Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
democratic rights (Read 6041 times)
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #30 - May 8th, 2011 at 9:51am
 
freediver wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 9:43am:
I am merely pointing out that the concept of democratic rights is meaningless.



Given you support a system that would see a loser win an election - plus also support a variation of that which forces people the polls.

Your views on democracy would hold as much water as those who led the German DEMOCRATIC Republic.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48875
At my desk.
Re: democratic rights
Reply #31 - May 8th, 2011 at 9:53am
 
I support a system that requires majority support to win. You support a system where any minority, no matter how small, can win.

You tell me, which of those sounds like democracy?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #32 - May 8th, 2011 at 6:52pm
 
freediver wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 9:43am:
I am merely pointing out that the concept of democratic rights is meaningless.



Rights are freedoms (positive and negative) that people grant to people, themselves and others. Consequently the body politic has important bearing on those freedoms?

If that body politic is democratic, the righhts and freedoms arrived at in that democracy - but no other body politic - are democratic rights: rights peculiar to the democratic organisation of the body politic.

Some rights are granted by non-democratic powers. They may grant rights similar to the rights granted by a democratic body politic. Are they both democratic rights? No, even though they let you do/not do the same thing. Why?
Because rights are bound up not just with you, the recipient or holder of those rights, but with the power that grants, withholds, defends, tramples on them. The right is an expression of your relationship to that power.

Robinson Crusoe could have declared unlimited rights for himself but without other people, rights are meaningless. This is why rights are about human relationships, mostly relationships of power.
God-given rights are just a figure of speech unless religious authorities have political authority as well.





Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #33 - May 8th, 2011 at 7:01pm
 
freediver wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 9:53am:
I support a system that requires majority support to win. You support a system where any minority, no matter how small, can win.

You tell me, which of those sounds like democracy?


We differ on the meaning of the term 'majority'. rather than accept the notion of the highest vote winning  - a common understanding of victory - you go out of your way to find an arbitrarily constructed mathematical majority while totally ignoring if it is indeed a valid expression of democratic process.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #34 - May 8th, 2011 at 7:04pm
 
freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
The age of consent is a right? Please explain.


Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?)

Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #35 - May 8th, 2011 at 7:07pm
 
Soren wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 7:04pm:
freediver wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
The age of consent is a right? Please explain.


Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?)

Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.


FD has really lost it. It is no longer possible to have a coherent logical debate with him.  He is starting to sound like it_is_the_light where he disputes everything and uses non-logic to make his point. His argument son the first past the post election system is a class example of logic gone missing.
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
hawil
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1345
Re: democratic rights
Reply #36 - May 8th, 2011 at 8:04pm
 
What's the point about debating Democracy; Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy, as are most other Western Nations, because Democracy has been hijacked by politicians for their own benefit.
Sure we can vote once in a while and toss the current government out and install another, which is just as bad as this one.
The Australian National Anthem contains the word fair, but that seems to be only thing fair in Australia as far as the economy goes.
Here is a letter to Bill Shorten, but what good will it do.
Maybe if all the people who post on this forum would write directly to politicians, it would be more effective.
To
Senator the Hon
Bill Shorten
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600


7’th  March. 2011

Dear Sir.
Thank you for your letter of the 1’st.of March 2011, in response to my letter of the 21’st.Sept 2010.
I have since written a letter to you on 18’thFeb.2011, and I hope it does not take you as long to reply to that, and also to this letter.

In the fourth paragraph of you letter you quote the famous “Three pillars social policy”, which have been quoted to me from many of other politicians, which were responsible for the social system in Australia. It is mainly in place for the benefit of the 20-30% of the privileged retirees in Australia.

You also put a lot of emphasis on what the World Bank, OECD and CSIS
Consider to be favourable to Australia.

What they really mean, is, if the Australian government can keep the bottom 70-80% of the population as income poor as possible, they will be able to provide the top 20-30% of retirees to live very much in luxury, by giving as many tax concessions to super as possible, and still be sustainable.

