Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 37
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?Page 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
It was Charles I who was found guilty of high treason...


...and if Hitler had won the war, Churchill would have been tried for war crimes...and if the colonies lost the revolt, Washington & Jefferson would have been hanged for treason...What is your point?

Don't forget, when the next king ascended the throne, one of the first things he did was have the now-dead Cromwell dug up and hanged (for High Treason I believe). How could he do that if Cromwell had committed no crime?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 38
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 7:28:31 PM
RE Msg: 50 by JustDukky:

Why can you not simply accept that us Brits know more about the way Britain works than you?
OK, Then you already know that "Her Majesty" is the "corporation sole" of Elizabeth of Windsor the woman,
"Her Majesty" is just another title of Elizabeth Windsor, which is really just another nom de plume, as Windsor is not even the family name. It was changed because the old family name was too German sounding.

and you already know that "The Crown" is a corporation of "The City" of London?
The City of London developed over several centuries in the last 1000 years. So did the British Crown. But for much of the first 4-5 centuries of the last 1000 years, the throne was NOT in the City of London. Either it was in the Tower of London, which is not in the City, and NOT under its governance, or the Palace of Westminster, which is also its own independent building, or up North. The Crown is one thing. The City is quite another. So I simply have lots of cases where the Crown is separate from the City, and not many cases where they are unified. By the Baconian method, that would dictate that I should take it that these are unrelated.

"The City" of London (which is a city-state and not part of England)?

Although the City of London (a geographically small city within Greater London) is not commonly considered a city-state, it does have a unique political status (sui generis), a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically, its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835.

It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London (not the same post as the more recent Mayor of London, who presides over Greater London). The City of London is a ceremonial county too, although instead of having its own Lord-Lieutenant, the City of London has a Commission, headed by the Lord Mayor, exercising this function.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state#City_of_London

The Corporation of the City of London technically has autonomy over the City of London, by common custom. But in many respects, it is governed by the UK Parliament like the rest of the UK, again by common custom. In practice, the City has more leeway and influence over how it chooses to run its business, because that is common custom, and no-one has any desire to change it. But even then, that only applies to the City proper, often called "The Square Mile". London itself is far larger than the City. But then again, most people know the City is a law unto itself, at least when it comes to business, and much else.

But I'd never thought of it as a city-state before, like Athens. Thanks for that.

This city-state business is actually what fascinates me. Washington D.C., the Vatican and "the City" are all city-states, and all have Egyptian obelisks. Why do you suppose that is?
City states are quite common. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-state

They come from the ancient Greeks, because the Greeks used to run lots of their cities as independent city-states. Usually, only very rich cities would become independent. If you were poor, it made more sense to be part of a richer empire. But if you were richer than the people around you, then it made sense to secede, just the same as today. Because city-states were usually rich, other people would want to invade them to loot them, often other city-states. So usually, those city-states would be walled for protection from invaders. They'd officially only include what was in the walls. But typically, they would include all the fields and villages around them. That would increase their holdings. They would be fed from those villagers and the farmers who worked on those fields. In return, the farmers and villagers had people to buy their animals and grain, and got protection from bandits, wild animals and other invaders.

The City of London was always an important city, even before the Romans. But the main significance was that the Guilds set themselves up there to run the city, and who managed it to make it an important financial hub of the UK. They pressed for ever more rights, so they could manage it themselves, to make it more successful as an financial trading centre, which made it more profitable for them. This helped the kings and everyone else, as it brought more trade and business into the country, and it made it much easier to trade in general for everyone in the country. So the kings and later Parliament were apt to accede to the Guild's requests. So in 1132, Henry I granted it full status as its own County, which was the equivalent of an American state. In 1141, the whole body of the citizens of the City of London were deemed a single community, which was the origins of the City of London Corporation. In 1189, the king gave consent for the City to have its own Mayor. In 1215, the City's citizens were given the right to directly elect their own Mayor.

The city was organised under the City of London Corporation, because it was primarily a financial city, and it was run by the Guilds, which together collectively comprised the Corporation. That's how it came to become a city.

I suspect that money, and the desire for autonomy were the main factors in other city-states as well. Money made it more advantageous for the city to gain autonomy, as its only advantageous to gain autonomy, if you have something to gain by it, such as if you are richer than your fellows, and wish to keep the money for yourselves. Money also made it advantageous for a country's king and/or goverment to grant the status of a city-state upon a city, because of bribery, and because it would encourage trade and business to have a large financial hub, which would increase the wealth of the country, and because the more the city regulated itself, the less the king and/or government had to watch over it, and because the more a rich city regulated itself by the people who made it rich, the more likely it was to become even richer, and bring in even more in taxes to the king and/or government.

