Hiroshima & Nagasaki - On the 65th Anniversary of Nagasaki

[eyeball]

Your "expert adviser" crap is nothing more than something you've pasted on in a rather vapid attempt to deflect criticism of your idea. If the voters can ignore the expert advisers, just like Athens ignored Socrates who told them they were being foolish, so to it would seem to me an unconstrained direct democracy will do the same with, say, minority rights.

Direct democracies are not a panacea. In fact, their history is rather mixed, I'm afraid.

Speaking of vapid crap, who said anything about instituting an unconstrained direct democracy?

[g_bambino]

Direct democracies are not a panacea. In fact, their history is rather mixed, I'm afraid.

Eyeball does seem blissfully unaware of, amongst other things, the concept of tyranny of the majority.

[eyeball]

To protect their democracy, and ours. It might have been wrong, and in some cases like Iran, positively negative, but they were dealing with an enemy who had no particular principles at all.

I'd love to know how you would have dealt with the Soviet threat.

With principles above all else.

I wasn't associating them, I was giving, on the one hand, an example of a situation in which your referendum-based democracy system would be at a severe disadvantage (Hitler Jr. bombing the snot out of countries and annexing them while those countries' allies sat around voting booths). You haven't really answered this question at all.

Sure I have, I've often suggested countries should arm themselves with nukes to deter attacks from countries such as you've described.

On the other hand I gave an example of a direct democracy that democratically started an unwinnable war with a much more powerful (and, probably because it needs repeating, very undemocratic) city state. You haven't even dealt with this issue in the least.

Yes I have, we learn from other's mistakes and move on. Today I suspect Athens would have little recourse but to build a nuclear arsenal and ally itself with like-minded states.

[eyeball]

Eyeball does seem blissfully unaware of, amongst other things, the concept of tyranny of the majority.

Yet again, you are fallaciously assuming I am proposing pure direct democracy.

[bloodyminded]

To protect their democracy, and ours.

We know this only because it is blandly asserted to be so. There's often little to no good evidence for it, beyond a catch-all "Cold War" narrative that scrupulously avoids analyzing on a case-by-case basis.

It might have been wrong, and in some cases like Iran, positively negative, but they were dealing with an enemy who had no particular principles at all.

Often neither did the US. Nor us.

The idea that Western foreign policy is at heart benign, but sometimes prone to "mistakes," is sheer apologetics.

I'd love to know how you would have dealt with the Soviet threat.

Well, personally, I hope I would not have materially and knowingly aided in massive state terrorism by the Indonesians (far worse than anything Hamas or al-Queda could ever dream about accomplishing...objectively making us large-scale terrorists), with no "Soviet threat" expressed for our edification, and which went well into 1999...the Soviet threat was terrible indeed, if it lasted into 1999 without the US government or intelligence agencies even being aware of it.

Edited August 20, 2010 by bloodyminded

[eyeball]

Of course he didn't disagree, considering he repeated almost exactly what I said; but, then, that's only evident if you don't selectively edit out salient parts of people's communications. What TB said in full was...

Speaking of forgetting the salient parts of people's communications...something else TB said comes to mind.

...the electorates in the Allied countries who made it very clear that they did not want war, and the politicians listened. Rather than stomping on all the obvious and not-so-obvious breaches of the peace by Germany, they hid their faces...

...but let us be brutally honest, the reason it happened is because the public did not want a war, and sent the message to the politician that damn the costs and risks, peace must be maintained

To be really honest what happened is that the public blindly trusted their politicians...which goes right back to what I said about the folly of leaving the most important decisions to them. The unprincipled bastards hid their faces, why? Probably to get or stay elected.

The only difference is the TB says "unilateral power" and "United Nations Version 2.0" where I said "world dictator".

Three people have come to the same conclusion after analysis of your proposal and all you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and tell yourself we're just idiots.

What I said is that one of you is a liar.

Edited August 20, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

Speaking of vapid crap, who said anything about instituting an unconstrained direct democracy?

So tell me, how, in a direct democracy, do you constrain the majority?

[eyeball]

So tell me, how, in a direct democracy, do you constrain the majority?

By limiting the use of referenda to issues that don't impact individual human rights.

[g_bambino]

What I said is that one of you is a liar.

No. What you said was that those of us who've offered the same basic criticisms of your idea are irrational, servile idiots, all while demonstrating with utter clarity that you've zero comprehension of what we commonly said.

