6 ms·

Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. That means if you want to decide for yourself you have to actually educate yourself on the ramifications of th

Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. That means if you want to decide for yourself you have to actually educate yourself on the ramifications of the decisions. Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not democracy that's just a tantrum.

falsestprophet 10y ago
>Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. In the United Kingdom parliament is dissolved every five years or sooner and elections are called to elect a new parliament. Representative democracy is manifestly a right of the British people.
- cortesoft 10y ago
  Right, but a direct vote on brexit is not 'representative democracy'. British citizens voted for their MPs, and if those MPs drag their feet on brexit, it is still a representation of the will of the people.
  - dudul 10y ago
    Some countries favor direct democracy and think representative democracy is not democratic enough. Are they wrong? Please american overlord, show us the way, we so want to be right.
    - cortesoft 10y ago
      Personally, I think they are wrong for very clear and real reasons. I think protecting the minority is important. I don't think something magically happens at 50.01% that makes that idea suddenly better than at 49.99%. The majority does NOT have the right to abuse the minority.
- fao_ 10y ago
  Except we don't have that, we have First Past the Post :)
kadabra9 10y ago
Ah yes, the classic "My side lost, so the other side must be uneducated" argument. Democracy is great up until the point people dont vote the way you want them to vote.
- lotyrin 10y ago
  Can the majority not be wrong? It seems like they are in a number of states, on a number of issues, should we not desire a correct government over a popular one? Whether it's a majority that is wrong, or a representative class that is wrong, or a despot that is wrong, should we not have a voice to point out what we see as errors?
  - dudul 10y ago
    Who is to decide what a correct government is then? How do you define "wrong"? You are obviously free to point out what you see as errors, but if you can't convince the majority, then what else is there to do?
    - lotyrin 10y ago
      You probably don't actually believe that popular opinion constitutes truth, it's just convenient pretense for your argument. If you really do, pick up a history book or some modern polls. When the majority decides that a minority should be mistreated, is that justice? If the majority is misinformed by a powerful minority, will they not act against even their own best interests? When the majority is short sighted, is disgracing the future the proper thing to do? An ideal government is one that uses the truth to optimize according to some anthropic value system in the short and long terms. These do not arise from popular opinion, just as they don't form under the force of authority. Unfortunately, they are probably impossible to form at all. People are selfish, stupid, and short-sighted and that doesn't go away once you reach any particular number or proportion of them making the decisions. Democracy can (arguably) produce morally just decisions, but that isn't the same as producing factually correct ones.
      - 10y ago
Rylinks 10y ago
Here is a plan: 1. Invoke article 50 2. Wait two years This might not be a good plan, but that's for the voters to decide.
dudul 10y ago
I see, so when people don't vote "the right way" it's because they are stupid, or throwing a tantrum. Good, that makes for good debates. The media and the "elite" in the UK tried that for a year and we saw the outcome. There is an article in the constitution to allow a country to leave the union, so it is a right the people have.
- knowaveragejoe 10y ago
  The question is whether it's a right they should exercise on so little information.
  - dudul 10y ago
    Well, then we should maybe change the rules of elections. Maybe before people are allowed to vote they should take a test to make sure they know what they are doing. Or we can simplify and say that you need a master's degree to be allowed to vote, organizing the test may be too involved. Also, maybe old people should not be allowed to vote since they're gonna die soon anyway, what do they care? Also, maybe only land owners should be allowed to vote, after all, if you don't own land maybe you're not really part of the destiny of the country. Also, maybe you should have been a citizen for at least 10 years to be allowed to vote, to make sure you've had time to integrate the values of your new country. How about we stop assuming that just because things didn't play out the way the elites wanted them to it must mean that people are stupid, racist, uneducated? I can only imagine the reactions if the "remain" had won, and we were now talking about the UK leaving anyway.
  - tomp 10y ago
    What do you mean, little information?! There's plenty of information on how bad EU is (occupation of Greece, austerity, one country deciding to invite millions of migrants then forcing others to help them, wasting money supporting 2 parliaments, "unelected" leaders, the failure that is Euro, ...).
    - Daishiman 10y ago
      You're not really proving that these, or worse, things wouldn't happen without a EU. Structural economic issues that span a whole continent happen regardless of whether it's in a single coordinated economic bloc or not.
dingaling 10y ago
> Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not my job - that's what civil servants and politicians are paid considerable amounts of money to determine. Just like a marketing director doesn't expect to have to present the dev team with the architecture of the latest web app; he or she states the requirements, we execute it.
- Daishiman 10y ago
  Well, executing according to the plan will lead to political suicide because the Leave voters couldn't be bothered to understand the economic ramifications, so they're going to be out of a vote anyway. If a customer asks for you to build a building that will collapse, do you go for it or do you steadfastedly refuse your customer's idiocy.
  - sbmassey 10y ago
    If they want a building that will collapse, you should build it, of course. Doing otherwise would be negligent, and assuming your customers are stupid for wanting such a thing is unprofessional at best.

