Text 7456, 313 rader
Skriven 2010-05-01 06:31:10 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
   Kommentar till text 7442 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Question about democracy
================================
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Robert Bashe on Friday April 30 2010 at 16:11:

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

MV> In other words: help them adopt your system.

Not necessarily - there are a number of systems around that are more equitable
than a corrupt dictatorship, and the locals can try them out IF they have the
chance. Your "in other words" is interpretation again: I never wrote that.

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.

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

Give me one where doing nothing improved the lives of people living in such a
country.

I often wonder why you appear to think doing nothing is preferable to helping
people who are obviously in need, and why it should be acceptable to pour goods
and money into a totally corrupt economy, making the rich richer and not
helping the poor more than marginally, but wrong to want to help people achieve
a system with which they can support themselves without outside aid.

I also wonder that you appear to believe democracy (in one of its many forms)
is so bad that it has to be "forced" on people. Do you think a corrupt
dictatorship is preferable? - and I'm not merely talking about the ruling
class: they naturally prefer their own system.

The fact is that government systems cannot be "imposed" on anyone except by
conquest and annexation. Conquest alone isn't enough, since people will always
go back to the system they prefer after the conquerers have left.

MV> I prefer things that work over ideology.

I do too. Doing nothing achieves nothing.

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

MV>>> Yes, it is called party discipline. A result of people voting for a
MV>>> 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?

MV> Then they follow their own conscience. It occasionally happens. A
MV> member is not BOUND to vote according to the party line.

In Germany, that is NOT true. When the party fraction in parliament invokes
party discipline, the party members vote with the party. Period. There are
exceptions, where party discipline is not invoked and everyone is allowed to
vote according to their own concience, but that is the exception, not the rule.

MV> They usually do, but there is no law that says they must. In the
MV> extreme a mamber can leave the party and keep the seat. They then act
MV> as an independent member for the rest of their term.

This is also possible in the German parliament. The only problem is that such a
member is generally not re-elected.

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.

MV> You fail to understand how the system works here.

Michiel, I wasn't talking about the Netherlands. I base everything I write on
Germany, since that's what I know. If things are different in NL, you'll have
to explain the differences. But then don't turn around and claim you know the
German system better than I do. You don't.

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.

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

Detail the cirsumstances. In Germany, in national elections, you can vote for a
party _and_ there are independent candidates you can personally vote for. But
you can _not_ vote for a specific person from a party listed on the ballot. The
name of the party leader is specified, or the name of the list candidate of the
party, but that is only for identification purposes. For example, a vote for
Angela Merkel is a vote for the CDU, not specifically for Ms. Merkel.

Independent candidates can put themselves on the ballot (if they are endorsed
by a certain number of supporter signatures), and can be elected as
independents. But as they have no fraction status in parliament (you need a
party and certain number of representatives to attain that), they are
essentially helpless - they have a vote and can speak, but are not on any
committees (where the real power is) and even their speaking privileges are
very limited.

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

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

Amazing, that people have such long memories. I'd be more worried about what's
going on _now_ than something that took place years ago and is presently no
longer important for the Netherlands, as they have no troops in the region.

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

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

;-) You do go on belief, don't you? Unfortunately, I don't have your
confidence, complacency, trust or whatever you want to term the attitude: I've
seen entirely too much prevarication (lying) by politicians throughout my life,
and too many about-faces by politicians to believe in your "rational choice".

Apropos, ever hear the old saying of Konrad Adenauer, as someone in parliament
pointed out that he was contradicting himself, and had said something
completely different a few days ago: "Was kuemmert mich mein albernes
Geschwaetz von gestern?" (What do I care about my silly prattling of
yesterday?). At least he was honest.

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

MV> No.

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

Michiel, the point is that THEY WERE ALLOWED TO VOTE!!! Most of us were NOT!

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

MV> How do you know they would have rejected it?

My God, you don't believe anything that hasn't actually happened, do you? The
opinion polls were 80%+ against and there was no reason to question what would
happen if the population had been allowed to vote. Why do you think the German
powers-that-be were so scared of having a referendum? They knew damned well the
vote would go against them, so they simply cut off the population and voted
"yes" behind closed doors. The population was NOT amused.

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

MV> That is false logic. See above.

This isn't the first time you talk about logic and ignore human nature.

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

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

MV> We will on the 9th of June.

No, that is not a vote on the so-called EU Constitution. The subject wasn't
elections in general - see your own words above "I voted in favor".

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?

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

RB>>  Know of a specific case?

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

[Sigh] What's the use? I think you wouldn't believe the sun rises in the east
unless you actually see it yourself - and even then you'd have to check with a
compass and various instruments to make sure it really was the east and not the
west.

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

MV> I think things are not as simple as YOU believe.

So you believe national constitutions are only scraps of paper in the EU?
That's what it boils down to, and I certainly disagree.

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

MV> In French?

As a matter of fact, yes. They subtitle in the States and it was a good way to
learn the language.

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

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

From what you write, I certainly don't get that impression.

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

MV> Yes, I read things into your comments.

You should pay more attention to what I write and less to your interpretations
in that case.

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

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

I think you don't know what an anarchist is.

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

MV> Who says I blindly trust them? I don't.

Then why do you interpret criticism of government as an affront to democracy?
Why do you react so violently when others voice criticism? The essence of
democracy is that critisicm - even violent criticism - is tolerated and
sometimes even acted on. Without that, there is no democracy.

MV> But I do believe that the system in general works.

I do too. But there's often sand in the works, and I have no problems with
people who point that out.

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?

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

You apparently haven't been reading much except the negative comments. Skipped
the other ones, eh?

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
RB>> in Germany.

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

Which has what to do with political knowledge and sensibilities?

MV>>> "We", not "me"

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

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

;-))) So you know more about the Germans than I do, although I live here and
have done so since 1966, but you _also_ know all there is to know about the
Dutch population. Michiel, you're apparently the first universal genius since
Leonardo da Vinci.

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

RB>> It doesn't?

MV> No it does not. Not in my perception.

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

MV> I lost you.

Since when do elected representatives NOT criticize, chastise and attempt to
humiliate their fellow representatives, since when do they NOT cast doubt on
the integrity of thgeir fellow representatives? That would really be something
new for me, and if this is the case, must have started a few minutes ago.

RB>>>>  - some of it pretty violent.

MV>>> What violence?

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

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

That's what you were taking the Americans here to task about - the violent
rejection of Obama and his policies by at least some Republicans. So answer
your question yourself, since that's obviously a problem for you.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613
 * Origin: Jabberwocky System - 02363-56073 ISDN/V34 (2:2448/44)