[eyeball]

No. What you said was that those of us who've offered the same basic criticisms of your idea are irrational, servile idiots

If a shoe fits...

The basic criticisms, proposing referenda is equal to proposing dictatorship, or that Canadians can't hold referendums on Canada's policies unless every other country does too, or until I say so, are irrational, servile and idiotic.

Especially the last one. Until I say so

[ToadBrother]

By limiting the use of referenda to issues that don't impact individual human rights.

Through a constitution, I am assume. What if the majority vote to amend the constitution?

[g_bambino]

The basic criticisms, proposing referenda is equal to proposing dictatorship, or that Canadians can't hold referendums on Canada's policies unless every other country does too...

That is reflective of neither your original proposal:

I'd start with a full public inquiry into all of our alliances and treaties and put the question of whether to maintain them to referendum. In conjunction with this I'd pass a law that makes it mandatory that the public likewise pass through referendum any decision to send troops abroad.

nor any response to it:

[F]or your plan to have any success, it would need to be applied to every country on the planet; if some countries did what you suggest and others didn't, the former would be conquered by the latter in no time. As such, some world-wide power is going to have to impose this diktat over every nation...

nless the entire planet uses this system, all it takes is one nasty guy to lead his country into invasion, and while everybody is getting out there Whiz Bang Ross Perot 2000 voting machine to decide whether to help an ally or not, Hitler Jr. is happily bombing countries into the stone age.

Even worse, it would mean someone would have to have the unilateral power to go after a non-compliant state, so that when Hitler Jr. fakes a referendum, or simply seizes control of his country to start his annexation of his neighbors, apparently some United Nations Version 2.0 will have an armed forces to make him hold a referendum on invasion.

About a dozen times now it's been explained, by three different people, and still you're clueless. It's almost as though your subconscious defends your fragile ego by scrambling any negative receptions to your ideas into gibberish your conscious mind can't understand; you then mock the imagined strawmen instead of dealing with what was actually put before you. It's pitiable, even if fascinating.

[c/e]

Edited August 20, 2010 by g_bambino

[M.Dancer]

You're the one who said it, right here.

And you are the one demanding I point out where you said it. I never said you said, I said you don't advocate referendums for the policies you support. Is that very difficult for you to understand?

I support using referendums, and not just to change some old things but to also determine some new ones too. I'm not afraid to put issues that are dear to me to referendum. Just because you can't maintain a consistent principle doesn't mean others can't.

Yet there is no evidence of this is there? Not only can I maintain a consistent principle, I don't get confused are argue myself in a knot. You do because your principles are half baked.

I guess it figures there's nothing there.

I agree. youn have been hectoring for referendums for things you oppose for quite a long time. It's your standard hail mary when democracy fails the half baked.

Your premise and question are a little garbled but I've honestly admitted time and time again that a citizen's assemblies process similar to the one we used in BC could determine what should or should not be put to referendum. But instead of acknowledging that you use ad hominems to attack me when attacking my suggestion falls apart, as it does when it's pointed out that other countries are and have been doing almost exactly what I'm proposing for years and years.Those who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the person doing it, or in this case pointing to clear examples of other people doing it.

Yes you have been calling for the people commisars for a number of issues...

I'm not the one who's getting all bent out of shape and hurling insults at the suggestion we change something you like, you are.

No of course not. You just call people who argue circles around you liars.

[eyeball]

Through a constitution, I am assume. What if the majority vote to amend the constitution?

You'd still have to get the Provinces to agree, as you always like to point out.

[eyeball]

That is reflective of neither your original proposal:

nor any response to it:

Yes it is.

About a dozen times now it's been explained, by three different people, and still you're clueless. It's almost as though your subconscious defends your fragile ego by scrambling any negative receptions to your ideas into gibberish your conscious mind can't understand; you then mock the imagined strawmen instead of dealing with what was actually put before you. It's pitiable, even if fascinating.

Could you please explain why the world must bow down before me?

[eyeball]

Umm... imposed and enforced by whom?

By Comandante EYEBALL of course..

All must bow before the great eyeball.

You have it backwards: every country on Earth would have to be required to hold referenda on maintaining treaties (whatever that actually means) and sending troops abroad in war for it to work, here or anywhere else, and such a rule would need a world dictator to enforce it on everyone. If you were capable of following along, the aforementioned would seem familiar, as it's already been spelled out. (Doesn't it tell you something when more than one other person gets it and you don't?)

This all does, though, rest on the assumption you don't actually want Canada to be a guaranteed conquest for any country that desires it.

