Democracy -- how would you change the government?

[Darren Dirt]

I'm curious how would you folks respond to this question...

You say you believe in democracy. Good. I want to ask you a certain question: "If you had the power, how would you change the government?"



Think about it. Would you give more money to the poor? Maybe you'd like to reduce the size of government? Would you take a more aggressive stand against the Soviets? Maybe you'd be more conciliatory. Would you reform the bureaucracies? Would you crack down on the drug traffic? Would you try to wipe out organized crime?

[Mags]

Give unlimited power to myself, then LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!!

[Mags]

Seriously, first I would try and restore balance between protecting minorities and yet giving power back to the majority.



Then I would blow up our Military. Increase spending but with more specialized focuses.



I would also over-haul the med care system. Privatization is not the answer (as any country that's actually tried it.), but costs do need to addressed. I think a longer term view is also needed, more money should go to universities and other institutions to find cures, rather then depending on big business and greed which are inclined to find treatments rather then cures.



I would take the axe to the judicial system. MUCH MUCH harsher punishments for repeat offenders. I would serious consider California's 3-strikes law. You may get falsely accused once, but three times?? To the pokey with you I say. I would also consider a return to corporal punishment in extreme cases (i.e. serial killers, serial child molesters).



Then, for the greater good, I would outlaw breast reduction surgery.

[Mr. Analog]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Darren Dirt]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

If what ain't "broke"?



Or is that some reference to Mags' views on surgery?

[Mr. Analog]

"It" being the workings of our Government, all the change Mags talked about could be achieved within the framework we have now. We have a multi-party system that works, we are represented fairly by region, absolute power is not in the control of a single man or party and so far, in my opinion, the form of Government here in Canada has served most Canadians well.



There is nothing I would change about how our Government works. Who's in charge; yep, but not how it works.

[Darren Dirt]

There is nothing I would change about how our Government works. Who's in charge; yep, but not how it works.

Okay then let's clarify: If you, personally, were "in charge" (instead of getting somebody to do stuff for you) then what things would you change?

[Mr. Analog]

My party policy would include the following:



1. More incentives for home grown business in both the secondary and tertiary indusries with a focus on high-tech development alongside  growth in the aerospace and heavy industries.



2. Evaluation of current trade agreements and foreign policy.



3. Prison reform, that may include a referendum on the purpose of incarciration of criminals in this country (are we reforming people or are we simply making them dissappear for a while?).



4. Rebuild the military peacekeeping forces, increase funding.



5. Drop the gun registry, throw out the Kyoto accord and disband the defunct CRTC.



I think the biggest thing I would want, personally, is probably the hardest to achieve; which is getting the average citizen to have a bit of nationalistic pride again, to remember that we aren't just a bunch of bickering Provinces and Territories in an ambiguous state, that we aren't "not-Americans", that we are Canadians; proud, strong and free. To remember that we are a champion of human rights, good foreign policy and stewards of international friendship.



That we stand on our own as a strong nation of good people.

[Zapata Prime]

Well now this is a little heavy for a light forum but here are my thoughts.



I would change the way the popular vote works so that all provinces and territories are represented equally not based on population. I've personally had enough of Ontario deciding our elections.



We need better checks and balances in place and some one with teeth. When the government does something that is unethical (or illegal for that matter) there needs to be a body that can stand up and put an end to it with total authority. Don't read this wrong I'm only saying when it is found that a party has actually committed a crime or done something that is totally unethical they will be delt with. Not only based on BS created by our ever neutral media!



The military would be restored to its former self. You know back when people were proud to say they served. Get the money back to where it is needed and get the equipment and troops that are required. Enough of needing the States to haul our sorry butts around the globe. We need to be able to look after ourselves THEN everyone else not the other way around!



And I know this isn't really what I would change about the government but it's time to deal with Quebec once and for all. Either way it just needs to end. There are far more things that need to tie up the governments time and money ie health care, the poor, taxes, and scandals that should happen in the first place..



Anyways that's my thoughts on this!



And to add  to Mr. Analog's comment we do need to get that total national pride back!!

