With Canadia
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?
- Thread starter Bernbaum
- Start date
- Status
With Canadia
Good. Hopefully that means whoever wins can annex the other and we can have Australcanadia or something.
I've been getting this bad feeling reading people taking the new Senate as a reason to throw out preferential voting wholesale because people apparently can't be trusted with the responsibility. Then I realised that it's probably the same feeling Arksy gets whenever we say anything.
That fucking churchill quote resonates in my mind so much. Democracy can really be fucking shit what with not everybody having the time or inclination to grapple with political doublespeak every hour of the day or to (understably) hold the interests of society above themselves/their families (or to put it less charitably, FYGM), but it's the best we've got
We don't need the government to elect a new electorate, they're really good at not doing their research as is
I don't like the idea of someone getting in on 0.02% of the vote - I think that is undemocratic.
But I equally dislike the idea that the most common result is one of two parties being represented; not a plurality of opinions held in an electorate.
I think I'd personally prefer a senate (and lower house) where there was a guaranteed independent component that always represented the balance of power. And not just 2 or 3 individuals like 2010-13, but more like a dozen or so - and multiples from each state and territory.
Without that level of representation, it's almost always going to come down to what the big parties want, the big parties get.
The complaints about Ricky Muir (or any vote whisperer candidate) are just a campaign to ensure the big parties consolidate their coles/woolworths duopoly on governing.
As far as I'm concerned, Ricky Muir could have been any other person: a conservative christian, a pacifist, an environmentalist, an indigenous leader, a retired judge, an ex-army general, a bogan, a radio talkback host, a musician, anything. We got something different with Muir. It might be good, it might be bad, but intellectually I think it's more important to have something different than it is to have something I personally align with.
But I equally dislike the idea that the most common result is one of two parties being represented; not a plurality of opinions held in an electorate.
I think I'd personally prefer a senate (and lower house) where there was a guaranteed independent component that always represented the balance of power. And not just 2 or 3 individuals like 2010-13, but more like a dozen or so - and multiples from each state and territory.
Without that level of representation, it's almost always going to come down to what the big parties want, the big parties get.
The complaints about Ricky Muir (or any vote whisperer candidate) are just a campaign to ensure the big parties consolidate their coles/woolworths duopoly on governing.
As far as I'm concerned, Ricky Muir could have been any other person: a conservative christian, a pacifist, an environmentalist, an indigenous leader, a retired judge, an ex-army general, a bogan, a radio talkback host, a musician, anything. We got something different with Muir. It might be good, it might be bad, but intellectually I think it's more important to have something different than it is to have something I personally align with.
Open primaries. Make people accountable to their electorates, not their party whips.
I'm all for an element of the parliament being selected as per jury duty.
The Senate is a bit funny. It's not like the person with 0.02 percent of the primary beat everyone else. Proportional representation plus instant run off will often lead to broken results if there are too many parties.
What we should do is increase the members of parliament from 150 to about three thousand, make parliament sit about five times a year...pay them a small stipend.....preferably on a football stadium, and have legislation brought before them.
No career politicians. No political elitism. No false representation. Just good old fashioned chaos.
No career politicians. No political elitism. No false representation. Just good old fashioned chaos.
JesseEwiak
Member
Yeah, then you get the wonderful American political system. Primary elections sound awesome, 'til the primary electorate starts actually voting.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
The best speakers, the facilitators and the people actually writing the legislation would then become the career politicians. Elitism and the thirst for power and glory are built into human nature, as is aquiescence to it. Can't stop it any more effectively than you can stop teenagers from having sex.What we should do is increase the members of parliament from 150 to about three thousand, make parliament sit about five times a year...pay them a small stipend.....preferably on a football stadium, and have legislation brought before them.
No career politicians. No political elitism. No false representation. Just good old fashioned chaos.
It's part of why Cromwell's Republic failed and the French Revolution had such trouble getting off the ground. Submission to authority feels good, regardless of how much we may kick against the traces, and in the absence of authority, mark my words, authority shall be found. This will be the case regardless of how tenuous this claim to authority may be - a solid jawline, strong muscles, wealth or pedigree will often do in lieu of any actual competence.
Face it, Arksy. Democracy as the Athenians envisaged it is not only chaotic and impractical, it's unnatural.
JesseEwiak
Member
Well, direct democracy, communism, and libertarianism all have the same basic principle - they work fine in relatively small groups of people.
Thanks Loki.
Ruthless_Barbarian
Member
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
"Unnatural" is relevant because a political system needs to account for the flaws in human nature in order to remain stable. If it doesn't, you'll end up with a somewhat different system than what you started with as human nature perverts and warps your original vision. The tendency for leaders to abuse their power in the name of a mandate is why we have a bicameral legislature, for instance (I'm looking at you, Queensland).