falsestprophet 10y ago

>Democracy is not a right, it's a responsibility. In the United Kingdom parliament is dissolved every five years or sooner and elections are called to elect a new parliament. Representative democracy is manifestly a right of the British people.

cortesoft 10y ago
Right, but a direct vote on brexit is not 'representative democracy'. British citizens voted for their MPs, and if those MPs drag their feet on brexit, it is still a representation of the will of the people.
- dudul 10y ago
  Some countries favor direct democracy and think representative democracy is not democratic enough. Are they wrong? Please american overlord, show us the way, we so want to be right.
  - cortesoft 10y ago
    Personally, I think they are wrong for very clear and real reasons. I think protecting the minority is important. I don't think something magically happens at 50.01% that makes that idea suddenly better than at 49.99%. The majority does NOT have the right to abuse the minority.
fao_ 10y ago
Except we don't have that, we have First Past the Post :)

kadabra9 10y ago

Ah yes, the classic "My side lost, so the other side must be uneducated" argument. Democracy is great up until the point people dont vote the way you want them to vote.

lotyrin 10y ago
Can the majority not be wrong? It seems like they are in a number of states, on a number of issues, should we not desire a correct government over a popular one? Whether it's a majority that is wrong, or a representative class that is wrong, or a despot that is wrong, should we not have a voice to point out what we see as errors?
- dudul 10y ago
  Who is to decide what a correct government is then? How do you define "wrong"? You are obviously free to point out what you see as errors, but if you can't convince the majority, then what else is there to do?
  - lotyrin 10y ago
    You probably don't actually believe that popular opinion constitutes truth, it's just convenient pretense for your argument. If you really do, pick up a history book or some modern polls. When the majority decides that a minority should be mistreated, is that justice? If the majority is misinformed by a powerful minority, will they not act against even their own best interests? When the majority is short sighted, is disgracing the future the proper thing to do? An ideal government is one that uses the truth to optimize according to some anthropic value system in the short and long terms. These do not arise from popular opinion, just as they don't form under the force of authority. Unfortunately, they are probably impossible to form at all. People are selfish, stupid, and short-sighted and that doesn't go away once you reach any particular number or proportion of them making the decisions. Democracy can (arguably) produce morally just decisions, but that isn't the same as producing factually correct ones.
    - 10y ago

Rylinks 10y ago

Here is a plan: 1. Invoke article 50 2. Wait two years This might not be a good plan, but that's for the voters to decide.

dudul 10y ago

I see, so when people don't vote "the right way" it's because they are stupid, or throwing a tantrum. Good, that makes for good debates. The media and the "elite" in the UK tried that for a year and we saw the outcome. There is an article in the constitution to allow a country to leave the union, so it is a right the people have.

knowaveragejoe 10y ago
The question is whether it's a right they should exercise on so little information.
- dudul 10y ago
  Well, then we should maybe change the rules of elections. Maybe before people are allowed to vote they should take a test to make sure they know what they are doing. Or we can simplify and say that you need a master's degree to be allowed to vote, organizing the test may be too involved. Also, maybe old people should not be allowed to vote since they're gonna die soon anyway, what do they care? Also, maybe only land owners should be allowed to vote, after all, if you don't own land maybe you're not really part of the destiny of the country. Also, maybe you should have been a citizen for at least 10 years to be allowed to vote, to make sure you've had time to integrate the values of your new country. How about we stop assuming that just because things didn't play out the way the elites wanted them to it must mean that people are stupid, racist, uneducated? I can only imagine the reactions if the "remain" had won, and we were now talking about the UK leaving anyway.
- tomp 10y ago
  What do you mean, little information?! There's plenty of information on how bad EU is (occupation of Greece, austerity, one country deciding to invite millions of migrants then forcing others to help them, wasting money supporting 2 parliaments, "unelected" leaders, the failure that is Euro, ...).
  - Daishiman 10y ago
    You're not really proving that these, or worse, things wouldn't happen without a EU. Structural economic issues that span a whole continent happen regardless of whether it's in a single coordinated economic bloc or not.

dingaling 10y ago

> Nobody on the Brexit camp even had a plan on how to leave. That's not my job - that's what civil servants and politicians are paid considerable amounts of money to determine. Just like a marketing director doesn't expect to have to present the dev team with the architecture of the latest web app; he or she states the requirements, we execute it.

Daishiman 10y ago
Well, executing according to the plan will lead to political suicide because the Leave voters couldn't be bothered to understand the economic ramifications, so they're going to be out of a vote anyway. If a customer asks for you to build a building that will collapse, do you go for it or do you steadfastedly refuse your customer's idiocy.
- sbmassey 10y ago
  If they want a building that will collapse, you should build it, of course. Doing otherwise would be negligent, and assuming your customers are stupid for wanting such a thing is unprofessional at best.