What is a properly functioning democracy?

Well you wouldn't know either way, would you?

You made a remark about his needing to "spend some time in the trenches".
How would you know?
For all you know he may have decades of service "in the trenches" and as a result has arrived at his opinions and perceptions of the situation in question.

 

Yeah, cognitive therapy. Almost every political discussion could use a little and in the case of some hysterical rhetoric, a lot.

 

Yes yes of course! Different labels on the same shit expecting different results fixes everything!

Itemizing the manner method and content of your posts is not a defensive reaction.

Nothing to see here folks.

 

well that would change their statements from simple oxymoronic double-think to outright fraud.


However I have yet to see a viable argument, hell I have yet to see even a reasonable challenge against the invoice method to replace blanket taxation.

Pay for what you vote for, or vote by your payment.

 

Then the democratic reaction? Don't vote. In Canada when enough of that happens: the premier can prorogue parliament. Democracy is not failing. The reason is that we have science to be under the scrutiny if Anarchy. Thus democracy is all about the freedom of the money, by the money, for the money. Maybe the science has not gone that far yet?:sunny:

 

it must be characterized before it can be itemized.

nothing to see here folks, the dance continues

 

I asked a pointed question earlier to see if anyone could answer it, and that was, in the world of no one on the end of leash with a nose ring, with a minimalist powerless democracy, except to enforce judicial decisions by randomly picked jury, what would be the fundamental requirements to bring a legitimate suit. No one responded to that, yet here are some of those same people thinking they can create a functional government at large. Democracys and republics are misnomers that do not represent the center bell curve of the actions in fact of the system purported.

The english government which was also transferred to america was originally set up to protect "themselves" from invasion and pay the bills for that protection.

Democracy presumes that every member within it is fully engaged in ALL the particulars of government 24/7/365 and that is entirely impossible even on it face much less in substance.

Likewise representatives, in the republic, cannot bring to the floor or "represent" the will of the people without 100% of the people being 100% engaged 24/7/365 in the business of government.

Another definition outside the bell and in the fringe rather than center.

Long story short both provide a grand illusion.

'Thus democracy is all about the freedom of the money, by the money, for the money.'

Yep impose whatever form of government they want under the name democracy in the pretense the common people have any real kind of control short of overthrowing their legal trappings backed by a standing army of jack booted thugs with guns and they laugh all the way to the bank.

any idea how much money is generated in these constant legal battles fought against the "government" and the just-us club?

For instance, there is no reason what so ever that people should be restricted from ANY drug or that gays should not marry should they so choose.

That is not a government that is by the people, that is a government that is against the people and its very profitable job security for them.

 

I think the question was what is a properly functioning democracy not what is the failing of democracy or even any failing in human endeavor.

Freedom is had through the recognition of real things and has nothing to do with money. I am free to give money away if I want.

 

No, you can say fork without saying stupid fork.

 

The British Parliments decision to keep us out of armed intervention in Syria is an excellent example of a properly functioning democracy. Lets see if others are !

 

Curious, were any polls taken to determine public opinion, and if so how might they compare to those taken in the U.S., which seem to oppose U.S. military action?

 

Bingo and who is slipping money under the table to whom in private contracts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhRLg_BMxX8

 

Yeah I think the godlike position of head of state or executive privilege is sort of obscene.
If as for instance the us president were to order military strikes at this juncture.

 

lets do this one again instead

Yeh I would.

I can tell by the combination of the words used and the sentence structure quite easily actually. (typos grammatical errors notwithstanding) I have never run across so many experts as I have on the forums. At least in their own minds (lets not leave out any socks)

 

Now if you can show us that the British Parliments decision is based on a refendum and vote of their constituents then you "may" be correct, how ever it was not, so apparently the democracy you speak of, that you consider works, is limited to within the 4 walls of the British Parliment.

 

A poll will do.

 

Though I am usually keen on Referenda it did not cross my mind that there was any necessity for one in that instance. A number of opinion polls indicated that public opposition to military intervention was high,around 70% mark. Press Editorials, media interviews with retired high ranking military staff,polititians and public figures were inclined likewise,with only the PM & Cabinet Ministers expressing strong support for intervention. It was generally accepted,even by the Government, that the majority of the public were at the least very sceptical.

The views expressed in my post were about the quality of the parlimentary debate itself. The 'ghosts' of WMD,Iraq & Tony Blair were very evident,as they are in the country,it was pleasing to see that,for once ,lessons had been learned & that our representatives shared the publics concerns. Though I am usually opposed to Conservatives I was impressed by the sincerity & carefully considered views(for once not limited to party lines but to the expressed feelings of their Constituents and theirown consciences) from members of all sides of the House.

To a large extent it was assumed that Assad has inflicted Chemical Weapons upon his people & the gravity of this was generally understood,as is the importance of the near 100 year old treaty banning their use along with the need for its enforcement.

The British Public like to see themselves as loyal and reliable allies of America,the Parlimentaray debate certainly,in my view,reflected this concern.
A number of political pundits have said that that Debate,lasting many hours,reflected the British Parliment & Democracy at its best. There was little if any jingoism ,saber rattling or right/left political point scoring. Had the Debate been of lesser quality or the result any closer (only 13 votes agaist) there may well have been calls for a reforendum. There has,to my knowledge, not been any nor do I see any need.

 

yeh call up all your pals, use doublethink questions, and if you dont like the results simple fudge them! Now you want to discuss a properly functioning idiocracy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Vw2CrY9Igs"]Brawndo

 

its not democracy unless you take an official and legitimate VOTE, anything else is assumocracy, pretendocracy public puppy chowocracy.

governments work off of 3 principles

1) Power (Keeping theirs)

2) Money (Getting it)

3) No Revolt (The slaves are happy)

Anything outside those parameters is rest assured bullshit LOL


parliament is composed of statists and are not the democracy, "the people" are the joe janitor vassals NOT the privileged class, they are the democracy. (who did NOT get to vote.) Just like america!

NOT a demonstration of democracy on ANY level what so ever! More of the same plutocratic aristocracy since the norman conquest.