[Darren Dirt]

While I agree that this is normally a "light" forum, I thought posting this was timely (Election Fever, etc.) and also I know a lot on this forum have expressed or implied some strong opinions about politics and government.





So here's my follow-up...



- - -



The question above was the first part of a quote.



While I am happily surprised to see this was a question taken relatively seriously, and a few seemed to be okay with leaving things pretty much "as is", other responses seemed to demonstrate what "part two" of the quote seems to say.



Please note: I don't really want to get into some heated debate about the source below, I just thought this is good "food for thought", i.e. how consistent are the beliefs of those who claim to support "democracy". As Ayn Rand often said, if within your beliefs you encounter a logical contradiction, "check your premises".

If you really believed in democracy, you would say, "The people have already decided how to run the government through their elected representatives, and I would be wrong to impose my will on them."



But you didn't think that. You say you believe in democracy, but in your mind, you're already a dictator.

- Allen Thornton aka "The Radical Libertarian", Laws of the Jungle, #178

[Shayne]

Ive always felt that in a way a democratic system is very dictatorish.  Concider the USA system for simplicity.  49% of the population is having the other 51%'s will enforced upon them.



Its actually sorta humerous.

[Thorin]

Firstly, your post was a trick question so that you could then mock us.



Secondly, Mags sort of fell for it but it was clear from his post that he was presenting the ideals he would follow if he were democratically elected, just as every party has a set of ideals they claim they will follow if elected.



Thirdly, when you didn't get the response you were looking for, you altered the question in a way that implied that Mr. Analog had been placed in power via a democratic system (you mention nothing else, and the opening post mentions the word democracy but not dictatorship).  Changing the question ruins the point Allen Thornton was trying to make.



Really, you might as well have simply posted the entire quote and then asked if people could poke holes in the idea presented.  At least then I wouldn't think you were just trying to show how much smarter you are than the rest of us.



So on with the poking of holes in Allen Thornton's theory as you posted it.



The only perceivable difference between someone who believes in democracy and someone who believes in dictatorship is in how they think the leaders should be picked.



Beyond that, *every* person in power may want to change how the government is structured, how its programs work, what it spends its money on, and/or how it relates to other sovereign nations.



In fact, it's what we expect them to do, it's what we elect them to do.  Government should change as the years go by; if it were to stagnate for even a decade it would become a useless instrument.



So long as the people in charge are duly elected representatives that can be removed from service by peaceful means, those people are *not* dictators.

[Thorin]

Oh, and yes, I'm making the assumption that this is a large body of people that require a set of representatives to lead them, rather than a small body of people where true direct democracy could be practiced.

[Shayne]

Democracy is soooooooo slooooooooow and expensive.  In no way is it efficent, not even in the slightest.  Its great to give people the false sense of choice, but honestly, how much could say the PC, or the NDP really change the direction and state of the country?  Sure they might start the wheels rolling on something, but do you guys honestly believe the 5% GST thing?

[Darren Dirt]

Firstly, your post was a trick question so that you could then mock us.



Secondly, Mags sort of fell for it but it was clear from his post that he was presenting the ideals he would follow if he were democratically elected, just as every party has a set of ideals they claim they will follow if elected.



Thirdly, when you didn't get the response you were looking for, you altered the question in a way that implied that Mr. Analog had been placed in power via a democratic system (you mention nothing else, and the opening post mentions the word democracy but not dictatorship).  Changing the question ruins the point Allen Thornton was trying to make.



Really, you might as well have simply posted the entire quote and then asked if people could poke holes in the idea presented.  At least then I wouldn't think you were just trying to show how much smarter you are than the rest of us.



So on with the poking of holes in Allen Thornton's theory as you posted it.



The only perceivable difference between someone who believes in democracy and someone who believes in dictatorship is in how they think the leaders should be picked.



Beyond that, *every* person in power may want to change how the government is structured, how its programs work, what it spends its money on, and/or how it relates to other sovereign nations.



In fact, it's what we expect them to do, it's what we elect them to do.  Government should change as the years go by; if it were to stagnate for even a decade it would become a useless instrument.