The Vatican obviously formed itself as a separate city, because the Church wanted autonomy, and the Church had the money to make it happen. That, I suspect, was because the Church had several ways to gain money. One was by monks being paid in Medieval times for doing penance to gain forgiveness for rich men's sins. Another was that in Medieval times, a rich sinner could gain absolution on his death-bed and enter Heaven without purgatory, but only if he donated most of his money to the Church.

Washington D.C. is a more interesting case, because it is not a financial hub, and it has not been there for thousands of years. But Article One of the U.S. Constitution allows for the existence of a federal district, separate from the rest of the United States. James Madison argued for the national capital to be its own state in 1788. George Washington was given the right to appoint its location on the Potomac River by the Residence Act in 1790. The Organic Act of 1791 organised and recognised the District of Columbia, as its own federal district.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.

I suspect that the reason they all have Egyptian obelisks is that they are all symbols of the Egyptian Pharaohs and so symbols of ultimate authority, to be followed implicitly without question. In European education, the Pharaohs were the first civilisation where the rulers were treated like gods for thousands of years, and obeyed implicitly.

The Roman emperors also had themselves declared gods. But this was enforced by their soldiers under threat of extreme torture and death. The people only obeyed the Roman emperors because they had to. The Egyptians really thought their Pharaohs were gods, and did what they said without question.

But there is something else interesting about them. They are all the seats of major powers, which all consider themselves the ultimate power and authority in their chosen fields, and which refuse to defer authority to anyone else in that field.

The Vatican is the seat of the Pope, the head of the Catholic Church, which considers itself the ultimate religion. Hence a requirement to defer authority to the "ultimate" religious leader.
Washington D.C. is the seat of the American President, the head of the American government, which considers itself the ultimate political system. Hence a political requirement to defer authority to the "ultimate" political leader.
The City of London is the seat of the Guilds, who run the Corporation of the City of London. The Guilds also consider themselves to be the ultimate financial system, and in many ways are the true source of the free market economy, and the origin of the stock markets. Hence a requirement to defer authority to the "ultimate" financial leaders.

They all want to be recognised as the ultimate authorities in their fields, and so draw reference to the ultimate authorities in their knowledge of human civilisation. That might explain why they moved so many Egyptian artifacts to their cities, and refused to return them back to Egypt, where we'd normally consider them to be returned. They want to show they are the "new" Pharaohs.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 39
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 8:28:12 PM
RE Msg: 51 by JustDukky:
Don't forget, when the next king ascended the throne, one of the first things he did was have the now-dead Cromwell dug up and hanged (for High Treason I believe). How could he do that if Cromwell had committed no crime?
It was a political move. One of the reasons why we invited Charles II to return to the throne, was that Cromwell was no fun at all. He was a puritan, what you might call an extreme fundamentalist Xian. He banned theatres, public music, and all sorts of things. He was so unpopular, that he made England a very unhappy place to be. But there were plenty of other reasons. When Charles II was invited back, it presented a dilemma: how can you have a king, when the last king was deposed and the monarchy disbanded? The solution was to pretend as if the monarchy was never disbanded. So Parliament ruled that Charles II had been the lawful king ever since Charles I's death, even though it was Parliament that had Charles I executed. It also pardoned all past treasons against the crown, except for those specifically involved in the trial and execution of Charles I's death. Parliament also ruled that Cromwell and a few of his allies who had already died, were guilty of treason, simply by act of Parliament. Parliament is a court, as well as a seat of law, and is the highest court in England. So it has the power to make judicial decisions. But because it is a seat of law, and Parliament acts by vote, it has the unique ability of being able to make judicial decisions by voting without a formal trial. So it could make the decision that Oliver Cromwell was guilty of treason, simply by voting for it, without any due process. As I said, it was a political decision, making Cromwell the scapegoat, so that Charles II could return vindicated as an English king. But it was a fiction to aid diplomacy, nothing more. In the history books, Oliver Cromwell was still a hero of the people, as the one who freed the people from any threat from the monarchy ever again, and gained true democracy for the people.


It was Charles I who was found guilty of high treason...
...and if Hitler had won the war, Churchill would have been tried for war crimes...and if the colonies lost the revolt, Washington & Jefferson would have been hanged for treason...What is your point?
You've made my point. If Hitler had won, Britain would be a vassal of the German Empire. If the 13 Colonies had lost, then America would still be the property of the British Crown. The UK and the USA have their independence, precisely because they won. Leaders are held guilty of treason, or as bringers of freedom and independence, depending on who wins the war. History IS written by the winners.

I think I understand your dilemma. You are taught that Canada was the property of the British Crown, and your Prime Minister was forced to swear loyalty to the monarch as a result. This is a result of British fictions established to maintain servile colonies and to keep those colonies docile.