Athenian direct democracy was essentially Democracy version 0.9ß and had none of that.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
This is a very accurate description of the sort of economics your side of politics subscribes to
Haven't you heard? The free market only produces negative consequences and externalities when its freedom is grossly violated by the decrepit hand of government intervention. Banks and traders fought with all their hearts against giving out sub-prime loans, knowing the damage it could cause, but the Government forced them to do it. It is the height of arrogance for politicians to pretend they can even comprehend the complexity of the plans set into motion by the invisible hand of the market, let alone improve upon them. Rest assured, the market knows what to do about climate change; if it looks like it isn't doing much now that must be because it is in a subtle preparatory phase. Forcing its hand now will only make the problem worse.
Hence the ALP having a couple of shots at implementing it.
Will make for interesting listening later after E3 conferences and some sleep.
Indeed.
New thread?
Don't have the time right now, but when I get back I'll hopefully have a good response for you.
roosters93
Member
Is the Abbott Government Fascist?
This came up in my fb news feed. The person who shared it said "I unfortunately agree". I can't even.
This came up in my fb news feed. The person who shared it said "I unfortunately agree". I can't even.
Coriolanus
Banned
The beef is with centralized *public* power, tho. Private mono/oligopolies are totes fine.
Elaugaufein
Member
Centralized power is almost inevitable in large enough systems. As such pretty much any meaningful federal policy will have a strong tendency to centralized power, even if you're ideologically opposed to such.
eg Trying to build a national highway in local chunks, you'd spend all your time on communication (what width is the road, where does your part end, how does the on ramp on a zone border work, what are the overtaking rules and thus the markings , what day is the group next door going to be using explosives?).
bobnowhere
Member
I saw the video of the PM arriving in New York earlier. It was good to see Kim Beazly running down the steps of the plane, he did some serious damage in that fall a few years back and took a long time to get out of a wheelchair and away from the crutches/walking sticks.
Sure, but the far left want the power concentrated in the state (they say the worker, but it doesn't work out that way) and the far right want to the power concentrated in big business (they say the individual, but it doesn't work out that way). The best* way is a balancing act between business and the state, which is prone to error, but in my opinion better than too much power in either hands.
I think far too much breath is wasted in the arguing of those who point at the corruption of big business and see that as a reason for destroying it, and those who point at the corruption of the state and see that as a reason for destroying it. Compromise isn't simple and sexy enough though, so I guess we're stuck with corralling everyone further into extremes until we blow each other up.
A
A More Normal Bird
Unconfirmed Member
Piece by Scott Ludlam on drones. Don't think I'd even heard about this before.
Elaugaufein
Member
Compromise is inherently unstable and would need constant adjustment to maintain. And it seems to result in capture by the corporate equivalency (nobles/ robber barons/ corporations) rather than the state in the case of the Western Democratic interpretation of compromise, given that the former is happening everywhere and the latter nowhere. That would suggest that what we perceive as compromise probably isn't actually all that well balanced. I'm not even sure how you could balance it, a powerful few, who profit or suffer immensely from given policies are much more able to react than a collectively more powerful many who only profit or suffer a little individually but win or lose more as a group. There's a massive difference in motivation and focus and any steps to address it can (with varying degrees of validity depending on the measure) be seen as imposing on the rights of the few. It's actually probably that lack of unified motivation and focus that results in the transfer of power from the "worker" to the "state" too, there's no such thing as "the worker" (like the "average family" it's an ideal rather than a person) but government still has to be done so the power ends up vested in the "state" (which is those who have *some* focus, which usually ends up being self-interest after about a generation at best).
Compromise is also not an inherent good, beware the "Golden Mean fallacy", if he wants to punch me in the face twice and I don't want to be punched in the face, being punched in the face once is still a crappy deal and there's no moral value in accepting it. Which is not to say that compromise is inherently bad either, it's not, and it's going to be an inevitability in society given human nature.
Basically given human nature, good luck coming up with a system that balances the interests of all individuals, the good of society and isn't subject to corruption. I haven't seen anything of the kind.
Like everything in life. What's the alternative?
Obviously we're too far in one direction at the moment, all I'm saying is a centrally planned workers utopia has all of the same problems.
No, but if I want iPhones and basic income, there has to be a compromise.
That was my point. Both extremes seek a utopia, both visions of utopia suffer remarkably similar problems.
Elaugaufein
Member
That's probably because any non-repulsive philosophical vision of utopia must make the assumption that people are Good (in the case of the left that people will still be motivated to excel without special reward, in the case of the right that the unfettered self interest of any individual is ultimately beneficial to society).
And practical experience makes it fairly clear that this isn't true on a universal scale, and it's pretty much impossible to address this (you form a group to deal with those who don't -> a) it's a microcosm of society so it will have "bad people" and b) the power given to that group means that "bad people" will be attracted to it in greater proportion).
I think we're talking about differing degrees of centralised power. In either of the utopian scenarios, the power is in (or will end up in) the hands of one group. Compared to that we have somewhat decentralised power. It could be better of course, but I doubt we'll ever live in a time that you can't say that about.
viciouskillersquirrel
Member
Try as I might, I cannot see anything that could possibly go wrong with this scenario.
Box of Bunnies
Banned
Pepsi presents: Addition and Subtraction
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked