Text 7442, 303 rader
Skriven 2010-04-30 16:11:23 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Hello Robert,

On Wednesday April 28 2010 17:27, you wrote to me:

 RB>>> Who said I wanted to "help" anyone do anything?

 MV>> You yoursel. "Help" was the word you used when you mentioned the
 MV>> situation in Zimbabwe. You said we should help the people in
 MV>> Zimbabwe.

 RB> Did I? If so, it was only in the context of "help them rid themselves
 RB> of a corrupt dictatorship

In other words: help them adopt your system.

 RB> that has brought the "breadbasket of Africa" down to the level of
 RB> starvation except for favorites of the regime. And with the best will
 RB> in the world, I can't find anything wrong with that.

Give me three examples of where such "help" actually worked.

 RB> On the other hand, it's no skin off my teeth whether they kill each
 RB> other or not, as long as they don't interfere with my life: do you
 RB> prefer that?

I prefer things that work over ideology. Histoiry shoukd have tought us by now
that democracy can not be forced. It has to come from within or it won't. very
simple, but obvious a lesson that is very hard to learn because we keep trying
despite the obvious failures.

 RB>>> Anyway, I have no faith in elected representatives of _any_
 RB>>> nationality.

 MV>> Too bad.

 RB>>> Don't think that only applies to the States.

 MV>> You implied it applies to MY country.

 RB> I "implied" nothing, Michiel.

Yes, you did. You labelled our situation where parliament has the last word and
laws can not be denounced as unconstitutional by an independant body as
"dangerous".

 RB>>> There are some who are better (more honest, concientious,
 RB>>> dedicated to the public good) than others, but when the party
 RB>>> says "vote this way or that", they have to vote that way, too.

 MV>> Yes, it is called party discipline. A result of people voting for
 MV>> a PARTY rather than for the individual members.

 RB> Right. So who cares about the honest, concientious representatives
 RB> that - in the final analysis - don't have anything to say about what
 RB> the party does?

Then they follow their own conscience. It occasionally happens. A member is not
BOUND to vote according to the party line. They usually do, but there is no law
that says they must. In the extreme a mamber can leave the party and keep the
seat. They then act as an independent member for the rest of their term.

 RB> You can't have it both ways, you know: praise invididuals but condemn
 RB> them at the same time for following a party line that goes even
 RB> against their own conscience.

You fail to understand how the system works here.

 RB> That's why my scepticism remains active, and will only really be
 RB> satisfied when we can vote for individuals rather than merely for
 RB> parties.

In The Netherlands, one CAN vote for an individual.
It seems we have the best of both worlds..

 RB>>> The constitution in Germany says representatives are only
 RB>>> responsible to their own conciences, but that's not the way
 RB>>> things work in practice.

 MV>> So what? What matter is that if they do things wrong in the eye of
 MV>> the voter, they pay the price next election.

 RB> Theoretically.

In practise too. Balkenende will lose a lot of votes over the Iraq issue. Many
feel that his support for the Iraq invasion was the wrong decision and he WILL
pay for that in the next election. (9th of June)

 RB> But then you have the situation as in the States, and that in Germany,
 RB> where the parties are so similar that voting for one is like voting
 RB> for the other. Some choice.

Perhaps you have not looked close enough. i see enough differences to make a
rational choice.

And then of course, one can always found your own party. All you need is the
signatures of 30 voters in the areas you wish to register plus EUR 11.250.

 RB> They rejected it since they had an opportunity to do so.

No.

By the same reasoning they could have accepted it because they had the
opportunity to do so.

 RB> Others who would have rejected it, such as the Germans, were not given
 RB> this chance.

How do you know they would have rejected it?

 RB> That has nothing to do with the reasons, only with the opportunity.

That is false logic. See above.

 RB>>> that their economy will stagnate, that everyone will become
 RB>>> poorer

 MV>> Which, if true, is a very good reason to vote in favour.

 RB> You said it: "if true".

I believe it it be true.

 RB>>> - and then maybe get a few good rock bands to endorse the "yes"
 RB>>> vote.

 MV>> That is called lobbying. Nothing wrong with it.

 RB> And you talk about voters not being stupid? I was joking, Michiel,

So was I.

 RB> but the joke unfortunately wasn't very good - it's too close to the
 RB> truth.

Really? I didn't see any rock bands - good or bad - endorse a yes vote.

 RB>>>  That's just normal politics, Michiel.

 MV>> And the problem with that is?

 RB> Nothing, as long as everyone accepts the results of a poll - and gives
 RB> their population an opportunity to say "yes" or "not" in the first
 RB> place. But when most populations are excluded from participation -

I never felt excluded form participation.

 MV>> Anyway, I voted in favour. Wasn't the first time I voted against
 MV>> the majority and it won't be the last. I never felt "pressured" in
 MV>> any way.

 RB> That's you. Now let's hear from the other 16.5 million or so in NL.

We will on the 9th of June.