The same thing happened in India. Officially, India was colonised, by first establishing trading outposts by the East India Trading Company. This was perfectly legal, because it was officially a private company. Then the East India Trading Company asked the Indian rulers to let them keep arms to protect themselves from attacks from other outposts from rival companies from rival countries, like the French and the Dutch. Then, they asked for their outposts to keep armed militia for the same reasons. This was usually accompanied by huge bribes to the rulers of those areas of India. Then these armed militia were made bigger and bigger. Then Clive of India, an employee of the East India Trading Company, convinced the maharajahs and princes to go to war with each other, supplying guns on both sides, via the employees of the various outposts. Eventually, the country became severely weakened by civil war, and the East India Trading Company took control on behalf of the British Crown, in order to maintain order for the Indian people, to keep the country from collapsing altogether. Then they kept control, to keep the country stable.

Unofficially, the East India Trading Company was just a front for the ambitions of the British government. When the government wanted to trade with other countries, it would establish official concessions to a specific company, often set up and funded specifically for that purpose. When it became convenient, such companies could be used to gain control of a country.

This was not possible for the British government to do, because establishing an outpost for trading in a country, by a foreign government, would be considered a form of invasion. But a private company could be claimed to be acting just as a body independent of its country, with no vested interests, other than making money, and so would not normally be considered a threat to the country, not unless the country's rulers twigged that it was a front. Where such companies were successful, the rulers didn't twig. It was a very successful fiction.

The same problem existed for establishing colonial rule. A company is a single body, like a person, with no aim other than its own selfish interests to gain as much money as possible. So a private company running a country or a state would be seen as too much like a dictatorship. The people would revolt, and rival countries would rally to that country's aid, to attack the company, usurp it, and if possible, put themselves in charge. But for the same reasons, you couldn't put the British government in charge of the country. So the British solution was to pretend that the British crown was taking control. The Crown was not the British country. But it was a public institution, that was traditionally sworn to protect the people it ruled, and an institution that seemed to gain allegiance from the people in the colony. So the British government chose that the Crown would be the rulers.

In reality, it used the fiction of a set-up company to run the finances of a colony, and the Crown to establish military rule, and allegiance to Britain. But both the decisions of the company and the Crown were mostly being ordered from the government, and the money flowing from those colonies went back into the government treasury, via the company's coffers. The British government could then use those huge profits to pay the Crown's expenses for sending the British soldiers, who were trained not by the Crown, but by the British government, and were really under the orders of what the British government ordered, not the Crown.

Your country's people has been hoodwinked to think it owes allegiance to the Queen. That's just a diplomatic fiction so that Canadians will accept it. Really, the Prime Minister is committing himself to allegiance and service to the orders of the British government, via the Queen. Even her speeches are written by the British government. So when you hear the Queen speak, you're just hearing her read something written by the speech writers of the British government, according to the instructions of the British government. A bit is hers. But only the stuff that has no relevance to politics, and that has to be approved anyway.

Canada was always a vassal of the British government, as was the 3 Colonies of America, as was Australia, India, Singapore, Hong Kong, and every other British Colony. The fiction that it was run by the British Crown, stopped those colonies from realising that they were being controlled by a foreign country, as a money spinner, and from being quite so inclined to rebel. The same was true of the companies set up to make huge profits from their natural resources. After all, if the people knew the truth, how long do you think before they'd have got sick of paying for another people's luxuries, and done everything they could to destroy those huge profits for strangers?
 lower case
Joined: 6/2/2009
Msg: 40
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 9:08:52 PM
whoa ...

yes Representational Democracy is coming to an end, but what else are you going to do? in your initial question you make a lot of generalities. i am of the opinion that if the discussion doesn't start on solid ground then the spillage into hyperbole is exactly where this discussion has gone to ... all things being equal all things are not equal. when was the last time presidential voting represented >60% of the population? what you believe and what i believe may not be the same things but we both need water in our homes like our other immediate 290 million neighbors so how are we (all of us) gonna make sure we all get access to water? i have no idea. i do know that politics is the negotiation of our group agenda.

i don't want to convey hopelessness but there is no form of fully effective government because it is run by people and unfortunately people have a high propensity to be crazy in one small form or another. outside of science and math there aren't many social [read: emotional group construct] formalities we can agree upon 100%. we don't fully understand ourselves so how can we expect to govern ourselves effectively? do the best we can with what we have - capitalist democracy/socialism with a dash of environmentally conscious stewardship ... unless or until the alien robots come along and threaten us with global domination/slavery. i kid because i care.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 41
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/27/2009 10:07:46 PM
You are taught that Canada was the property of the British Crown, and your Prime Minister was forced to swear loyalty to the monarch as a result


No, that's not what I was taught. I was taught that canada was a member of the commonwealth, united under a titular head of state, whose position was only as a figurehead to unite the commonwealth. I was taught that we achieved independence from Britain in 1867, when the Provinces of Canada united under confederation. I was taught that we vote for our representatives and that they work for the Canadian people.