[sp]

And you are the one demanding I point out where you said it. I never said you said, I said you don't advocate referendums for the policies you support. Is that very difficult for you to understand?

Yet there is no evidence of this is there? Not only can I maintain a consistent principle, I don't get confused are argue myself in a knot. You do because your principles are half baked.

I agree. youn have been hectoring for referendums for things you oppose for quite a long time. It's your standard hail mary when democracy fails the half baked.

Yes you have been calling for the people commisars for a number of issues...

No of course not. You just call people who argue circles around you liars.

So does everyone still agree the only way to make referendums work is for the world to bow down before me?

[eyeball]

Is it any wonder why I suggest you people get a grip?

[ToadBrother]

You'd still have to get the Provinces to agree, as you always like to point out.

Hmmm... interesting, so we'll have a Federal referendum system, but the Provinces... what?

[ToadBrother]

Is it any wonder why I suggest you people get a grip?

No, it's not much of a wonder, because you're so confused you're hoping someone else can grab a clue for you.

[eyeball]

Hmmm... interesting, so we'll have a Federal referendum system, but the Provinces... what?

You're the one that's forever throwing up the Provinces as an excuse for doing anything to change the Constitution.

I was being facetious, as you're being when you fling out the very worst possible case scenarios you can dream up to deflect from suggestions that we follow the example of other countries that are remaining neutral as per the wishes of their citizens. Countries that did so without having to force any other country to do so never mind every other country in the world.

Lest we forget, the topic description reads thoughts for a more peaceful world not a more paranoid and delusional one.

I repeat, get - a - grip.

Edited August 20, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

You're the one that's forever throwing up the Provinces as an excuse for doing anything to change the Constitution.

I was being facetious, as you're being when you fling out the very worst possible case scenarios you can dream up to deflect from suggestions that we follow the example of other countries that are remaining neutral as per the wishes of their citizens. Countries that did so without having to force any other country to do so never mind every other country in the world.

Lest we forget, the topic description reads thoughts for a more peaceful world not a more paranoid and delusional one.

I repeat, get - a - grip.

I bring up the worst case scenarios because I actually have some history to show the worst case happened. You're flippant retorts suggests to me that you really have never thought it over. You're just an angry ex-politico/activist who, because you didn't overwhelm the halls of power with your gee-wiz best idea ever, wants a system whereby you get your way.

Tell me, would you be in favor of a referendum on abortion rights or capital punishment?

[eyeball]

I bring up the worst case scenarios because I actually have some history to show the worst case happened.

So how do you explain other countries getting away with it? Convenience? Okay I can live with that before dying in waves for God King and Country.

You're flippant retorts suggests to me that you really have never thought it over. You're just an angry ex-politico/activist who, because you didn't overwhelm the halls of power with your gee-wiz best idea ever, wants a system whereby you get your way.

Your smarty-pants retorts get a little nauseating too.

Tell me, would you be in favor of a referendum on abortion rights or capital punishment?

Not me, but so be it if that's where the chips fall. I'm willing to take my chances with my fellow Canadians but I've given up on the politicians making all our decisions.

[ToadBrother]

So how do you explain other countries getting away with it? Convenience? Okay I can live with that before dying in waves for God King and Country.

A handful of jurisdictions around the world, and if you look at California, part of the reason it's ungovernable is because the citizens' initiative process has produced a ludicrously inefficient system.

Not me, but so be it if that's where the chips fall. I'm willing to take my chances with my fellow Canadians but I've given up on the politicians making all our decisions.

So human rights issues will be up for grabs...

Edited August 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

Eyeball is making an absolutely terrible case for it, but a system which puts more of the decisions of government in the direct hands of voters via referendums makes sense to me. Obviously, some things need to be protected by a constitution which is much harder to change (i.e. rights), and other things need to be decided quickly and/or securely (i.e. military/foreign affairs matters), but there are many other decisions which can be placed in the hands of people.

[ToadBrother]

Eyeball is making an absolutely terrible case for it, but a system which puts more of the decisions of government in the direct hands of voters via referendums makes sense to me. Obviously, some things need to be protected by a constitution which is much harder to change (i.e. rights), and other things need to be decided quickly and/or securely (i.e. military/foreign affairs matters), but there are many other decisions which can be placed in the hands of people.

I'm no fan of direct democracy save in fairly specific circumstances, but I'll bite here, not to be antagnostic (yet ) but rather to get some sense of where the advocates feel it should be utilized.