 MV>> You have not answered the question of: "who says the EU court can
 MV>> not override decisions of the German constitutional court?"

 RB> Who says it can?

So because no one says it can, it follows that it can not?

 RB>  Know of a specific case?

No, but as I wrote before, the udst has not settled yet. maybe we will know
more if this Telecom thing in Germany evolves.

 RB> allerdings bis längstens zum 15. März 2009 aufgeschoben werden. Hierzu
 RB> ist eine besondere Erklärung der Mitgliedsstaaten notwendig. Eine
 RB> solche Erklärung haben sechzehn der fünfundzwanzig Mitgliedsstaaten
 RB> abgegeben, darunter Deutschland und Österreich."

 RB> In other words, only 16 of the 25 EU members have thus far even
 RB> _agreed_ to implement the directive in national law - and the deadline
 RB> for _implementation_ was March 15, 2009. How open must a refusal be?

But we do not know if the last word has been spoken on the matter.

 RB> I don't think things are as simple as you'd like to believe.

I think things are not as simple as YOU believe.

 RB>>> No, but I know how they think, in contrast to you.

 MV>> Why would you know any better than I? They have been my neighbours
 MV>> for over 60 years. I was already watching German television when
 MV>> you were still living in the USA.

 RB> Hell, I was watching Truffaut films when I was 16,

In French?

 RB> but that still doesn't make me an expert on the French mentality.

I do not claim to be an expert on German mentality. Hell, i do not even claim
to be an expert on Dutch mentality...

 RB> As you so often like to point out, "I live here".

Actually it was YOU who first used that.  To which I replied that onc can be to
close to the trees to see the forest...

 MV>> As I wrote before, it is a big step from not being saddled with an
 MV>> almost pathological aversion against government to slavishly
 MV>> follow. Most Europenas I know stand somewhere in the middle. I
 MV>> pick on you because in my perception you are the exception. You
 MV>> may have a German passport, but regarding your attitude towards
 MV>> government, you still have the mind of a US American.

 RB> Maybe, maybe not. You'd have to know many Germans from all walks of
 RB> life as well as you know me to be sure.

I know quit o lot of Germans. I am a HAM. I speak to them and meet them at HAM
conventions. There is one every third weekend in August in Bad Bentheim. And in
July there is the "Bodensee treffen".

Germany is less than an huor drive from here. Lots of German tourists here. And
I watch German television. In German. And not just Tatort.

 MV>> I know. And you think all government is bad. You were born and
 MV>> raised in the USA. Hard to shake...

 RB> You're reading things into my comments again, Michiel.

Yes, I read things into your comments.

 RB> I don't think, and never did, that "all government is bad", since I'm
 RB> definitely not an anarchist.

You sure sound like one. Your constant rants about skyhigh taxes and
politicians pusrsuing their own ends, surely makes you come across as being
opposed to all government.

 RB> I only think it's unwise to trust government - any government - on
 RB> faith or promises alone.

Who says I blindly trust them? I don't. But I do believe that the system in
general works.

 MV>> Perhaps not as good as you think. I read your rants in the German
 MV>> areas. And the comments from the Germans...

 RB> "The Germans"?? ;-)))))))))))))))))))

 RB> The _two_ who dump on me?

Exactly. Only two. Does it not oiccur two you that the fact hat hardly anyone
bothers to comment on your rants, means something in itself?

 RB> One born and raised in the former DDR, and the other automatically
 RB> says "no" when I say "yes". Fido isn't the world, Michiel, not even in
 RB> Germany.

I am aware of that. Fidoians are smarter than average. There are a lot of
stu[od people around. Most of them do not manage to set up a FidoNet system..

 MV>> "We", not "me"

 RB> You presume to speak for the 16.5 million other Dutch

Not speak FOR them, but knowing how they think. More or less.

 MV>> But you should not confuse opposition to the sitting powers with
 MV>> aversion to government _as such_.

 RB> You're still interpreting, Michial. "I am not, nor have I ever been a
 RB> member of the..." anarchist movement, Mr. Chairman ;-)

You do hwoever display a profound aversion to goverment. A typical AMERICAN
aversion to government I add.

 RB> [The quote being a favorite of people subpoenaed to appear before the
 RB> House Un-American Activities Committee in the 1950s.]

Noted.

 RB>>> From what I read, there appears to be plenty

 MV>> Opposition is part and parcel of democracy. It means that
 MV>> different people have different ideas and express them. That has
 MV>> nothing to do with having no faith in elected representatives or
 MV>> casting doubt on their integrity.

 RB> It doesn't?

No it does not. Not in my perception.

 RB> Apparently some of the fellow representatives haven't read that yet.

I lost you.

 RB>>>  - some of it pretty violent.

 MV>> What violence?

 RB> Language issue. You're confusing "violent" (energetic, emphatic) with
 RB> "violence" (physical violence, riots).

If the violence is only verbal, what is the problem?

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)