It was my research into these popular myths that revealed what I was taught to believe wasn't true at all. It was only then that I discovered that Canada (and the US too) was really a corporation (listed with Dun & Bradstreet), which was reorganized and saved from bankruptcy by the injection of the 40% share owned by the aboriginal nations (and held "in trust" for them in Britain) into the new confederation, which could now call itself a country (thanks to the aboriginal people who agreed to it). The capital injection didn't save the corporation from bankrupcy of course, so the aboriginals' investment was lost to the receiver (convenient eh?). We (like the US) have been operating in bankruptcy ever since. Which is why our income taxes are payable to the Receiver General for Canada. I'll leave it to you to guess who & where the receiver is.

In addition to all that, Canada's board of directors does not swear allegiance to the people of Canada (who only vote for them), but to the "titular" head of state, who (unlike in England) is under no obligation to Canadians (not since Victoria took that commitment away from her heirs & successors by removing her name from the BNA Act. When Victoria died, so did the royal obligation to the people of Canada). Unfortunately, as Canada is a corporation in bankrupcy, the Receiver can siphon the wealth that Canadians create out of the country.

The people in the US are no better off (maybe even worse off) than we are, because of a deal negotiated with King George AFTER they won the revolution. Similar deal; the king had no obligation to the Americans, but by virtue of the deal, money could be transferred out of the country so that the king could recieve "due compensation" for his business investment. Like Canada, the US also declared bankruptcy and has to make payment to the same receiver.

I'm descended from United Empire Loyalists, who fought against the American "rebels." Once upon a time, I took pride in that. Nowadays, I know better. If given the choice today, I would have sided with Washington & Jefferson (but I would have had Ben Franklin hanged for treason).
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 42
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/28/2009 11:34:16 AM
RE Msg: 55 by JustDukky:

I am sure that what you write is right. There is only one issue, that almost none of it holds true for British law, and almost none of it holds true for anyone bound by British law either.

1) Under international corporation law, someone needs to own a company, in order to ensure that the company will pay its debts. All organisations and people that do business are corporate bodies, bodies that do business. They are subdivided into sole corporations, which means that one person owns the corporation, and aggregate corporations, which means that multiple groups of people share ownership of the corporation, but no-one owns the corporation. Corporations sole are very easy to deal with, because if any corporation sole refuses to pay its debts, its creditors can appeal to the law to get the money from the person who owns the corporation, and if the assets of the corporation are not enough, then the personal assets of the person are also subject to seizure to pay the creditors. An example are the names of Lloyds, which includes the Queen. Corporations aggregate, which includes 99% of businesses, are by contrast, very difficult to deal with. If a corporation aggregate refuses to pay its debts, then the creditors can go to the courts, but each partner of the company can simply say "I don't own the company, I simply have shares in it. So it's not my problem". That puts everyone off lending to any such business. In order to ensure that such businesses do get loans that they need and that people will do business with them, they have to be incorporated, which means that they voluntarily register themselves with a recognised organisation like Companies House, and in so doing, voluntarily accept the rules of incorporated corporations, which includes accepting obligations to pay their debts.

In addition, a corporation sole can be any organisation which has one head, who can be identified as the sole responsibility, upon which all assets and liabilities lie.

AFAIK, the UK is a corporation sole, in that it used to have a queen as its head. Now, I don't know if it should still be considered a corporation sole, but since it was for many years, and corporations have been happy to trade with the UK for so long, there isn't a call for its status to be changed.

Canada, and America, on the other hand, have no corporation sole status. They change their heads of government every 4 years, and that's just not long enough for the position of their leader to be considered the guarantor, and the head of their government doesn't take personal responsibility to cover all debts of the country with his personal fortune. So they have to be incorporated as corporations aggregate, by registering with the relevant organisations that satisfy the companies of the countries they trade with. Otherwise, they could never have been trusted to return any money they borrowed, and no-one would have been inclined to lend to them. This is even more important for America, because it started borrowing money almost as soon as it started, to get more capital to get it going.

2) Almost ALL businesses practice from a point of debt now, because that is what is considered most practical. Canada and America, as corporations like the UK, are all in debt, as a matter of financial practice.