The Australian retirees are the second poorest, after Ireland amongst the ten Nations, mentioned in the attached report “Income streams” and that is due to the meanest “Means test” of the basic pension.

Could you please tell me which other Western or OECD country means tests the basic pension?

What is really unfortunate for the Australian workers and also for the retirees, is, that the Liberals look after the interest of the elite, and Labour party is no better, because many Labour politicians come from the ranks of the Unions, to join the elite, and that includes you; Larry Knight, will be turning in his grave, seeing how you benefitted from Beaconsfield and his misfortunate, and then look after their own interests.

Here are some excerpts from books I read:

In the book “Unemployment forever or a Support Income System and Work For All”, by Allan McDonald, on page 142 (h) it is stated: Any means tested welfare system requires extensive and complex state control and regulation. Australia is slowly but surely moving towards the ultimate outcome of a means tested social welfare system-state control over finances, the savings, and the labours of the poorest in the community.

Have the politicians of Australia the know-how and will to change the tax and social system to be more egalitarian, or was the late Professor A.J.Marshall right when he wrote, as quoted in the book “Equality and Authority” by S Encel on page212: “Most Australian politicians, he wrote, aspire to parliamentary seats ‘to better their salary, to inflate their egos and feather their nests’.

John Pilger in his book “The new rulers of the world” wrote on page 175: Like Britain and the US, Australia is a single ideology state with two competing factions, discernible largely by the personalities of their politicians. The difference between Howard’s conservative coalition and the opposition Labor Party is that Howards policies are not veiled. The Labor governments of the 1980s and early 1990s oversaw the greatest distribution of wealth in the country’s history: from bottom to top. They were Thatcherite and Reganite in all but name. Indeed, Tony Blair described then Prime Minister Paul Keating as his
‘inspiration’.

Australia is a Constitutional Monarchy, portrayed as Democracy, but it has been hijacked by politicians and turned into a Plutocracy.

The biggest problem is, how to make the average citizen aware of this, because the media and government are definitely not interested to enlighten them.

Yours truly
Hawil
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #37 - May 8th, 2011 at 8:56pm
 
Thanks for this, Hawil, I never realised that Bob Brown and his deputy, Gillard, and her deputy, Swan, were really representing the wealthy miners, pastoralists and industrialists. All that talk of tax this and tax that must be just a cunning plan to divert attention from their plans to tax this and that. 
I can just see Bill Shorten when h finished reading your letter, the scales falling from his eyes, stunned by your new and powerful insights into the way politics actually works in this country. I wonder what he will do next, now that he knows.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 58307
Here
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #38 - May 8th, 2011 at 9:28pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:10pm:
How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them?

You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this?



Great examples they are where we recently had a British election won by 21% of the vote and a US election won by 5 votes to 3 in the high court.

Yeah why don't we copy them guys they have it mastered. DOH!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #39 - May 9th, 2011 at 8:46am
 
Dnarever wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 9:28pm:
Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 1:10pm:
How is it democratic to force people to the poll through threats of fining them?

You do realize how perplexing and surprising that is to my American colleagues and British family that Australia does this?


Great examples they are where we recently had a British election won by 21% of the vote and a US election won by 5 votes to 3 in the high court.

Yeah why don't we copy them guys they have it mastered. DOH!



I have no problem with the obligation to vote. If you take your responsibilities to maintaining a democracy so lightly that you refuse to vote then you SHOULD be fined. its not like it is some huge onerous obligation. Democracies are NOT the natural state of countires. They need to be maintained by effort and that effort involves everyone voting.
Back to top
« Last Edit: May 9th, 2011 at 9:07am by longweekend58 »  

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48875
At my desk.
Re: democratic rights
Reply #40 - May 9th, 2011 at 9:12pm
 
Quote:
Consequently the body politic has important bearing on those freedoms?


