably not) promote national unity based on ethnic, cultural, national, racial or religious attributes. If anything, national unity would be based only on civic attributes, and nothing more, at the risk of interference from these. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with xenophobia, patriotism, nationalism, militarism, anti-communism or economic planning. It is decidedly incompatible with a selection of other tenets of fascism, such as totalitarianism, populism and autocracy.

The thing to understand about democracy is that it doesn't give us complete freedom:

We're not free to float skywards.

We're not free to kill each other.

And we're not free to think that the words "democracy" and "fascism" mean whatever we want them to mean, or whatever we get the feeling they mean from the way ignorant people erroneously use them.

The word "democracy" has specific meaning, and describes a specific mode of government and social organization. It's all very well to think that it means that everyone is entitled to vote how they like, but it actually stands that voting blind, or remaining ignorant and voting, or voting randomly, runs counter to the ideals that democracy sets in place.

In that recognition, since attitudes are so widespread which advocate "asking the politician what he'll do for us" and since election campaign posters tend to reduce political discourse to the most banal and meaningless of campaign slogans, and since the electorate at large is mostly distracted with the more pressing engagements of their lives, and is willing to regard politics as an amusing diversion which arises once or twice every couple of years, or as something to do when you want to blame someone for something, or something that happens in the papers, we ought to realize that what passes for democracy in Western states, particularly the US, but even here to a great degree, is not, in fact, democracy, but democracy's poorer cousin.

It's this poor cousin of democracy, which gives the people comfort in the superficial platitudes that let them believe they "understand things," when actually, the first thing we ought to admit is that we anything but understand them.

It's the sort of social order which makes of the process of democracy itself a mode of entertainment, to be commented upon in the mass media, to be masticated and prepackaged into digestible chunks which are ready for easy consumption on the 6:01 news, and which masks the fact that to fulfill your civic duty properly is really a rather hard job, which takes a lot of reading, self-education and hard deliberation.

It's the sort of social phenomenon that distracts us with the superficial semblance of political order, and obscures the difficult and sophisticated truth of politics.

It's the sort of social attitude that has us all sailing into the Atlantic unmanned while we all happily pretend we're piloting the vessel from down in the VR lounge.

It's the sort of perverted democracy which, in one form or another, has preceded every lapse from democracy to willing, populist totalitarian government, because it's the sort of democracy which sends the nightwatchmen away while everyone's asleep, and leaves the door open to the wolves.

Besides all of which, the suggestion I made was sandwiched between two disclaimers of how, being open to abuse, it isn't even a viable sort of idealism. But make no mistake here, it's wrong for many reasons, but none of them sit unequivocally on a ready-made, simplistic, "everyman's understanding" type of scale which spreads from democracy at one pole to fascism at the other.

Good post! What we have is essentially populism, which is how we keep electing FF, who are a populist party.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable, and why we are stuck with a situation where many many people go to the polling station without anything but the faintest idea of what their civic duty entails.

It wouldn't be terrifying if it wasn't a system open to abuse.

But you could make it the duty of a governmental department. And I don't care to speculate on the nature of the examination, beyond saying that testing someone's knowledge of, say, the Lisbon treaty can be done without risk of bias.

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.

Exactly how can a department set up by the government(who is for the lisbon treaty) be impartial unless you pick random citizens out of a hat and even then what "civic duty" entails would be affected by there prejudices. And let's be honest how many people have actually read the treaty cover to cover and took the time to understand the implacations of every article in it?

Everyone is not entitled to a vote. In many jurisdictions, certain types of criminal are stricken from the electoral register, for instance, and most people would think this was a good idea.

Nothing I said suggested that any rational, capable person who was willing to do their civic duty, and to prove that they could be relied upon to do so, was not entitled to a vote. I only suggested that, in an ideal world, that entitlement could be conditional (or alternatively, the measure wouldn't be needed.)

The criminal situation is (if in effect) unjust surely our justice system is based on reform if they served their sentence what right has anyone to tell them they can't vote. And how does one prove one is ready to perform their civic duty. A test on the subject yeah? Impartial of course.

