Re: Tzeentch's Thread of Everchanging Topics

[Antistia]

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.

It's a political reality, yeah, but keep in mind that this is law. If the parliamentarian wishes he can just get the hell out of the party without any repercussions to his seat. Even if he signed a contract saying that the seat belongs to the party and when he leaves the party he has to give up his seat (HR 18-11-1988, AB 1989). Nothing that can be done, he just keeps his seat. So yes, while political reality, there's really no legal basis for it, nor is there anything that can be done to the parliamentarian that just goes his own way (bar not giving him a place on your list come next election, but that's got nothing to do with his role as an active parliamentarian).
But yes, in practice it tends to go the way of people conforming to party discipline, but when push comes to shove, the party, legally, has empty hands.

[Shaelyssa]

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...

wow

You make me feel so small and stupid sometimes :(

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

That's why he does it.

[Antistia]

That's why he does it.

This is not true.

[Thelos]

[Seranita]

o.O *mind melts*

[Rasonal Dranger]

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...

wow

You make me feel so small and stupid sometimes

Funny, a friend of mine took his life after reading that...

[Kristeas Sunbinder]

He was all like:

[Antistia]

I'll take that as a compliment.

[Seranita]

I wana be that budgierigar!

[Rasonal Dranger]

I'll take that as a compliment.

You can, though he looked pretty much like this, before he died:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gWQaU40PH24/TMp9fG0FM3I/AAAAAAAAJn4/0J_rgUM2dGY/s1600/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

[Thelos]

Spoiler:

[Rasonal Dranger]

Spoiler:

He is very fat for me, not obese, fat..

[Antistia]

I'll take that as a compliment.

You can, though he looked pretty much like this, before he died:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_gWQaU40PH24/TMp9fG0FM3I/AAAAAAAAJn4/0J_rgUM2dGY/s1600/181148-triple_facepalm_super.jpg

That picture does very much describe your post.

[Baròth / Olian]

When I woke up this morning I kind of felt like this..

[Saevir]

[Muzjhath]

DO. FUCKING. WANT!

Suddenly... SCREW THE HOBBIT.
SCREW BATMAN!...
GIVE IT TO ME NOW!

[Seranita]

is that a thriller horror or a mix?

[Saevir]

is that a thriller horror or a mix?

Alien

[Seranita]

ah ok

[Aldric Essalus Helmfrid]

[Seranita]

epic link fail XD

[Mandui]

Sequel to one of my all time favs. On my birthday. I knew Ridley would listen to my wish <3

Let's hope it won't be crap.

[Guldujenu]

Sequel to one of my all time favs. On my birthday. I knew Ridley would listen to my wish <3

Let's hope it won't be crap.

Wait a second, i literally just watched the trailer, and know nothing about the movie. Is this related to the Alien movies?

The ship looked like the Derelic ship from Alien. O_O

*scifinerdgasm*

[Muzjhath]

Prequel Mandui, not sequel.

[Sponsored content]