I generally start from a libertarian viewpoint but you have to be pragmatic about what the right thing to do at a given point should be. In general I support Churchill's view:
If it were up to me political parties would be abolished all together. They may be a bureaucratic necessity, but none-the-less the very concept of the political party encourages humans to vote with their dicks and with their prejudices, rather than examining the merits of the policies proposed by the various individuals claiming refuge within a party at any given time and following the most sound proposals regardless of the label with which they were stamped. Parties turn the political stage into one big game of dodge ball, where contestants on either side of the field throw ad hominem fallacies at one another with misdirected and wasted energy. Moreover, the very structure and nature of said parties creates conditions in which all mainstream parties converge, come to display oligarchic tendencies; the differences between parties become increasingly marginal and insignificant; power becomes concentrated in the hands of an elite minority class whose petty squabbling on the public front creates the illusion of meaningful and inspired conflict. Don't get me wrong, my argument is mostly an abstract construction: the British political system is extremely good (one of the best in the world, I firmly believe) - and moreover I may criticise 'elite classes', yet in all truth I no doubt belong to such a class. Yet things could be better, and will only get better if we criticise fairly and democratically and demand improvement. To quote Mr Marx (of whom I am a respectful fan), What is needed above all is a confession, and nothing more than that. To obtain forgiveness for its sins, mankind needs only to declare them for what they are. I must say I have little sympathy for fascism; it seems to rely far too heavily on a unique combination of strong rhetoric and carefully shaped ignorance, and invariably leads to racism and acts of senseless violence (please do not think I am insulting you - these are simply my political views, and you have made it clear that you do not support racism or xenophobia). Power really does corrupt. I consider myself to be centre-left, with a liking for Marxism, and a fondness for ending essays with the words a more equal society could only be a better one, but in reality I hold a stronger belief in moderation and moral liberal values. SW
Oh lordy, Taught by TV news are we? Thieving and killing doesn't happen in Star Trek my friend. Hint, Liberty has a lot to do with you being able to post that propaganda. Here's a nice read, http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM Give this a try..... http://www.politicalcompass.org/ Anarchy could work. EDIT: Remembered this.....must watch
Wow, that's one hell of a lot of judgement and assumption for posting a funny picture...and perfectly demonstrates why Anarchism wouldn't work. It's far, far too involved. Just look at now riled up you got when I didn't invest as much time articulating my views as you did. We already live in an Anarchist world. You only have to anthropomorphise nation states to see that, and in that context miscommunication is rife, and so might usually makes right
Politicians don't rule the world anyways these days. All that counts is either the economics or the religion. As for England and it's politics, well... they should leave the EU and finally become the 51st state of the USA. In general, most democratic countries aren't really democratic at all. Elections themselves don't make democracy. Most democratic countries have a system that I would call constitutional dictatorship, where the people can elect their dictators every few years. A good example of a modern democracy is Switzerland, where the people get to vote on alot of specific questions, and this system actually makes the swiss people think alot more about politics then in the rest of the western democratic countries. In most so called democratic, where people only get to elect their rulers the political education is very low and the reason for left and right-wing groups and parties getting alot of followers. So the best thing that could happen to our western democracies to prevent against socialism or fascism would be a total overhaul of the political systems into a more direct democratic one. People would need to inform themselves more about politics and ofc politics should be teached in school from early on. With all that said, I've long given up hope in the political systems, as nothing has changed for the better during the last 30 years... it only got worse and worse. Viva la revolución.
Anarchism fails to recognise that through out the natrual world social animals form a heirachy. It is in our nature that some people want to lead and others to be led. There will always be a conflict between the rights of the individual and the rights of the group. I think our current political system could be given a shot in the arm by limiting donations to political parties significantly and putting a cap on spending during electoral campaigns. Also politicians should be held personally accountable for what they do.
+1, Accountability, transparency and applicable punishment would greatly alter the type of people who practice government.
Does anyone else find the PM using the offer of a referendum as a bargaining tool to get re-elected rather irksome? Whatever your views on referendums, and even if parties could be trusted to stick to their pre-election promises, using it as an election issue seems to be putting a bad taste in my mouth. Not that I vote anyway - this is just another turn-off for me.
Cameron is a p***y. If he had balls, he wouldn't wait with the referendum until after the next election, but make the referendum right away and tie his position to the outcome of it. He has also not said clearly, what he thinks England should be doing. Does he want to leave the EU himself or not. Seriously. GTFO Cameron.
The likely outcome of a yes-no question would be stay in Europe. That would mean come next election UKIP will still have their single issue to pull in the votes. As it is UKIP voters may instead vote conservative in the hope of winning the referendum. It also reduce the likelihood of the referendum coinciding with some EU crisis and the negative headlines causing the vote to swing to out of the EU. A very sensible political move.
And then some. Particularly since the idea of voting for any party based on a single issue sounds insane to me. Doubly so when that issue is a referendum, the outcome of which is definitely not a given. Probably not, since the economic argument to staying in the EU probably holds sway over him. But without offering the referendum, the 1922 Committee and co will see that he doesn't stay as leader - a slender 'Stay In' vote would suit him down to the ground.
Cameron will say and do anything to stay in power, the longer he is in power the more he can shape this country in to what he wants it to be not the what the people want, that is the problem with all the main political parties in the UK, face it were stuffed.
It did raise a wry smile for me when his reasons for leaving the EU are pretty much the same reasons the nationalists use here for the Scottish referendum vote. It also undermines two of the conservative led "no vote" main arguments, that we are better together and not holding the referendum quickly creates uncertainty and undermines our relationship with our main trading partners. Double standards and hypocrisy are still the order of the day in politics it seems.
personally id ban political parties. All MP must be individual and a majority vote wins on issue that need to be addressed. the house of lords should be abandoned and replaced with a house of elders (experts within their field as recognised by their peers) The house of elders would be comprised of the various sectors in the UK such as business, education, physic, chemistry, biology, faiths (one from all the major ones in the UK), health. I never get why people in charge of the various sectors in the UK are not experts in the field the oversee. educational secretary is not a headmaster or teacher health minister is not a retired GP, surgeon etc How can you possibly understand how to run and shape policy on areas you know nothing about.
I've never quite understood why the British want a full say in the EU but at the same time don't pay their full part because they're Eng-uh-lunnnd. *swayships* You want to decide and reap the benefits of the common market, you pay your dues likeball the other countries. DeGaulle was right in beeing sceptical about the British joining the EU. Don't get me wrong, I don't want you out...given the state of British industries you'd be broke within the decade and our nutjob politicians would take you back.