Lets try something here, without looking it up and condsidering the vote is tomorrow, (A Sample idea of a test) Can you recall please what article 5.1 of the lisbon treaty states and what it's potential effects are? Anybody? If you can't answer I guess you're not educated in the situation enough to vote. Is this what you mean?

One is given to wonder, however, how people who haven't a clue what they're doing might be able to share in the collective voice, either, or precisely how useful the collective voice of many many people who are largely ignorant of what they're doing actually is.


I presume that, by prefixing with "pseudo," you mean "not-fascism, but something equally shocking!!"

I do apologize that was simply using a slang term I didnt realize we were in a grammar debate

Because otherwise you'd be guilty of using the word "fascism" in a way that many many ignorant people are guilty of using it. The truth is, just as most people don't understand what "democracy" means, the same applies to the word "fascism." If you are one of these people, the following is for your benefit. (if you are not, please ignore.)

Wikipedia's definition is nicely concise.



A glance back at what I suggested, which was a minimum requirement for electoral privileges, so as to ensure that the ideals of democracy are upheld, and that nobody who is not sound of mind or unwilling to inform themselves adequately so as to be able to contribute to the rule of the people, will show that any democracy which organised itself the way I suggested would not necessarily (and would preferably not) promote national unity based on ethnic, cultural, national, racial or religious attributes. If anything, national unity would be based only on civic attributes, and nothing more, at the risk of interference from these. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with xenophobia, patriotism, nationalism, militarism, anti-communism or economic planning. It is decidedly incompatible with a selection of other tenets of fascism, such as totalitarianism, populism and autocracy.

Piece of I.T advice pal never, even if it's a quote saying black is indeed black use wiki-anything as a genuine quote to support an argument.

The thing to understand about democracy is that it doesn't give us complete freedom:

We're not free to float skywards.

We're not free to kill each other.

And we're not free to think that the words "democracy" and "fascism" mean whatever we want them to mean, or whatever we get the feeling they mean from the way ignorant people erroneously use them.

The word "democracy" has specific meaning, and describes a specific mode of government and social organization. It's all very well to think that it means that everyone is entitled to vote how they like, but it actually stands that voting blind, or remaining ignorant and voting, or voting randomly, runs counter to the ideals that democracy sets in place.

Ok I'll use a quote this time. From Miriam-Webster's dictionary (Sorry I couldn't find it on the wikipedia)

Main Entry:
de·moc·ra·cy Listen to the pronunciation of democracy
Pronunciation:
\di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function:
noun
Inflected Form(s):
plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology:
Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date:
1576

1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Now if people vote what's best for them doesn't it work out that we get what's best for the majority. We can't realistically get whats best for everone everytime. So rule of the majority is the best viable solution we have. I can't decide whats best for the old man down the road and he can't for me but if we all vote the majority get what's best for them LOGICALLY.
Everything else in your post then seems to be opinion ramblings and metaphors.

ixtlan

Unfortunately for me I seem to be on ShooterSF's side here.

I take many of the FionnMatthews points, and I agree that the disinterest in politics could eventually give rise to fascism or dictatorships.

However the alternative of disenfranchising large segments of the population has consequences too of the same type. Do people have to take exams? What if you have reading problems? No matter how good the system is there would be many many borderline cases.

So while I despair at the political apathy of the public, I don't think selective citizenship is a good option.

Ix

ShooterSF

ixtlan wrote: »

Unfortunately for me I seem to be on ShooterSF's side here.

I take many of the FionnMatthews points, and I agree that the disinterest in politics could eventually give rise to fascism or dictatorships.

However the alternative of disenfranchising large segments of the population has consequences too of the same type. Do people have to take exams? What if you have reading problems? No matter how good the system is there would be many many borderline cases.

So while I despair at the political apathy of the public, I don't think selective citizenship is a good option.

Ix

My apologies I never meant to make an argument anyone would have to agree with - oh and before anyone rants i'm just kiddin around there.