So long as the people in charge are duly elected representatives that can be removed from service by peaceful means, those people are *not* dictators.

Ouch.





Thorin, I apologize if you feel that my motive was to "trick", LET ALONE to "mock" anyone.



This is not a game of "MindTrap" I was playing.



It was an important question, which I put out to the group, and whoever voluntarily responded did so knowing that what they said would possibly be judged -- fairly or unfairly -- by whoever chose to keep reading this thread.



Also, I do not think that I "altered" my question -- although you are entitled to your opinion -- but instead my goal was to clarify, because the question without any kind of helpful context could have been taken countless ways, and would likely have made some of you start to question, and to presume, what my motives were for asking the question in the first place. Again, I clarified, not altered, the question in response to Mr. Analog. I again apologize if I came across in a way I did not intend.





"Really, you might as well have simply posted the entire quote and then asked if people could poke holes in the idea presented.  At least then I wouldn't think you were just trying to show how much smarter you are than the rest of us."



Seriously, ouch and yikes. Just because someone (me) decides to pose a question to a group in a way that someone else (you, presumably) would not have chosen, does NOT mean that their (my) motive was to show "how much smarter" they are! And if you wish to "poke holes in Allen Thornton's theory" then go ahead, I did not ask that of anyone nor will I object if anyone does.





"So long as the people in charge are duly elected representatives that can be removed from service by peaceful means, those people are *not* dictators." Okay, it seems that it was Shayne who mentioned "dictators", but I'll say this: IMHO what you are saying here is actually a "false choice": either "people in charge" are "duly elected" or they are "dictators", and the main criteria differentiating the two is whether or not they "can be removed from service by peaceful means". I don't believe that this is true, because I see a problem with someone in my "service" also being "in charge" of me. But that's not really related to the question I posed even if that's how you have interpreted my meaning/motive (although I do kinda explore this issue below).



As a completely practical and relateable example, in 2004 the people of America who voted said 51% pro-Bush and 49% anti-Bush. If you look in any common dictionary for the meaning of the word "representative" you will find that it is based on a principal-agent relationship, whether the agent is acting on behalf of, or in place of, the principal, by the consent of the principal, and with accountability. Are you saying that the 49% who did NOT vote for Bush -- ignoring for the moment the tens of millions who did not vote at all -- should consider Bush their "duly elected representative"? By qualifying the word "representative" by the words "duly elected" somehow changing the meaning of the word "representative"?





Keep in mind as well, that principal delegates to that agent some or all of the powers that they (the principal) currently possess as an individual; obviously the principal can not delegate any powers to anyone that they do NOT currently possess. Do the 51% pro-Bush voters have some power, as individuals, to be "in charge of" the other 49%? And since the "voting" process is based on "secret ballots" -- ignoring the controversy of electronic voting, Diebold issues, etc. -- then can the "elected representatives" even prove with factual evidence that they have principals on whose behalf they are acting as agents? What would happen to a "real estate agent" who sells your house without you consenting to them acting on your behalf -- when you object, denying their claim, and demanding they provide proof of their principal-agent relationship? Is there some reason for an exception in the case of "representative agents" under the umbrella of politics?





There, now I've put out some pretty clear questions, and I am really curious if there is anyone here interested in a reasonable, rational discussion on these types of issues and queries... Notice that I am trying to not make any specific "arguments", especially about what anyone else should or should not do or think, instead I am simply examining the words involved in this kind of stuff, and asking what they mean and is their logical consistency in we treat these words and ideas...





PS:

Oh, and yes, I'm making the assumption that this is a large body of people that require a set of representatives to lead them, rather than a small body of people where true direct democracy could be practiced.

If individuals need someone to "lead them", i.e. they are not competent to "lead" themselves, then how can these incompetent individuals be expected to competently choose that "set of representatives", and how can these incompetent individuals be expected to accurately determine if those potential leaders are, themselves, competent or not? Isn't that a pretty fair question?





- - -





Oh man, I totally did not expect to say this much. I apologize, again, this time for taking up so much time out of the day of anyone who has chosen to read this.