democracyFollow

Funny; I figured this was something about the Bush administration.

I can never understand the french... one cos i dont speak the language and two cos the politics.

The government has always been spineless and the french people know it. They will riot and strike and the government will back down. They always do, and if they don't they have comitted political suicide.

Not to play the "pick-apart the analogy" game but, if your "representative" contractor is installing purple tiles in the bathroom, you pretty much tell them on the spot not to do that or else fire them. I'm not familiar with France's electoral process but, in America anyway, you don't recall an elected offical on a dime and you're generally stuck with them until the next election cycle.

I have little issue with peaceful civil disobediance as a method to enact change. If the unions decide to strike, so be it. In theory the unions represent the working class in the same way government officals represent the people at large so the union deciding to strike is as much the direct will of the people as anything. In the same vein that the people need to be careful who they elect, the elected need to be careful to appease the people.

I'm well aware of the various issues preventing unions from truely being a voice of the working class but most of the same issues can be said of elected government as a whole so it's pretty much a wash. Likewise, I'm not all up to date with the specific France situation and am speaking in general terms.

One would think that there would be a more 'couth' method than somthing that is labeled "civil disobediance".


I suppose that this would be the "normal democratic process" of actually electing your official from the get-go.

other than that, I really don;t see any feasible method for the public to use to get any real change done. It's like all they can do is go vote and hope that the polititian wasn't lying or will actually do waht they said they would.

the whole thing just seems grossly inefficiant wehn the only way that the public can make it's wishes heard and recognized is by acts "civil disobediance", while the politians just stand there looking down from their balconies shaking their heads.

The important bit to realize is that we're not talking about strict democracy, but a representative democracy. The theory is the same as the division of labor we see everywhere else, and which usually *does* increase efficiency.

99% of the population doesn't know how to carve up a carcass, but a butcher does. We could all stand over that butcher critisizing and questioning how he's doing it, but ultimately all that matters is that he hands us a nice steak when he's done, right? Same can be said for virtually all professions today.

The same also applies to politics. We elect representatives on the assumption that 100% of the population can't possibly spend the time on the issues to be decided in government to make intelligent decisions on them. In fact, that percentage is probably much lower then that. After all, you're spending all your time doing your job, right? Representatives spend all their time (in theory) learning about the issues before them and making decisions on them. Presumably, they're more likely to make a better decision then the masses if the issue were put to a direct vote. Which is the whole point.


The fact that a government made up of representatives doesn't always make the same decision that the masses would does not mean that the representatives are wrong. I'd argue that more often it means that the issue is one such that the wants of the public don't match the needs of the public. Afterall, if you were to poll the masses, I'm pretty sure you'd get a majority who'd say they'd like to pay zero taxes. But clearly, we can't just hold a vote and eliminate all taxes, right? The issue in France right now is similar. The masses want something (they want jobs that they can't be fired from). They are taking that position purely based on how it affects them directly. Those representatives in their government are choosing differently because they know that in the long run it's better for the French economy as a whole if people can be fired from jobs. Those who risk being fired may not believe it, but then presumably those who are making the decision have probably looked at the issue in a bit more depth then they have.


Democracy, especially modern representative democracies, are not supposed to work like a mob rule. The fact that 70% of the public disagrees with a decision by their government doesn't really mean that anything is wrong. One can argue that when these things happen, we're seeing the exact reason why we use a system of representation rather then having the entire population vote directly on everything...

This one's for you Kel, all you.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/BrillCaitSith/french_takeitback.jpg

I think you'll enjoy this one too buddy, I've been saving them for you.

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f384/BrillCaitSith/bushies_unwanted.jpg


edit* Both are work safe.

Edited, Mon Mar 20 20:54:08 2006 by Buffyisagoddess

This is why people get assassinated.

LFM for raid on France!!

Sure. Except that the union *only* concerns itself with the direct wellbeing of its members (we're going to assume in both cases that the government and the unions are doing what they're supposed to be doing and not trying to rip someone off). The union is not specifically concerned with whether it's demand for increased wages or job security will result in a lower economic growth rate that in 50 years will reduce the nations competitiveness on world markets. It certainly isn't concerned about the effect its policies might have on tax revenue over time and the benefit reductions that might cause over time.


The government (ideally anyway) *does* care about that. It represents the entire nation, not just that set of workers. It represents the infirm and the elderly and the retired and the young and workers who aren't in unions. It must balance the needs of those people with the funds it has available. It must look at how it can maintain the economy of the nation, provide the services that "the people" ask for, while providing jobs to those same people *and* keeping their productive output competitive on the world market. These are things that unions simply don't consider.

You're correct that unions represent the workers, but the unions *only* represent the workers. Thus, they're only going to push for those things that benefit that one specific subset of the entire population. That's not to say that they are *wrong*. But it certainly doesn't mean they are right either. In practice, unions tend to just focus the wants of the workers. They don't expand the scope of consideration in the decisions made by those workers at all.

Waht would happen if one day internet access is as standard in households as water and electricity aaand...
every person were mandated to participate in an online voting process that was secure beyond a reasonable doubt, based on a unique identifier? These votes could be for everything from whether or not we go to war to deciding if your neighborhood needs a new streetlight. It could be totally seperatated by district and yet have the capacity to be on a national scale. Would this not make for a more efficient self governing populous?

Yeah, well, ya can't

And, no, I didn't rate you down. I'd almost rate you up for at least spelling "clique" correstly but a karma kry is still a karma kry and I can't get behind that.

The only flaw is in your nomenclature. It's not a democracy, it's a republican democracy, or a democratic republic.

No. You'd lack specialised persons able to adequately assess and decide on a matter. A minority decision made by an informed person > a majority decision by several uninformed people.

Shabadawa.

I agree that mandatory voting is not the way to go. You can't force freedom.

But I assume the point was more about getting the public engaged in political decisions. In my view, it's like almost every other problem of the country -- it goes back to the crap education system. A more educated population is much more capable of considering the nuances of an issue, coming to a logical conclusion, and participating in the political process to enact change.

I'm glad it's almost over... I don't think I could stand another day of being mercilessley inundated with political ads every second of every day. I think they really want Chicago votes or something...