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Exactly how can a department set up by the government(who is for the lisbon treaty) be impartial unless you pick random citizens out of a hat and even then what "civic duty" entails would be affected by there prejudices.

Look. I'm not about to get into this argument with you, because it's not even a suggestion I support, so I'm not really interested in how it might all pan out. I will note, however, that while somewhat controversial in many corners (as this measure no doubt would be) many aspects of voting which might conceivably influence matters in the same way are handled by governmental departments. Impartiality is the regulative ideal for civil servants.

And let's be honest how many people have actually read the treaty cover to cover and took the time to understand the implacations of every article in it?

Right. Let's be honest. Probably a disappointingly small proportion. And it's only that disappointingly small proportion of the electorate who should consider themselves informed enough to make a rational and legitimate decision on this matter. That's how democracy is supposed to work, if it is to work at all, that is, if it is to be anything better than the way Big Brother winners are chosen.

The criminal situation is (if in effect) unjust surely our justice system is based on reform if they served their sentence what right has anyone to tell them they can't vote.

In Ireland, we don't actually restrict the right to vote for prisoners, but we do restrict access to the ballot, so that it is effectively impossible for prisoners to vote.

But on a more international scale, there is widespread opinion that serious criminals forfeit their right to vote.

Look at this for instance.

And how does one prove one is ready to perform their civic duty. A test on the subject yeah? Impartial of course.

It's a pretty impartial system that determines that people who are willing to put themselves in serious breach of the laws of the land, and have been shown to have done so in a court of law, are already proving that that they do not observe their civic duty, nor do they hold it in much repute.

Lets try something here, without looking it up and condsidering the vote is tomorrow, (A Sample idea of a test) Can you recall please what article 5.1 of the lisbon treaty states and what it's potential effects are? Anybody? If you can't answer I guess you're not educated in the situation enough to vote. Is this what you mean?

This is a red herring. None of us have the expectation of being examined in our knowledge of the treaty. If we had, yes, our lack of such knowledge would be evidence that we don't take our vote seriously enough to know such things. But, as I've already said countless times, I don't actually advocate enfranchisement by examination. I mentioned it to make a point about how desperate a situation the democracy is in in this country (and other Western states.)

But here's a question: Consider a hypothetical situation where the Irish electorate were asked to vote blind on a treaty which was not available to them - is that situation attractive? Now consider a situation where the treaty is available only to a select group of people. Is that attractive?
Now consider a situation where, although the treaty is available to all, most people throw up their hands and complain that it is written in "difficult language" (this is in a country where 41.6% of the population hold 3rd level degrees, remember), and decide to vote on it anyway, preferring to base their decision on their "gut feeling", or on untested personal prejudice, or on whether or not they are convinced by the superficial, vastly oversimplifying rhetoric of PR campaigns, or on whether they like the attitude or manner of speech of the exponents of 'yes' or 'no' campaigns, or on whether or not the politicians they support, whose status as public servants is testament to the fact that they are in no better a situation to understand the treaty than the average person, think 'yes' or 'no' is a good idea.

How is this situation much different from the first two? Is the fact that the treaty is available to people in the second one only better on point of principle, since nobody reads it anyway? As far as I can see, they are both equally bad varieties of the same situation.

Piece of I.T advice pal never, even if it's a quote saying black is indeed black use wiki-anything as a genuine quote to support an argument.

As someone who has made it his business to know what the terms 'democracy' and 'fascism' actually mean, and as someone with an academic mandate to trust that he's actually achieved this to an acceptable degree, I can lay testament to the fact that the Wikipedia article I quoted to you is accurate. I quoted it because it is concise and accurate. I am not relying on the 'authority' of Wikipedia. I'm not using it to support my argument. What it says has the advantage of being correct.

I invite you to actually investigate the history and philosophical roots of fascism, and read paradigm tracts of fascist philosophy, and read critical commentaries on fascism, so that you can corroborate what I have told you. The very worst way you could determine the meaning of 'fascism' is by listening to the undisciplined, knee-jerk uses of the word in the gutter (and indeed broad-sheet) media, or in common everyday discourse.

