I think that we need a way for participatory democracy to exist world wide. I consider representative democracy undemocratic. And also distinguish between democracy and ochlocracy(mob rule). Democracy should only be used to manage the collective, it should not invade the freedoms of the individual.
Course this could never work under capitalism, lassaiz faire or state.
Yeh coz that makes it vastly more acceptable. The fact the minority is smaller than i previously thought is no defence of this system, why should the majority be able to determine something that has no effect on them what so ever.
It's all a game, really. Always has been. How boring would it get if you had all the money and power in the world, the ability to manipulate the very minds of the population, and plenty of ammunition to back it all up?
because if you vote for the losing party in first past the post then it counts for nothing, no proportional top up seats, nothing. therefore you can get results like say the greens in a euro election a while back won 15% of the overall vote, but because they didn't win in any particular constituency, they got a fat lump of 0% of the seats on offer. thats how our voting system is even less representative than the other ones, though they too have their flaws.
our voting system is based around consticuencies and so the people who are voted in represent their local area and not the whole country by themselves. votes are never wasted this way... if someone votes for a loosing Party then presumeably that Party will have at least some representation in the Commons if they have any credibility at all.
"Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet."
"some" isn't really representative though is it? in 2005 the lib dems won 22% of the overall vote, yet came out with 9.6% of the seats, giving them considerably less clout in the commons than they were entitled to, whereas labour got 35% of the vote and 55.3% of the seats!!!!!!!! Our 'democracy' doesn't even have the right to claim itself as 'representative', it is all about giving the most concentrated power to the fewest people.
i read something today which may interest you. "the Law" - by Frederick Bastiat... French revolutionary time writer, who was kind of pointing out that they were once riding themselves of the monarchy they set up the same thing but legitimised it with law, legal plunder, legal restriction of natural rights etc..
Well said Jack! Personally I'm an anarchist: And it harm none, do as thou wilt, is my only rule.
Can we be said to be living in a democracy when political parties are manoeuvred into place by swaying public opinion? John Major was shown-up so Labour would get in; the Cons are now set to get in because Brown is doing likewise. As Harry Enfield once satirically said, "Conservative AND Labour, you can have too much choice."
"Whoever you vote for the government still gets in." - David Icke
Anarchy has it's problems as well. It's not simply, "do as thou wilt". There needs to be some sort of checks and balances. If everyone were to go about doing as they like then the world would be...well....Anarchy. People could just kill people be cause they felt like doing it.
Not defending any government here, I think they will all, after time, become corrupt. It's just human nature.
"People could just kill people because they felt like doing it." - and the people who are most guilty of this are our governments, they even get US to pay for it.
"There needs to be some sort of checks and balances."
- you have these already within you, you instintively know what is right & wrong, but when those who set themselves up as your carers set such a bad example these "check points" can become overriden.
"do as thou wilt" does have a check point: And it harm none.
Yeah, I agree the government kills plenty of innocent people.
"you instinctively know what is right & wrong"
Agreed, you and me might know what right from wrong and the world would be a great place if everyone shared the same values. Unfortunately people don't have the same values because of culture, upbringing, and life experiences (or the lack there of). An Anarchy country would never work for this reason. Sorry man, it's just not possible for a truly Anarchist country to exist.
Yeah Anarchism is just a reject of coercion or de facto rulers over a given people without their consent when those being ruled over commited no aggressive action.
I think that we need a way for participatory democracy to exist world wide. I consider representative democracy undemocratic. And also distinguish between democracy and ochlocracy(mob rule). Democracy should only be used to manage the collective, it should not invade the freedoms of the individual.
Course this could never work under capitalism, lassaiz faire or state.
faeknight 1 year ago
gay marriage is bad comparison
its not a 51-49 split in favor of banning it
its way higher than that
HandyMan101 2 years ago
Yeh coz that makes it vastly more acceptable. The fact the minority is smaller than i previously thought is no defence of this system, why should the majority be able to determine something that has no effect on them what so ever.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
"Democracy is indispensable to Socialism."
-Lenin
It's all a game, really. Always has been. How boring would it get if you had all the money and power in the world, the ability to manipulate the very minds of the population, and plenty of ammunition to back it all up?
17Revolution76 2 years ago
Erm, itd be about the same as it is now tbf.
I'm not abdicating dictatorship though, you should really watch the next video i made if you took that message from it.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
explain how our voting system means that any vote is wasted any more than any other voting systems?