3) I've looked up the Receiver General for Canada. It seems to be part of the Canadian Ministry for Public Works and Government Services, which is a part of the Canadian Government. But in no way is it part of the Receiver General of the United Kingdom. Same for America. We Brits would love it if Canada and America were responsible to pay money to our government. We've been in serious debt to the USA ever since they lent us money to cover our military expenses during World War II. If Canada and America had to pay their income to us, then we'd be able to clear the debt to America almost immediately, and we'd be getting plenty of money. Instead of Britain being much poorer than Canada and America, the country would be much, much richer, and we Brits would be much better off now, instead of having to experience the worst financial crisis for ages.

4) Under English custom, an oath of allegiance is a custom to swear fealty to another person, in return for their promise of protection, and their continued actions in protecting you. But if any noble did not protect his serfs, then they would no longer be obligated to work for him, under the laws of Equity, as established by the Courts of Chancery. The same is true of any oath of allegiance. Unless the Queen protects the people of Canada using the British Armed Forces, then the Canadian goverment is not obligated to uphold its oath of allegiance, and the oath itself would be meaningless as a result.

You seem to be labouring under a lot of things that might be true according to American law. But I doubt that even a single one of your claims is relevant according to British law, and the British crown and the British government have to uphold British law, and can be forced to do so by the courts.

But I am willing to admit that I might be wrong. I don't know everything.
So if you have any proof of this for certain, then please cite your sources.
If you have any proof that any of this would be valid under British law, then please state your reasons under BRITISH rules of law.
 zenith899
Joined: 5/17/2009
Msg: 43
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 6/29/2009 11:40:44 AM
Quick comment: Democracy in the U.S is a choice between just two parties. The pivot of influence in political campaigns is often money, and unfortunately that is controlled by the two parties in power. A step towards a better democracy, in my opinion, is a much fairer distribution of campaign funding (and yes, I know of the numerous possible complications involved for this to become reality). At present, I barely consider the U.S system a democratic one.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 44
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/1/2009 7:11:19 PM
After all, if the people knew the truth, how long do you think before they'd have got sick of paying for another people's luxuries, and done everything they could to destroy those huge profits for strangers?


I think I can agree with just about everything you said in your post. I'm still left with the impression that you think the British "government" is Parliament. In that respect, I think even the Brits have been hoodwinked. I'd be willing to bet that the "hidden" government of England is the same as Canada's, Australia's, in fact the entire commonwealth and even the USA (but not through the queen in that particular case).

The office of the monarch of england is a corporation sole. These entities were created under Roman Law and were used by the catholic church to ensure that no human could lay claim to church property. If someone was made a bishop, say, his office (the Bishop) was a corporation sole, owned by the church. The Man who stood as bishop was the bishop and could act as the "owner" of all the property in his diocese(?), but only so long as he occupied that office. As the bishop he got all the property and perks (if any) that a bishop was entitled to, but when he left office and was replaced, the new man occupied the same office, with all the stuff the last guy had. What did the old bishop get? Damned if I know, but he got no property owned by the catholic church, that was held by the corporation sole.

If you recall, in the old days kings ruled by divine right. Guess who granted the divine right at the coronation? It is my contention that the office of the monarch of england is a corporation sole (formerly "owned" by the Catholic church until Henry gave them the boot). If Elizabeth abdicated the throne, she would not get (for instance) Buckingham palace; that is the property of the British Monarch, a corporation sole. Elizabeth has Evelyn Rothschild as her banker. This allows him control of the Monarch's money (for which Elizabeth herself is amply (and secretly) rewarded).

Getting back to Canada's relation with the British Crown, when we became an "independent" nation in 1867, the CRF (Crown Revenue Fund) was set up. It was to be the centre of Canada's accounting. Interestingly, We see money going in and coming out, but aside from a few published expenses of the "Crown", like the Governor General's salary, there is very little publicly known about it (England, Australia, and probably all Commonwealth countries have one too). With a little digging, I was able to determine that Canada does it's borrowing through that fund and the borrowing is done from the British Crown (in the "City" - Rothschild again). After confederation, the Queen was paid $5 million for her "expenses" for the period 1867-68. That was 140 years ago; I imagine it has probably gone up quite a bit by now and is likely in the hundreds of millions, if not billions. Pretty high "expenses" for a "Titular" head of state who visits the country (all expenses paid) every twenty years or so. In addition, even though we had plenty of our own money, we borrowed money from the British Crown (at about 6% interest) to start the "Intercolonial Railway." I have no idea how much that was (as yet), but I imagine it was no small chunk of change either.

(Slight digression here) Our Bank of Canada is owned by the people of Canada. One would think that the government of Canada would do its borrowing from the Canadian people and help enrich the economy by paying the interest to the Canadian people. In fact almost none of our borrowing is done through the Bank of Canada anymore. Money is borrowed from international banks and the interest paid is the wealth of Canada leaving the country to line some foreigner's pocket. Even the people of Canada can't borrow from the Bank of Canada! We are forced to go to private banks for loans. We can't even borrow from ourselves when we want to!