Ok I'll use a quote this time. From Miriam-Webster's dictionary (Sorry I couldn't find it on the wikipedia)

Fascism is a broad spectrum political and social phenomenon. To understand the term, you really have to appreciate its myriad senses, and to understand the diverse philosophies that fall under it. That is a single-line dictionary definition (and not a very good one, at that), and the fact that you're using it is indicative of the problem I am trying to point out. If you want to live in a soundbite culture, by all means do. But don't expect your abstruse understanding of a complex field of phenomena to even nearly cut it. Anti-intellectualism is, I should mention, one of the primary features of a populist society, and one of the cornerstones of fascist government. After all, what could be better for the interests of a powerful elite than an electorate which hasn't a clue, and is ignorant of their ignorance, and happy in it too.

Now if people vote what's best for them doesn't it work out that we get what's best for the majority. We can't realistically get whats best for everone everytime.

No. But, time and again, that's not what we're trying to get. We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit, not what's best for each individual. That's what collective politics is supposed to be about. For goodness, sake, could you just think about what you're writing?

So rule of the majority is the best viable solution we have. I can't decide whats best for the old man down the road and he can't for me but if we all vote the majority get what's best for them LOGICALLY.

Once again, this is a degenerate form of democracy. I've already corrected you on what's wrong with the above quote, in an earlier post.

Everything else in your post then seems to be opinion ramblings and metaphors.

Look. Go away and do some reading, and then we can talk. You obviously aren't taking me seriously. Perhaps this world-respected, academic, peer reviewed encyclopedia will have better luck with you, if it doesn't have "too many big words" for you.

FionnMatthew

ixtlan wrote: »

Unfortunately for me I seem to be on ShooterSF's side here.

I take many of the FionnMatthews points, and I agree that the disinterest in politics could eventually give rise to fascism or dictatorships.

However the alternative of disenfranchising large segments of the population has consequences too of the same type. Do people have to take exams? What if you have reading problems? No matter how good the system is there would be many many borderline cases.

So while I despair at the political apathy of the public, I don't think selective citizenship is a good option.

Ix

Good. Which, if you read what I said carefully, is exactly my position.

Cases in point:

Fionnmatthew wrote:

If it weren't for the endemic risk of abuse, I'd think ...

Fionnmatthew wrote:

But, of course, it would be abused, and the system would be manipulated, and it could never work.

Fionnmatthew wrote:

Precisely. Which is exactly what I said, and hence, why it is undesirable,

Fionnmatthew wrote:

It's all moot, really, because as I said before, I'm not advocating it.

Fionnmatthew wrote:

Besides all of which, the suggestion I made was sandwiched between two disclaimers of how, being open to abuse, it isn't even a viable sort of idealism. But make no mistake here, it's wrong for many reasons,

Fionnmatthew wrote:

Look. I'm not about to get into this argument with you, because it's not even a suggestion I support, so I'm not really interested in how it might all pan out.

Fionnmatthew wrote:

But, as I've already said countless times, I don't actually advocate enfranchisement by examination.

the_syco

ShooterSF: I'm confused about this Commissioner arguement, as when did the Commissioner do anything for us, and how long ago did they do it?

To my knowledge the Commissioner only gives us what the Commission gives the Commissioner to give to us... so in fact the Commissioner has very little power in the first place?

ShooterSF

FionnMatthew wrote: »

.


This is a red herring. None of us have the expectation of being examined in our knowledge of the treaty.

Hey you brought the idea up of peoples knowledge being tested to vote so don't throw it back in my face when I point out how up in the air the idea was.

No. But, time and again, that's not what we're trying to get. We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit, not what's best for each individual. That's what collective politics is supposed to be about. For goodness, sake, could you just think about what you're writing?