As always, but a right is still a right regardless of the mechanism of that bearing?

Quote:
rights peculiar to the democratic organisation


Can you give an example of a right (other than the right to vote of course) that only exists in a democracy? I believe I have asked you to clarify this in just about every post I have made. You failed. Every time.

Quote:
Some rights are granted by non-democratic powers. They may grant rights similar to the rights granted by a democratic body politic. Are they both democratic rights? No, even though they let you do/not do the same thing. Why?
Because rights are bound up not just with you, the recipient or holder of those rights, but with the power that grants, withholds, defends, tramples on them. The right is an expression of your relationship to that power.


So you create whole different streams of rights - eg the democratic right to own property, the dictatorial right to own property, the Robinson Crusoe right to own property, the monarchy right to own property etc? All the same right to own property, but different in something unrelated? Would you also have us accept a black, white and asian right to own property? A Monday and Tuesday right to own property?

Quote:
Robinson Crusoe could have declared unlimited rights for himself but without other people, rights are meaningless.


Yet he would have had those rights. I don't see how that is meaningless. There is a lot of meaning in the fact that people are most free and have the most rights when there is no-one else around to take your rights or have their freedom infringed. It certainly has a lot more meaning than blue rights and green rights, which are actually the same rights, only different colours.

Quote:
Don't be a fathead, FD.  You take a pregnant 13 year old girl to the QLD Marriage Registry and say you want to make her your lawful wedded and they will explain it to you. (WHat do you think they might say?)

Convert to Islam and take a 13 year old pregnant girl to the Riyadh Registry - accompanied by your other two 13 year old wives and the children from them - and they will wave you through and you get a goat with the King's compliments.


I see. You were only hinting at the rights you were referring to. Could you not think of the name for the right?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #41 - May 9th, 2011 at 9:31pm
 
All crap. You are an even bigger fathead than I expected. You have zero 'property rights' to your hut on an uninhabited island.

Your property rights in a dictatorship, an absolute monarchy or a parliamntary democracy are not the same even if the legal codes of each include the words 'property rights'.

Your democratic rights are all your rights that are protected and upheld by the legal system of a democratic polity.  They do not exist anywhere else.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48875
At my desk.
Re: democratic rights
Reply #42 - May 9th, 2011 at 9:39pm
 
Property rights can be and are infringed under all forms of government. There is nothing special about property rights under a democracy that makes them qualitatively different from those under any other system of government. In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation.

If not, can you explain how property rights are different in a democracy, beyond the fact that they are in a democracy?

Quote:
They do not exist anywhere else.


You mean the rights exist, but not in a 'democratic' way, or are you saying the rights themselves don't exist?
Back to top
 

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Soren
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 25654
Gender: male
Re: democratic rights
Reply #43 - May 9th, 2011 at 9:48pm
 
freediver wrote on May 9th, 2011 at 9:39pm:
In fact you have a better guarantee of property rights if you are in the Robison Crusoe situation.





Grin Grin Grin


Yeah, and you have unlimited rights to drink as much seawater as you like when you are lost at sea and there is nobody around for 500 miles take even one cup of it away from you. You have unlimited property rights to seawater.

Enjoy it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Prevailing
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 7169
Stop Men
Re: democratic rights
Reply #44 - May 10th, 2011 at 2:16am
 
Fascists cant even bully disabled people back into the workforce - where do they get off thinking that they decide what rights people will or wont have.  There is an old saying - if you want it - come and take it, but it will cost you - I wont give it to you for nothing.

Most fascists wont try to take something if there is a serious fight involved because at heart they are sniveling cowards who try to pick weak targets to dominate.  Thats why I sneer at them when they say stuff like they do.  who do they think they are kidding with their threats? Smiley
Back to top
 

I condemn Male Violence Against Women
The Government Supports Gynocide
There Is Something Dreadfully Wrong With Men
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print