The British monarch today, probably gets (as a guess) somewhere around $5 billion a year from all the Commonwealth countries for her "expenses". Needless to say, she isn't going to rock the boat regarding her banker siphoning off tens (hundreds?) of billions every year, at least not as long as he can bury her real income in a secret ledger somewhere.

You expressed the wish that it would be nice if England could see some money from the Commonwealth nations; well it never will. That money (along with England's) winds up in some verrry rich pockets and they aren't talking. I'm betting our "titular" head of state is in bed with the bankers who own the planet and helps them fleece her own subjects.
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 45
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/2/2009 12:23:26 PM

Only Canada, England, India and the U.S. still adhere to the old 'first past the post' politics where every other fuctioning democracy has proportional representation.


England does not have 'first past the post' politics, the United Kingdom does. In a General Election the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland send representatives to Westminster along with England, the current U.K. Prime Minister represents a Scottish constituency! The U.K. now has enough minority parties that can limit the power of the current government.


It's something these holdover countries desperately need. The system would work much, much better with PR.


As others have pointed out some PR nations do not have a functioning democracy, Italy and Israel being two examples. The problem with PR is that if the nation has too many political parties it is difficult to form a cohesive coalition. It may be possible in the U.K. as their is a reasonable number of minority parties, in the U.S. it cannot happen until their are 3 or 4 serious minority parties.
 thrums
Joined: 7/28/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/2/2009 1:00:37 PM
OP

There is an interesting short story by Issac Asimov, I believe called 'The Voter'. It is set in the future where the all-knowing computer 'Multivac' selects an individual to represent the electorate. This person is asked several questions and from the answers the results of the election are published.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 47
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/3/2009 1:04:45 AM

Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?


Yes!
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 48
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/5/2009 3:54:25 PM
RE Msg: 59 by JustDukky:

I am glad that we can agree on some things. I cannot definitely speak for Canada. I can only say how things are done here in the UK. The following is based on that, and a bit more research:

1) The Divine Right of Kings was an idea that James I promoted, who was well AFTER Henry VIII. So the Catholic Church was never the "owner" of the English monarchy. Once Henry VIII broke with the Catholic Church, he established himself as the head of the Anglican Church of England. So in reality, the Queen is the head of the Anglican Church, and so the monarchy rules the religion, not the other way around. The Divine Right of Kings ended with the Glorious Revolution and the overthrow of James II, at which point, Parliament ruled that no monarch could ever reign over the UK again, unless Parliament approved them.

2) You are right to call the Queen a "corporation sole". The correct term turns out to be Her Majesty, the Right of the United Kingdom. The property of the office of the Queen is managed by something called the Crown Estate, which includes Buckingham Palace. The Crown Estate, is run by a board. She has nothing to do with how the Crown's properties are run. The upkeep of the Crown Estate and the lifestyle of the Royal Family are funded out of the Civil List, which is granted by Parliament, who also decides how much is paid. The Royal Family used to serve as diplomats for the UK, making many state visits to foreign rulers. This worked quite well, because the Royals would make a lot of the diplomatic visits, leaving the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to get on with their job, only visiting foreign rulers when the situation called for it. It also meant that foreign rulers who didn't want to trust the British government, could talk with the Queen or Prince Charles, making for a lot more diplomacy, and a lot less friction with the UK. These days, their state visits have been phased out by the last 2 governments, leaving the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to do them all. So they have far less time to run the country, and have to cut out many state visits, and cannot deal with those rulers who have a distrust of the current government.

3) She does have some property of her own, as private property, which she inherited from her parents' private property. But I don't think you'd begrudge her that.

4) She's also got some income from being a "name" in Lloyds. Mind you, anyone can become a "name", even you. You just need to apply. I don't know if you've got enough money for them to let you be a "name", but Shania Twain and Celine Dion probably do. It's a very lucrative way of making money. The only downside is that if Lloyds get hit too hard, you, as the "name", are the underwriter, and so you have to pay out. That happened to the Queen in the 1990s, like many other names.

5) From what I've read, she also has a "corporation sole" in Canada, called Her Majesty the Right of Canada. She employs the Governor General, who employs 10 employees on her behalf. They do a lot of diplomatic work for Canada, just like the British Royal Family used to do for the UK. They do get funded by the government of Canada. I've read that the Anti-Monarchy party has estimated that she gets about $50 million a year at the moment, and that it pretty much goes on the expenses of the Governor General and his employees.

