Russell Brand vs. Paxman!

[MindForgedManacle]

The issue that encompasses essentially all others is money in politics. To the point where lobbyists and corporations can draft what will be almost word for word what ends up being the actual law.

It's really quite ridiculous.

[Something completely different]

Which country are you referring to?

Denmark and Norway for example

I don't see how transparency will stop the government from doing things that people do not want.

Fuck what the people want.

Switzerland is a direct democracy in which the laws of the land are determined almoust directly by it`s people. As a result Switzerland was the last country in Europe to abolish the death penalty, it was the last country in Europe to give women the right to vote and up to the 1979 having a child out of wedlock was a criminal offense and pregnant women in that state were forced to have an abortion and in some cases even steralised.

"What the people want" is almoust always to be actualy read as "What a dumbfuck cowfucking, wifebeating, childabusing, racist redneck scumbag animal wants"

Transparecy and an isight into why a governements decisions are made ensure public trust in a goverment since people are no longer excluded from not seeing the "decision making process".

Britian is simply a weird place with a even more idiotic system of governemt.
It has no constitution and is literaly a theocracy since legaly the countries monarch is "appointed by god".
It`s trash and tits tabloid media practicaly dictates public policy of governemnt and opposition.
It`s parlaiment is filled and flooded with various interest groups causing the reasons for actions being undertaken to be rather shady.

And yet when a Brit talks about democracy he assumes that every single place in the entire world is like his overprized appartment in the middle of some horribly smelly road in the middle of nowhere.

It is a UK problem. Not a global problem. Political decisions in my country are ade in a parlaiment. Decisions in the UK are made at a privatedinner, at an expensive restaurant, far away from the public eyes with the primeminster. Like Rupert Murdock did with Thatcher and many others before and after. And that is the problem in that country and all it`s citizens seem to be capable of is to loathe and whine and cry and bitch arround and blame other instead of getting a grip of themselves and working on themselves.

---

So they have a different system then?

Define: "Different System".

I'm not sure anyone actually said they were against democracy, though tbh I kinda like the idea of meritocracy

Thats authoritarian and therefor rejected.

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

So they have a different system then?

Define: "Different System".

I meant different system of democracy.

I'm not sure anyone actually said they were against democracy, though tbh I kinda like the idea of meritocracy

Thats authoritarian and therefor rejected.

It needn't be authoritarian. I just can't help but think that maybe the people given government positions should have some experience in that particular sphere.

[Napoléon]

And why is that? I'm dumb because I refuse to vote in a system I don't believe in? A system I think is flawed? How exactly does that make me dumb?

What is the best alternative to democracy?

Don't change the subject, answer my fucking question first.

[Something completely different]

Don't change the subject, answer my fucking question first.

Yes you are dumb for not voting. It gives you power to participate, no matter how you may chose to participate. You might aswell paint a swastiker on your ballot or smear your feces on it before dropping it in the box.
At least that is a statement, and that is better than no statement at all.

Oh yes, you goverment is flawed, which does not mean that every single fucking goverment on this globe is flawed. You are not the center of this world.

It makes you dumb because you complain about not being capable to participate, yet refusing to actualy participate. And you might be dumb for repeating the same question again.



Now answere mine fucknuts.

I meant different system of democracy.

Are you seriously saying that you never actualy looked into the goverment and legal structures of a country other than yours?

It needn't be authoritarian. I just can't help but think that maybe the people given government positions should have some experience in that particular sphere.

Expert A believes that the Ideal solution for a certain inferstructureproblem is to privatise that inferstructure

Expert B believes that the best solution is to have it`s leadership decentralised.

Expert C believes the best solution to be an increased spending fee.

All 3 experts a university and college professors.

Which expert is right?


In politics one only knows if one is right or wrong after looking at the success or shambles of what you had constructed and believed to be right.
Your system would require there to be obvious truths and a concept of social perfection. It is utopian, and utopianism is for frauds.

[MindForgedManacle]

@The Germans Are Coming

Er, assertions are fun. England isn't a theocracy. In terms of real power, their Parliament is 'king'.

And to say (and I'll just assume you're entirely correct throughout) that 'X failed in one instance, therefore it will fail in all such instances' is a bare assertion.

[Something completely different]

@The Germans Are Coming

To avoid any kind of confusion I attempt as often as possible to make quote tags arround the phrases I adress.

Er, assertions are fun. England isn't a theocracy. In terms of real power, their Parliament is 'king'.

On paper. It is not.

And to say (and I'll just assume you're entirely correct throughout) that 'X failed in one instance, therefore it will fail in all such instances' is a bare assertion.

If you were to put quote tags arround the part you are adressing I would have a clue what you were adressing.

[Tiberius]

Yes you are dumb for not voting. It gives you power to participate, no matter how you may chose to participate. You might aswell paint a swastiker on your ballot or smear your feces on it before dropping it in the box.
At least that is a statement, and that is better than no statement at all.

Not voting for the reasons Brand (and Napoleon) gave is a statement. They aren't being apathetic to the voting process; they just don't see any candidates that they agree with. Why should someone vote for a person they don't want in office?

[jots]

At least that is a statement, and that is better than no statement at all.
Not voting for the reasons Brand (and Napoleon) gave is a statement. They aren't being apathetic to the voting process; they just don't see any candidates that they agree with. Why should someone vote for a person they don't want in office?

I´m not familiar with the English voting system, but don´t you have the ability to vote "blank"?
In Sweden there is such a possibility and I have used it on at least two elections, where I felt neither party was deserving of my vote. This is a better alternative than to not vote at all I think.

[Tiberius]

I´m not familiar with the English voting system, but don´t you have the ability to vote "blank"?
In Sweden there is such a possibility and I have used it on at least two elections, where I felt neither party was deserving of my vote. This is a better alternative than to not vote at all I think.

No, we don't have anything like that. You can void a ballot by voting for two candidates, or scribbling on it, or anything like that, but there isn't much point to doing that if you want to send a message.