Poles to bring the case for the CoFSM before the ECHR

[Valmy]

There are lots of examples of democratically elected governments doing things that are undemocratic.  Simply having elections doesnt guarrantee the creation or continuation of robust  democratic institutions.  That is one of the reasons the Rule of Law is so important.

Governments can act within their "mandate" and still create an undemocratic system.  Take Gerrymandering as just one example.

What exactly does democratic mean here?  I do not see anything particularly undemocratic about the legislature redrawing the election districts when  necessary, though they can certainly do it in a less than sporting way.  Does democratic mean 'fair' or 'just' or something?  Democratic does not mean good it just means, you know, democratic.

[crazy canuck]

There are lots of examples of democratically elected governments doing things that are undemocratic.  Simply having elections doesnt guarrantee the creation or continuation of robust  democratic institutions.  That is one of the reasons the Rule of Law is so important.

Governments can act within their "mandate" and still create an undemocratic system.  Take Gerrymandering as just one example.

What exactly does democratic mean here?  I do not see anything particularly undemocratic about the legislature redrawing the election districts when  necessary, though they can certainly do it in a less than sporting way.  Does democratic mean 'fair' or 'just' or something?  Democratic does not mean good it just means, you know, democratic.

I dont think you understand the concept of Gerrymandering.  But since it has a long tradition in US politics perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt and realize that perhaps you thinks such a thing is acceptable and normal.

[garbon]

"You thinks"? Is that Canadian speech?

[Tamas]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this system. It is not a large part of the taxes overall, so it does not really matter that much, but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.

elaborate.

Right now here part of my tax moneys are going to various churches, they never ask me if I want to donate or not. How is that MORE democratic than your new system?

[Martinus]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this system. It is not a large part of the taxes overall, so it does not really matter that much, but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.

elaborate.

Right now here part of my tax moneys are going to various churches, they never ask me if I want to donate or not. How is that MORE democratic than your new system?

I already explained in other posts.

Essentially, the basic tenet of democracy is one-man-one-vote.

In an ideal tax money spending system, I pay $100 of taxes and you pay $10 of taxes, but your vote is equally strong as mine when it comes to determining how we spend the $110 total. So, assuming there are no other voters, just two of us, we probably reach a compromise and spend $55 on my pet cause and $55 on your pet cause.

In the new system, I decide how we spend $100 of taxes and you decide how we spend $10 of taxes so our votes are unequal and you are essentially introducing a weighted vote, that is more powerful the more cash you contribute to the system.

That may be fair, depending on the moral system you adopt, but it is NOT democratic.

[Razgovory]

There are lots of examples of democratically elected governments doing things that are undemocratic.  Simply having elections doesnt guarrantee the creation or continuation of robust  democratic institutions.  That is one of the reasons the Rule of Law is so important.

Governments can act within their "mandate" and still create an undemocratic system.  Take Gerrymandering as just one example.

What exactly does democratic mean here?  I do not see anything particularly undemocratic about the legislature redrawing the election districts when  necessary, though they can certainly do it in a less than sporting way.  Does democratic mean 'fair' or 'just' or something?  Democratic does not mean good it just means, you know, democratic.

I dont think you understand the concept of Gerrymandering.  But since it has a long tradition in US politics perhaps I should give you the benefit of the doubt and realize that perhaps you thinks such a thing is acceptable and normal.

I don't think redrawing districts is necessarily undemocratic.  Not redrawing them can be undemocratic as well (like the Rotten Boroughs in the UK).

[Martinus]

For the record, I don't find representative democracy less democratic than direct democracy - so the fact that "they" (i.e. your democratically elected representatives) decide how to spend public money is not less democratic than "you" deciding that.

[Tamas]

So, long story short, after long negotiations with the Catholic menace, the Polish government has decided to abolish direct government subsidies to churches and instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.

Well, I have mixed feelings about this system. It is not a large part of the taxes overall, so it does not really matter that much, but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.

elaborate.

Right now here part of my tax moneys are going to various churches, they never ask me if I want to donate or not. How is that MORE democratic than your new system?

I already explained in other posts.

Essentially, the basic tenet of democracy is one-man-one-vote.

In an ideal tax money spending system, I pay $100 of taxes and you pay $10 of taxes, but your vote is equally strong as mine when it comes to determining how we spend the $110 total. So, assuming there are no other voters, just two of us, we probably reach a compromise and spend $55 on my pet cause and $55 on your pet cause.

In the new system, I decide how we spend $100 of taxes and you decide how we spend $10 of taxes so our votes are unequal and you are essentially introducing a weighted vote, that is more powerful the more cash you contribute to the system.

That may be fair, depending on the moral system you adopt, but it is NOT democratic.

you have a point, but I still find it a good compromise between the practical necessity of buying religious people's votes, and the theoretical ugliness of financing religions via tax money in a system where "state and church are separated".
What effectively happens with your system is that religious people's votes are bought by their own tax money, which I find more acceptable than everyone's tax money.

[alfred russel]

I already explained in other posts.