6) I'd rather you leave the whole "Rothschild" thing out of it. Sounds like too much of an unproved conspiracy theory. They are rich, and do a lot of business. But one could equally list 20 companies that have hooks into the UK. You'd do better if you listed such things as who employed Tony Blair as "consultants", even before he left office, for positions I cannot see how he is qualified for, as he trained as a barrister, not as a financial consultant of a major bank and lending house.

7) There are several very good reasons why Canada doesn't lend to itself. If Canada is broke, it doesn't help to borrow from itself. Second, if government officials wish to embezzle from government funds, then the last thing you want is a paper trail that is easy to follow. Having a paper trail that stretches through several countries makes it much easier to hide the truth. It also makes for hiding the paper trail when the government is laundering money, such as when Britain sells arms, which end up in the hands of very unsavoury people.

8) The Commonwealth includes 16 countries. I doubt that she gets $50 million from all of them. So it's probably far less than $800 million, and probably most of that goes on maintaining Crown property, paying for those who are acting on her behalf in each country, and the diplomatic efforts they make on behalf of the country. In those are anything like the UK, then she doesn't really get to control any of those monies, and they are handled by boards, like the board of the Crown estate.

9) Technically, she is the head of the UK. But in reality, it is Parliament who holds all the keys. Even her speeches are written for her by the current government. They decide what announcements she is allowed to make, and what visits she makes. They even got to decide if the Princes were allowed to serve in the armed forces, and which countries they were allowed to be deployed to. She has some official powers, like Royal Assent. But in reality, she is virtually powerless. There is no much anti-Monarchy support in the UK, that she could never hope to oppose Parliament, and there are so many who want the Monarchy to be disbanded, that there is a very real chance that she might be the last Monarch of the UK.

10) I cannot say how much power she holds over other Commonwealth countries other than the UK. That is a manner for the people of each of those countries to decide. But it seems as if the line between Monarch and Government is blurred far more in your countries than here. Considering that her power in those countries stems from here, and that if there is no more Monarchy here in the UK, it is likely that all other Commonwealth countries will follow suit, and how little power she holds here, I suspect that she is used as a ruse to blame a lot of actions of government politicians on her actions. Even the 13 Colonies could not have happened without Parliament's assent, and they would never have let the Monarch control that much power and money, because then King George might have been able to afford an army that could oppose Parliament. The Civil War rings still in their minds. So there is no way they would have let that happen again. I suspect that it was just another ruse to hide governments making use of public money.

Transparency is the key, and the governments HATE is transparency, as that guarantees that everyone knows what politicians and other government officials spend our money on, as then they couldn't spend the money on themselves and on things that only help corporations.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 49
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/6/2009 8:06:04 PM
The tyranny of the majority is the great failure of democracy. It tramples on the rights of the minority (and even of the majority when they are stupid enough to vote out individual rights for the "greater good" which never seems anywhere near as good as when individual rights were left intact.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/8/2009 2:33:44 PM
RE Msg: 65 by JustDukky:
The tyranny of the majority is the great failure of democracy. It tramples on the rights of the minority (and even of the majority when they are stupid enough to vote out individual rights for the "greater good" which never seems anywhere near as good as when individual rights were left intact.
That's why democracy doesn't work, when you stop at taking the vote of the majority. It's not enough to just vote. You have to come up good policies to vote on, ones the help everyone. Voting is just how to pick between 2 different policies that BOTH work, and we just aren't sure which one to pick.

Democracy is what comes AFTER thinking out good policies, but not before, for a good policy without democracy is still a good policy. Democracy without a good policy is a bad policy that most people agree with. It is still a bad policy, no matter how many people agree with it.

We need BRAINS FIRST, VOTING SECOND.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 51
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/8/2009 3:52:54 PM

We need BRAINS FIRST, VOTING SECOND.


What you need is a system that CANNOT infringe on the rights of an individual by its very nature or definition. Anything to be voted on MUST have that one proviso to be a legitimate vote. So the idea of things like "eminent domain" could not be allowed. If even one person is harmed (rights infringed upon) it must be acknowledged that a "greater good" of the whole has NOT been achieved.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 52
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:16:19 PM

What you need is a system that CANNOT infringe on the rights of an individual by its very nature or definition. Anything to be voted on MUST have that one proviso to be a legitimate vote. So the idea of things like "eminent domain" could not be allowed. If even one person is harmed (rights infringed upon) it must be acknowledged that a "greater good" of the whole has NOT been achieved.

In any situation where you have just TWO people - never mind a whole society - eventually the "rights" of one will come in conflict with the other. Welcome to reality.

What you're talking about is utopian to the extreme, and just as unworkable as pure capitalism or pure communism.

At least they had underlying, consistent theories to support them, though, instead of an absolutist ideal that is preposterous on it's face.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 53
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/8/2009 8:22:28 PM

What you're talking about is utopian to the extreme, and just as unworkable as pure capitalism or pure communism.


