‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

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

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

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Yes you are. No you're not.

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

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

:rolleyes:

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

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

davoxx

Godge wrote: »

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

does that not tell you that it is needlessly complicated?

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

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

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Shakeyspears

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

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

ed2hands

Shakeyspears wrote: »

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

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

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

Scofflaw

davoxx wrote: »

does that not tell you that it is needlessly complicated?

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

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

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

davoxx

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

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

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

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

davoxx

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

cordially,
Scofflaw

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

Shakeyspears

ed2hands wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

steve9859

Shakeyspears wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

stackerman

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

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

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

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

I know that woman, and for the record

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

Suryavarman

davoxx wrote: »

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

You're the one that brought up speed.

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

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

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

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

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

FreudianSlippers

keving wrote: »

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

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

I know that woman, and for the record

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

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

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

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're the one that brought up speed.

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

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

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

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

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

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

Suryavarman

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

Doesn't the Luas make a profit?

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

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

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

Scofflaw

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

Are we not voting on exactly that today?

cordially,
Scofflaw

davoxx

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

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

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

hmmm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

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

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

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

hmmm

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

TheRealPONeil

Scofflaw wrote: »

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

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

regards,
Scofflaw

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

ei.sdraob

hmmm wrote: »

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

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

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

steve9859

hmmm wrote: »

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

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

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

Suryavarman

Scofflaw wrote: »

Are we not voting on exactly that today?

cordially,
Scofflaw

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

davoxx wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hatrickpatrick

hmmm wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anita M.

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

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Hitler did not win the election in 1932.


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

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

Anita M.

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