Essentially, the basic tenet of democracy is one-man-one-vote.

In an ideal tax money spending system, I pay $100 of taxes and you pay $10 of taxes, but your vote is equally strong as mine when it comes to determining how we spend the $110 total. So, assuming there are no other voters, just two of us, we probably reach a compromise and spend $55 on my pet cause and $55 on your pet cause.

In the new system, I decide how we spend $100 of taxes and you decide how we spend $10 of taxes so our votes are unequal and you are essentially introducing a weighted vote, that is more powerful the more cash you contribute to the system.

That may be fair, depending on the moral system you adopt, but it is NOT democratic.

I don't know why that distinction needs to be made so sharply...Forced private expenditure may be the most effective way to achieve public goals. It avoids costs regarding tax collection and potential corruption regarding centralized expenditures, among other things. In the past it has been rather common: for example, I think in ancient Greece (as well as other societies) people needed to maintain their own military equipment based on their social rank. Keeping public property maintained in the vicinity of one's home is also a common.

That said, your 1% to charity requirement seems stupid.

[Agelastus]

I already explained why I think this is undemocratic. Read the thread please.

No. You think it is unfair, apparently because of your own personal prejudices; that is not the same as undemocratic.

As it stands 100% of the taxes I pay in the UK I have no direct control over how they are spent.

With the new system in Poland a Polish taxpayer will only have no direct control over how 99.5% of his taxes are spent.

Freedom of choice is the basis of democracy; how do you not understand this?

Of course, from my point of view it would make more sense to simply refund the 0.5% of everybody's tax bill and say that you can do what you like with it and let the Catholic Church suggest that you give it to them instead of spending it on booze or something - but that's not an option, is it?

[Martinus]

I already explained in other posts.

Essentially, the basic tenet of democracy is one-man-one-vote.

In an ideal tax money spending system, I pay $100 of taxes and you pay $10 of taxes, but your vote is equally strong as mine when it comes to determining how we spend the $110 total. So, assuming there are no other voters, just two of us, we probably reach a compromise and spend $55 on my pet cause and $55 on your pet cause.

In the new system, I decide how we spend $100 of taxes and you decide how we spend $10 of taxes so our votes are unequal and you are essentially introducing a weighted vote, that is more powerful the more cash you contribute to the system.

That may be fair, depending on the moral system you adopt, but it is NOT democratic.

I don't know why that distinction needs to be made so sharply...Forced private expenditure may be the most effective way to achieve public goals. It avoids costs regarding tax collection and potential corruption regarding centralized expenditures, among other things. In the past it has been rather common: for example, I think in ancient Greece (as well as other societies) people needed to maintain their own military equipment based on their social rank. Keeping public property maintained in the vicinity of one's home is also a common.

That said, your 1% to charity requirement seems stupid.

The 1% is not a requirement, but a right.

By the way, this is slightly different from the Greek example. It would be similar, if I could decide if I wanted to spend my money on the navy, the hoplites or the cavalry (which would be pretty dumb ).

[alfred russel]

It would be similar, if I could decide if I wanted to spend my money on the navy, the hoplites or the cavalry (which would be pretty dumb ).

Are you sure it couldn't? If I'm a rich dude, could I fufill my military duties through building a trireme, buying a bunch of cavalry gear or buying a bunch of hoplite gear?

I realize those are significantly different in cost and I don't know the answer.

[Agelastus]

The 1% is not a requirement, but a right.

By the way, this is slightly different from the Greek example. It would be similar, if I could decide if I wanted to spend my money on the navy, the hoplites or the cavalry (which would be pretty dumb ).

As a lawyer, I think you'd be of the social class obligated to supply yourself as a Hoplite rather than having the expense of maintaining yourself as a cavalryman.

So, Thebes or Athens?

[Admiral Yi]

Are you sure it couldn't? If I'm a rich dude, could I fufill my military duties through building a trireme, buying a bunch of cavalry gear or buying a bunch of hoplite gear?

I realize those are significantly different in cost and I don't know the answer.

Obligation to serve as hoplite or cavalry depended on income class.  I believe levies to build tiremes were semi-voluntary.

Check out Victor Hanson's "A War Like No Other."

[Agelastus]

It would be similar, if I could decide if I wanted to spend my money on the navy, the hoplites or the cavalry (which would be pretty dumb ).

Are you sure it couldn't? If I'm a rich dude, could I fufill my military duties through building a trireme, buying a bunch of cavalry gear or buying a bunch of hoplite gear?

I realize those are significantly different in cost and I don't know the answer.

Depends on your taxation/property class; in Greece due to cultural traditions and due to the law in Rome.

And only in instances of national emergency would you be asked to directly fund triremes (see Athens in 406-5 BC.) Triremes were mostly state funded with the rowers coming from non-taxpaying/unpropertied classes.

I believe it was a Roman, Marcus Crassus, who stated that a man could not consider himself wealthy unless he could afford to raise and equip a Legion. That was from a later era than that of the classical Trireme though.