Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Seranita]

so not.. this december? *weeps*

[Antistia]

[Seranita]

hehe not a good year ay?

[Antistia]

hehe not a good year ay?

Fucking great year. Let's hope this ensures more democracy across the world. The past few years (since 2009, I believe, maybe 2008) Freedom House has been reporting that the world has become less free. Hopefully that will be reversed in the coming years.

[Seranita]

mabie so.. mabie so heres to hope! *highfives to Antistia*

[Baròth / Olian]

Loved this show when I was a kid, and I still do.

[Amaryl]

now the guys with a name are gone, so new people will have to make a name... its going to be a worse year

[Feydor]

awkwardfamilyphotos.com

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

Loved this show when I was a kid, and I still do.

Actualy working my way through it at the moment.

hehe not a good year ay?

Fucking great year. Let's hope this ensures more democracy across the world. The past few years (since 2009, I believe, maybe 2008) Freedom House has been reporting that the world has become less free. Hopefully that will be reversed in the coming years.

How do they define freedom?

*reads self*
Still would like to hear your interpretation.
And if I understand it right, it's measured with surveys and polls.
Aren't those also influenced by how much freedom people think they have?
That SOPA act might be a thing that would make people consider themselves less "free".

[Feydor]

and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fiscal_Year_2012

interesting review of SOPA http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/19/stanford-law-review-sopa-unconstitutional-and-would-break-the-internet/

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

Would Break The Internet

I find this a very lulzy sentence.

[Feydor]

its a headline, its meant to draw attention.

[Antistia]

Giving a fitting and complete definition of freedom is quite difficult. I'll give a short definition of what I deem to be freedom or rather, what constitutes a free society. I'll avoid speaking of economic liberty as well (suffice to stay that I'm no fan of much government interference in the market) and I will be rather brief.

To me, a free society requires freedom of speech, preferably one that is not restricted but it can be done, but of course that will make the society less free. Another requirement is freedom of religion, people should be allowed to worship (or refrain from worshiping) whichever deity they like. To me this right can be nothing but absolute. The right to demonstrate and the right to organize are also of great importance. Of extreme importance, also, is the presence of democracy and with it the absence of an authoritarian figure. So, obviously, the people should be allowed to elect their own representatives in free and fair elections and decide over their government and head of state. I have a slight preference for a presidential system, but a parliamentary system is not without its merits.

That's my very brief and in no way complete synopsis of what constitutes a free society. In short, government should grant the citizen a lot of leeway.

To me a more interesting question is whether or not free societies have the obligation to preserve, protect and promote democracy across the globe


And yes, Feydor, the current legislative developments coming out of Congress are reason to worry. This Congress is just shitty, but hey, that's why it has an approval rating of around 10%.

Edit:
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=35&year=2006

That's the methodology. It goes beyond simple polling if you ask me.

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

its a headline, its meant to draw attention.

It's one level below "the internet is leaking".

[Antistia]

It's one level below "the internet is leaking".

Huh? You're referring to.. What exactly? xD

[Feydor]

probably bp

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

Edited.

[Shaelyssa]

Antistia, isn't democracy very bad though for minorities in most cases?

And god you sound so American with your democracy and capitalistic ideals ... you make me sick!!!

[Lorainne/Bridlington]

And god you sound so American with your democracy and capitalistic ideals ... you make me sick!!!

[Baròth / Olian]

Loved this show when I was a kid, and I still do.

Actualy working my way through it at the moment.

Found this while listening to the series soundtracks, I'm in love.

[Darilas]

[Antistia]

Antistia, isn't democracy very bad though for minorities in most cases?

The largest problem with the functioning of democracy is indeed its role with regards to minorities. Democracy can very easily, especially in countries that do not have proportional representation (but work with districts and fptp etc), lead to a tyranny of the majority. Nobody should want that, a tyranny of the majority is just that; tyranny. Tyranny, even when approved by the majority of the people, is bad. The minority, and minorities, should be taken into account in the legislative process.

In my mind this serves to illustrate the importance of small government but more importantly of a strong, respected and proper constitution. One that grants equal rights to everyone, one that explicitly forbids discrimination (on the basis of ethnicity, religion, beliefs, you name it.) etc. One that guarantees the rule of law, not the rule of whims. With the necessary separation of powers, especially the independent, impartial judiciary. That, my friend, is the citizen's prime shield against the excessive actions of government.

Now, don't get me wrong, the American Senate is completely and utterly dysfunctional at the moment but what you see there is a very strong, institutionalized, defense of the minority party. If America did not have two parties dominating the political apparatus at pretty much every level this would translate into a very effective defense of the minority of citizens. I'm consciously differentiating between party and citizens here. The American system has its merits, and with its history another system is (nearly) unthinkable there, but it does not allow for a completely realistic representation of the American people. It just allows a representation of the majority in a district or state. I do believe that it is then the official task of that representative/senator to represent his district/state, but you get my point.

In the Netherlands it should be noted that parliament is supposed to represent the entire Dutch citizenry. This is codified in the constitution even. It can also be interpreted to mean that every individual parliamentarian is supposed to represent the entire Dutch citizenry, while I am not willing to go that far, I do believe it extends to parliamentarians having to take into account the interests of the entire Dutch populace. It is a nice little gimmick and one can discuss how much this influences the workings of parliament, but it is a nice thing nonetheless. Add to that that parties cannot force people to vote X or Y in parliament and you have another safeguard to the integrity of parliament, but I'm starting to digress.

Another, important, aspect of the Dutch parliament (like many others) is its bicameral nature. We have two chambers. The "Tweede Kamer" and the "Eerste Kamer" (Second Chamber and First Chamber respectively). Political primacy resides with the Tweede Kamer (TK) and not with the Eerste Kamer (EK), they also have more abilities with regards to legislature, for example, the TK can amend legislation while the EK cannot. Why? The TK has been directly elected, while the EK has not been directly elected. These are elected by another elected body (who have been elected). The consequence is that the EK, which can only do up or down votes, is far less political in nature. Indeed, political parties tend to nominate what I'd describe as 'wise men' for seats in the EK. This is important because the EK does not get caught up in the heat of the moment, they carefully examine whether proposed laws are constitutional in nature and are in the public interest. This forms another defense for minorities in my mind. Now there are some parties (*cough* PVV *Cough*) who want to abolish it, but obviously I'm not a fan of that.

Finally we have the government itself. Our cabinet needs to approve every law passed by parliament, only when signed can it come into law.
My now, rather lengthy, point is that it is doable to protect minorities in democracies. You need to install safeguards in the constitution and legislative process though and have the necessary separation of powers. And, in my mind, preferably a small government, but many people disagree.

And god you sound so American with your democracy and capitalistic ideals ... you make me sick!!!

I reckon it goes further than you imagine, way further.

...O thus be it ever when freemen shall stand...

[Guldujenu]

[Seranita]

hehe very well dont that

[Thelos]

Add to that that parties cannot force people to vote X or Y in parliament and you have another safeguard to the integrity of parliament, but I'm starting to digress.

In theory, yes, but in practise this tends to be exactly what happens for the sake of smooth legislation. There are plenty of times where it appears as if dissenting voices in a party change their minds all too abruptly form one day to the next for no publicly justifiable reason. This is to be expected, though. It's a sometimes nasty side effect of party politics.

Also that video was hilariously sad.

[Sponsored content]