NaMgKCa 2 years ago
because if you vote for the losing party in first past the post then it counts for nothing, no proportional top up seats, nothing. therefore you can get results like say the greens in a euro election a while back won 15% of the overall vote, but because they didn't win in any particular constituency, they got a fat lump of 0% of the seats on offer. thats how our voting system is even less representative than the other ones, though they too have their flaws.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
our voting system is based around consticuencies and so the people who are voted in represent their local area and not the whole country by themselves. votes are never wasted this way... if someone votes for a loosing Party then presumeably that Party will have at least some representation in the Commons if they have any credibility at all.
NaMgKCa 2 years ago
"Voting is "merely a labor-saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable... It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the bully, and the bullet."
overmind25 2 years ago
"some" isn't really representative though is it? in 2005 the lib dems won 22% of the overall vote, yet came out with 9.6% of the seats, giving them considerably less clout in the commons than they were entitled to, whereas labour got 35% of the vote and 55.3% of the seats!!!!!!!! Our 'democracy' doesn't even have the right to claim itself as 'representative', it is all about giving the most concentrated power to the fewest people.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
he means all democracies
OwzyB 2 years ago
Looking forward to the next vid Jack
Huzzah!
MrSabre11 2 years ago
lol thanks, it's gonna be a tricky one to make tho, might take another week yet
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
i read something today which may interest you. "the Law" - by Frederick Bastiat... French revolutionary time writer, who was kind of pointing out that they were once riding themselves of the monarchy they set up the same thing but legitimised it with law, legal plunder, legal restriction of natural rights etc..
MrSabre11 2 years ago
Jack you sound like an anarchist. I love it. Of course left libertarians usually are! :)
overmind25 2 years ago
lol ive learned a fair few things lately, changed a bit.
if i went back in time and met me i'd probably have an argument with myself!
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
I simply love you Jack!
pvampire 2 years ago
lmao glad you appreciated the video like usual, thanks
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
nice but the "gunning down inocent civillians"
rothyboi 2 years ago
rob, jean charles de menezes WAS an innocent civilian, and he WAS gunned down, thus the statement stands.
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
i no that is fair enuf!! i thought it was another jab at the military? lol but yeah boi
rothyboi 2 years ago
lol cheers
JackBrindelli 2 years ago
Nice one top job. Keep em coming.
Rayerdon 2 years ago
Well said Jack! Personally I'm an anarchist: And it harm none, do as thou wilt, is my only rule.
Can we be said to be living in a democracy when political parties are manoeuvred into place by swaying public opinion? John Major was shown-up so Labour would get in; the Cons are now set to get in because Brown is doing likewise. As Harry Enfield once satirically said, "Conservative AND Labour, you can have too much choice."
"Whoever you vote for the government still gets in." - David Icke
GanjaStuPipesUp 2 years ago
Anarchy has it's problems as well. It's not simply, "do as thou wilt". There needs to be some sort of checks and balances. If everyone were to go about doing as they like then the world would be...well....Anarchy. People could just kill people be cause they felt like doing it.
Not defending any government here, I think they will all, after time, become corrupt. It's just human nature.
dustinwrye 2 years ago
"People could just kill people because they felt like doing it." - and the people who are most guilty of this are our governments, they even get US to pay for it.
"There needs to be some sort of checks and balances."
- you have these already within you, you instintively know what is right & wrong, but when those who set themselves up as your carers set such a bad example these "check points" can become overriden.
"do as thou wilt" does have a check point: And it harm none.
GanjaStuPipesUp 2 years ago
Yeah, I agree the government kills plenty of innocent people.
"you instinctively know what is right & wrong"
Agreed, you and me might know what right from wrong and the world would be a great place if everyone shared the same values. Unfortunately people don't have the same values because of culture, upbringing, and life experiences (or the lack there of). An Anarchy country would never work for this reason. Sorry man, it's just not possible for a truly Anarchist country to exist.
dustinwrye 2 years ago
Well I agree with your statement that morals are personal views however anarchism is not for a country lol.
overmind25 2 years ago
Cool cool, didn't know if you were one of those whacho's that thought Anarchy should be a "government". Which is a completely retarded statement.
dustinwrye 2 years ago
Yeah Anarchism is just a reject of coercion or de facto rulers over a given people without their consent when those being ruled over commited no aggressive action.
overmind25 2 years ago
Great video Jack. You are getting more and more confident by the day :) Well done! 5*
leinstergirl 2 years ago