No how about you read what you quote and think yourself , "We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit" by what means? You can't tell me that everyone will benefit from one decision or other so we look at it as how most can benefit. I.E majority, or have you another wonderful pie-in-the-sky idea how to make sure everyone is happy? If the yes wins it won't be good for the collective no supporters who'd rather see it not and vice versa. We're not a colony of ants we don't a collective opinion or circumstances. We vote whats best for us and majority rules make sure as many as possible can benefit. YES it would be wonderful if everyone could benefit but there's too wide a spectrum of people with different desires for this to be possible, please get out of your made up fantasy pleasantville land and into reality!!

will have better luck with you, if it doesn't have "too many big words" for you.

Thanks but I'd rather reading suggestions from Oprah than you and that's saying a lot. Don't get me wrong you seem well educated and versed just lacking cop on to the real life around you.
Oh and generic insults about ones vocabulary really is petty. Sorry I didn't major in the english language I'm a math's and logic head

FionnMatthew

You still don't understand it.

ShooterSF wrote: »

"We're trying to get what's best for all of us as a unit" by what means? You can't tell me that everyone will benefit from one decision or other so we look at it as how most can benefit.

Right. But we don't do that by voting on our individual whims. Procedurally, that is a flawed way to proceed. We vote, instead, on how we perceive the collective to be best served.

I.E majority, or have you another wonderful pie-in-the-sky idea how to make sure everyone is happy?

I'm not a utilitarian, so I'm not interested in making everyone happy.

If the yes wins it won't be good for the collective no supporters who'd rather see it not and vice versa.

But as a voter, you're not there to consider the whims of other individuals either, just you are not there to consider your own whims. You are there to consider what could possibly be best for Ireland as a whole, weighing in factors from every sector of society, and how you perceive a country is best governed. You actually have a responsibility to have an informed opinion on these things. Ignorant of them, you are useless to the civic body.

We're not a colony of ants we don't a collective opinion or circumstances.

We are not automatically such, no. We are enjoined by our electoral privilege to assume the attitude of a single collective body, and to abstract from individual circumstances. With the right to vote, comes the duty to do it properly. These are mutual obligations. It's an active thing. We have to deliberately do this, deliberately put ourselves into this mode of thinking.

Rousseau calls it "the general will." The principle is discussed in more modern context with respect to the concept of Justice by Rawls, in A Theory of Justice.

We vote whats best for us and majority rules make sure as many as possible can benefit.

And if the majority, by dint of ignorance, laziness or entrenched willing ideology, make the wrong decision? If the majority ignorantly votes against its own best interests, because each constituent individual is more interested in his own personal whims than the good of the whole?

It's a trivial point that what is in one's interest is not always the same as what one desires. Addicts, for instance, are not best served by continuing to abuse (and the populist electorate, in my reading, resembles a kind of addict.)

Have you ever heard of the Prisoner's Dilemma?
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-ethics/#2

YES it would be wonderful if everyone could benefit but there's too wide a spectrum of people with different desires for this to be possible, please get out of your made up fantasy pleasantville land and into reality!!

I'm not in pleasantville. I didn't say everyone could benefit. I said that if democracy is to work, the demos must choose the best option for the collective, and not fragment in the interests of each individual.

I challenge you, further, to provide a comprehensive account of the "reality" in question, because I contend that, although I still consider myself a student of reality, my own grasp on it is entirely less fictional than yours.

Thanks but I'd rather reading suggestions from Oprah than you and that's saying a lot.

Well done. Now you don't have to read anything. That's a great rationalization for not bothering to educate yourself as to your civic duty. Let me just state that it is a disservice to everyone else for you to continue as you do.

Oh and generic insults about ones vocabulary really is petty. Sorry I didn't major in the english language I'm a math's and logic head

I apologize if you took that personally. I was making that point more about the generally anti-intellectual sentiments of the electorate. I can see why you took it personally, and I rescind the comment. I do, however, continue to urge you to read the article.

ShooterSF

Ok my head is spinning we'll never agree on exact wording here. If everyone was completely aware of all things going on before they vote then both ways should theoretically produce the same result correct?

