Go to first unread
Back
to top
EU Constitution - yay or nay
Watch
Announcements
This discussion is closed.
(Original post by edders)
hmm not immediately but give it 10, 20, 30 years then you'd start seeing the erosion of democracy.
hmm not immediately but give it 10, 20, 30 years then you'd start seeing the erosion of democracy.
0
Report
#22
(Original post by llama boy)
I don't have to wait - I'm seeing the erosion of democracy right around the globe now.
I don't have to wait - I'm seeing the erosion of democracy right around the globe now.
0
Report
#23
(Original post by edders)
meh well vote conservative then
meh well vote conservative then
0
(Original post by edders)
meh well vote conservative then
meh well vote conservative then
0
Report
#26
(Original post by llama boy)
Why? So they can support it even further?
Why? So they can support it even further?
1) against the constitution
2) against the euro
3) for locally elected police chiefs
etc.
0
(Original post by vienna95)
that was kind of what i was pointing out when he objected to centralisation of power.
that was kind of what i was pointing out when he objected to centralisation of power.
0
Report
#28
(Original post by llama boy)
At the risk of making the same point twice in the same afternoon, I really don't think libertarianism in confined to either "left wing" or "right wing".
At the risk of making the same point twice in the same afternoon, I really don't think libertarianism in confined to either "left wing" or "right wing".
0
Report
#30
(Original post by Bigcnee)
How would you class your views then?
How would you class your views then?
0
(Original post by edders)
nah they are the only of the 3 parties
1) against the constitution
2) against the euro
3) for locally elected police chiefs
etc.
nah they are the only of the 3 parties
1) against the constitution
2) against the euro
3) for locally elected police chiefs
etc.
To have political power on the local level and economic power on the global level is always going to be fundamentally anti-democratic as corporations get so powerful they are able to bully democratic governments into submission.
I'm in favour of political AND economic power being held at the local level. But, arguably, if economic power is going to be global, then it is better that political power is too, so that democracy can be maintained.
All or nothing.
0
(Original post by vienna95)
how is this a point of libertarianism?.
how is this a point of libertarianism?.
0
Report
#33
(Original post by llama boy)
you implied that it was incompatible to be both left wing and against greater centralisation.
you implied that it was incompatible to be both left wing and against greater centralisation.
0
Report
#34
(Original post by llama boy)
They're also one of the three main political parties who are ALL in favour of neo-liberalism, ie the globalisation of economic power.
To have political power on the local level and economic power on the global level is always going to be fundamentally anti-democratic as corporations get so powerful they are able to bully democratic governments into submission.
I'm in favour of political AND economic power being held at the local level. But, arguably, if economic power is going to be global, then it is better that political power is too, so that democracy can be maintained.
All or nothing.
They're also one of the three main political parties who are ALL in favour of neo-liberalism, ie the globalisation of economic power.
To have political power on the local level and economic power on the global level is always going to be fundamentally anti-democratic as corporations get so powerful they are able to bully democratic governments into submission.
I'm in favour of political AND economic power being held at the local level. But, arguably, if economic power is going to be global, then it is better that political power is too, so that democracy can be maintained.
All or nothing.
0
(Original post by vienna95)
thats generally one of the points of left wing political ideology, so yes i would say its pretty incompatible. and libertarianism is right-wing in terms of political economics and the state.
thats generally one of the points of left wing political ideology, so yes i would say its pretty incompatible. and libertarianism is right-wing in terms of political economics and the state.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...F1.html#secf11
0
Report
#36
(Original post by llama boy)
But, arguably, if economic power is going to be global, then it is better that political power is too, so that democracy can be maintained.
All or nothing.
But, arguably, if economic power is going to be global, then it is better that political power is too, so that democracy can be maintained.
All or nothing.
also, what about consumer democracy? corporations are subject to the whims of consumers in a way that elected governments arent (elections every 5 years as opposed to every time a consumer decides to buy a particular product). if we all decided to stop buying maccy d's tomorrow then they would be screwed. their power is conditional on our support, so for that reason also corporations dont pose a threat to democracy.
0
Report
#38
(Original post by llama boy)
then we simply have an issue of definitions.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...F1.html#secf11
then we simply have an issue of definitions.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill...F1.html#secf11
0
(Original post by edders)
economic power is nothing without political power. political power reigns supreme. dont forget that corporations are composed of individuals subject to the laws the same as the rest of us. in that sense they can never threaten the primacy of a parliament.
economic power is nothing without political power. political power reigns supreme. dont forget that corporations are composed of individuals subject to the laws the same as the rest of us. in that sense they can never threaten the primacy of a parliament.
also, what about consumer democracy? corporations are subject to the whims of consumers in a way that elected governments arent (elections every 5 years as opposed to every time a consumer decides to buy a particular product). if we all decided to stop buying maccy d's tomorrow then they would be screwed. their power is conditional on our support, so for that reason also corporations dont pose a threat to democracy.
1) "Consumer democracy" as you put it, appears to work on the basis of $1 one vote, which doesn't appear particularly democratic at all.
2) This assumes that free-markets ensure that production conforms to freely-made consumer choices. In fact, our choices are frequently manipulated by companies with multi-million dollar marketing budgets that they spend to increase demand and justify surplus production.
0
Report
#40
(Original post by llama boy)
Flawed. When corporations can travel the globe, playing local governments off each other to get them to repeal yet more legislation concerning wages, working conditions, environmental standards, etc, that is corporations overrunning democracy. The result is that those companies are powerful enough to see themselves as above the law, and even if they were ever called in on it, they could simply move to another country, leaving a wrecked economy in their wake.
Flawed. When corporations can travel the globe, playing local governments off each other to get them to repeal yet more legislation concerning wages, working conditions, environmental standards, etc, that is corporations overrunning democracy. The result is that those companies are powerful enough to see themselves as above the law, and even if they were ever called in on it, they could simply move to another country, leaving a wrecked economy in their wake.
.i suggest to you that, while although companies may be able to get away with such behaviour in 3rd world countries, 'playing off' local governments etc. doesnt happen in the 1st world because capitalism is so well developed there. this is because companies usually arent monopolies and cannot make demands; this is even more the case when globalisation means there are even more companies to choose from for eg. building contracts. i suggest that while, like britain 150 years ago, companies are too powerful in developing countries, this power will be quickly eroded as countries have a more developed industry/commerce.
Well, two responses to that.
1) "Consumer democracy" as you put it, appears to work on the basis of $1 one vote, which doesn't appear particularly democratic at all.
2) This assumes that free-markets ensure that production conforms to freely-made consumer choices. In fact, our choices are frequently manipulated by companies with multi-million dollar marketing budgets that they spend to increase demand and justify surplus production.
1) "Consumer democracy" as you put it, appears to work on the basis of $1 one vote, which doesn't appear particularly democratic at all.
2) This assumes that free-markets ensure that production conforms to freely-made consumer choices. In fact, our choices are frequently manipulated by companies with multi-million dollar marketing budgets that they spend to increase demand and justify surplus production.
2) you think people who watch advertising are denied their free will? bah, that sounds very much like the left wing 'common people cant think for themselves' attitude that im not much impressed by. if someone buys something, then he thinks he needs it; thats pretty much all that matters. who are we to say that people who buy certain things are wrong?
0
X
new posts