I call bullsh!t on that. It is neither unrealistic or unworkable; all it takes is the will and the vision (you can call it unrealistic utopian idealism if it makes you feel better) to do "the impossible." You remind me of the guys who probably told the Wright brothers they were dummies for even thinking they could get that thing off the ground, even as it took off!
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 54
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 7:31:23 AM

I call bullsh!t on that. It is neither unrealistic or unworkable; all it takes is the will and the vision (you can call it unrealistic utopian idealism if it makes you feel better) to do "the impossible." You remind me of the guys who probably told the Wright brothers they were dummies for even thinking they could get that thing off the ground, even as it took off!

I take my cow to an open field, owned by nobody. You take your cow there.

I have a right to the pasture. You have a right to the pasture. But there is only enough grass to feed ONE cow.

Please tell me how that could possibly be resolved, without me infringing on your right to feed your cow, or you infringing on my right to feed mine?

Now - try to apply that to a population of 300 million, and you begin to see just how silly and unworkable it really is.

Being a dummy has nothing to do with it - it's just as impossible as a perpetual motion machine.

and btw - nobody with a brain told the wright brothers they were dummies - the principles of flight were already established by then, and balloons had been used for centuries.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 55
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:16:59 AM

I have a right to the pasture. You have a right to the pasture. But there is only enough grass to feed ONE cow.

Under Natural law, you don't own your cows, you are common stewards of a resource by right of necessity (ya gotta eat), though to be truly fair, you should not infringe on the cows' rights to life & liberty (What makes people so special?) But let's assume for the moment that you place claims on the cows out of necessity (you'll die without them).
As regards the pasture, neither of you has a right to it, only another claim by necessity (if the cows die, so will you).

Please tell me how that could possibly be resolved, without me infringing on your right to feed your cow, or you infringing on my right to feed mine?

You both recognize that you are brothers with a moral obligation to be supportive of each other, that neither of you owns either of the cows, or the pasture, but you have a problem to solve cooperatively and so you negotiate a solution that is agreeable to both parties.
It may be that you both agree to slaughter one of the cows for meat, to be split 50/50 and share stewardship of the remaining cow; it may be that you both agree to look for another pasture sufficient to feed at least the other cow (the most likely solution). There may be other options I won't bother to mention, but none of them entail trampling on any rights (except of the cows, who might be doomed or enslaved by the humans' claim by necessity).


Now - try to apply that to a population of 300 million, and you begin to see just how silly and unworkable it really is.

How is my proposed solution either silly or unworkable? A well-constructed society of 300 million should be in even better shape to work things out, what with many courts of natural law for people not smart enough to work out matters of controversy for themselves.


Being a dummy has nothing to do with it - it's just as impossible as a perpetual motion machine.

That's a pretty difficult thing to prove and you have yet to do it. All you are doing is stating your assumptions as though they were fact. I contend that they aren't even reasonable to an imaginative mind.


nobody with a brain told the wright brothers they were dummies

I know...and that was the point of my fictitious example.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:52:02 AM
Wow. Just wow.

Read what you wrote. How could that possibley NOT sound utopian, and totally, utterly unworkable in real life?

As I said - it's just as unworkable, and just as unrealistic, as pure communism or pure capitalism.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 57
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 8:59:17 AM

Read what you wrote. How could that possibley NOT sound utopian, and totally, utterly unworkable in real life?

As I said - it's just as unworkable, and just as unrealistic, as pure communism or pure capitalism.


Your conclusion is just a restatement of your assumption and totally without any refutation of what I wrote.
C'mon...At least TRY to refute me! If you can't, it will be obvious to anyone reading this that I'm right...and that you are wrong.
Peace brother.
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 58
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 9:24:50 PM

Your conclusion is just a restatement of your assumption and totally without any refutation of what I wrote.
C'mon...At least TRY to refute me! If you can't, it will be obvious to anyone reading this that I'm right...and that you are wrong.
Peace brother.

Because there's no point. If you can't see the utopianism in what you wrote, or how unworkable it is, then nothing I can say will ever change your mind.

Don't confuse an unwillingness to flog a dead horse with an admission that you're right.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 59
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 10:00:33 PM

If you can't see the utopianism in what you wrote, or how unworkable it is, then nothing I can say will ever change your mind.

In other words you can't think of a refutation...I win!
 NotGorshkovAgain
Joined: 4/29/2009
Msg: 60
view profile
History
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 11:41:23 PM
That would be the dead horse. Think what you want.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 61
Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?
Posted: 7/9/2009 11:48:38 PM
Anytime you think of some kind of refutation I'll be all ears.
Y'all come back now...'hear?
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Has Representational Democracy come to its natural end?