The problem so therein lies the fact most people are not educated on the situation and you're putting it down to ignorance. I'm putting it down to an unreadable (called so by some of it's supporters) document, two sides throwing around buzzwords, catchphrases, scare tactics and little substance and an "impartial" commission that was anything but "impartial" so where do people turn the educate themselves on the situation? Everyone else has an agenda so one must go to the source which in itself is way to vague. And that scares me. Why can't we be told we want to change this this and this (with specifics physical changes not verbal masturbation and sight rewording of documents) and asked to vote on it. Then it'd be a clear black and white choice where people could be better informed.

FionnMatthew

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ok my head is spinning we'll never agree on exact wording here. If everyone was completely aware of all things going on before they vote then both ways should theoretically produce the same result correct?

Theoretically, correct. But the democratic process allows for error, and so moves in favour of the majority vote, assuming everyone involved is doing their best to reach an impartial verdict. And also assumes that the minority give their consent, in the trust that the majority of informed, impartial opinions is the most rational collective choice.

The problem so therein lies the fact most people are not educated on the situation and you're putting it down to ignorance. I'm putting it down to an unreadable (called so by some of it's supporters) document,

The word 'unreadable' does not mean what it appears to mean here. It really means that people aren't bothered to read it, or find it frustrating. It's written in the orthographic characters of our alphabet. It's been translated into our language.

Heidegger could be said to be 'unreadable.' So could Tolstoy, and Balzac. For many people, Shakespeare is unreadable. (I think Stephen King is unreadable, for different reasons.) All of these things are, however, quite readable, if the reader is inclined to put in a bit of effort. And with the Lisbon treaty, we are not inclined but obliged to do so.

It's for this reason that literacy is so important in a democratic state.

two sides throwing around buzzwords, catchphrases, scare tactics and little substance

Agreed. Simply don't listen to them.

... so where do people turn the educate themselves on the situation?

It's not something people should be turning to right now, but something towards which a sustained effort ought to have been made, and continue to be made, throughout our lives. Ideally, we should never consider ourselves to be "educated" about anything, but look on life as a process of continual rational inquiry into the matters such as these.

But the treaty is a good place to start, and the discussions on here are very helpful, and there are plenty of books in the libraries of our country which will aid an interested party.

Everyone else has an agenda so one must go to the source which in itself is way to vague.

Do I have an agenda? I haven't even decided which way to vote. I'm not even sure I will.

The source isn't vague at all. It's just difficult. And if it's too difficult for you to handle, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you just aren't cut out for your civic duty, and abstain out of respect for the rest of the electorate?

And that scares me. Why can't we be told we want to change this this and this (with specifics physical changes not verbal masturbation and sight rewording of documents) and asked to vote on it.

Sorry, but the treaty is actually a very concise list of the changes being made. It's not verbal masturbation. It so happens that legal documents are written using words. To change them entails rewording. Those are the rules of this engagement. You need to develop the capacity to deal with it.

Then it'd be a clear black and white choice where people could be better informed.

So you would advocate dumbing down the treaty, to cater for people who want the privilege of voting without the accompanying obligations of responsibility, level-headedness, and democratic conduct?

ShooterSF

Personal opinion I'd never abstain I try and get the best picture I can and then being a human being I decide on it. I believe it's better to vote with some understanding than to say no this item that could effect me is for people to decide on. Sure they'll make it their civic duty to remember me!

What I meant was , as you said yourself before, "we're changing the rules not the score" problem is who knows how those rules will effect the score and maybe even used used in ways we hadn't imagined to our disadvantage. Instead let them come back with the score and minimal ammount of changes to the rules to achieve that score and then let us decide. Not dumb it down just clear it up.

VoidStarNull

You have to ask yourself, has the devious EU and the other member states worked the rules in the past to try to put one over on us? The answer is no. Believe it or not, they are not out to get us.

And bear in mind that the treaty was negotiated by Irish politicians, civil servants, and diplomats who collectively have been through every line of it to make sure it doesn't damage our interests.