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.
Poland has a system where, in order to operate an organisation recognized as a "church" (which benefits from tax breaks etc. and now from this special tax income) you need to be entered into an administrative register.
Alas! The intolerant Polish authorities refused to register the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, saying it's not a "real" religion.
The church is now appealing this to Polish courts, and if that does not work, is planning to go to the European Court of Human Rights.
It's gonna be fun to watch, especially as I find it likely the ECHR will rule against Poland.
I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.
Do aetheists have to donate too?
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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.
:wub:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:18:59 AM
I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.
Do aetheists have to donate too?
It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.
It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.
Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).
Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2013, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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.
:wub:
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:18:59 AM
I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.
Do aetheists have to donate too?
It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.
It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.
Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).
Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.
Are you of the opinion that political parties or movements should be able to receive these donations?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 18, 2013, 11:49:49 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:41:06 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 18, 2013, 10:18:59 AM
I think a reasonable argument could be made that The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should not be granted church status until the time it has an apparatus in place to spend donations in a socially useful manner.
Do aetheists have to donate too?
It's not a donation per se - it is neutral from the tax payer perspective. If you, say, paid $10,000 in (income) taxes during the last year, you can decide in your annual tax filing that 0.5% of it (i.e. $50) is to go to a church of your choice. If you do not make this decision, the government keeps it.
It is being argued that atheists are discriminated as they cannot give it to an organisation supporting their worldview, so we will see how it goes.
Incidentally, the catholic church is pretty fidgety about this, too, because despite the declared 97% of Catholic Church membership in Poland, anti-clergy sentiments are quite strong so many people may refuse to give it to them out of spite (and many people will also not do it out of laziness, since you need to actively fill in some boxes in your annual form, and most people prefer their employer to do it for them if they do not have extra sources of income outside of their job).
Btw, we already have a system in place where 1% of the tax can go to a charity of your choice, on the same basis.
Are you of the opinion that political parties or movements should be able to receive these donations?
Probably not (they don't, anyway, as only non-profit charities and NGOs are eligible, and poltical parties cannot be also NGOs), although we have a system of financing political parties based on the election results (it's essentially an ability to receive refund from the state for election costs etc.)
Why? Because, as I said, the system is profoundly undemocratic and while it can be tolerated when it comes to charities, NGOs and churches (although the latter two often have political agendas), it would be more problematic when it comes to political parties.
Why is it undemocratic? Because it allows for the distribution of public funds according to a system that is not one-man-one-vote.
The system was created by a parliament that was elected right? If the democratic institutions determine this is the way funds should be distributed doesn't that suffice for the test of democraticness? Of course just because it is democratic does not mean it is a good policy or is not unjust in some way.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
The system was created by a parliament that was elected right? If the democratic institutions determine this is the way funds should be distributed doesn't that suffice for the test of democraticness? Of course just because it is democratic does not mean it is a good policy or is not unjust in some way.
Well, it's in a sense the state abdicating its power to make a decision. I guess it's a matter of balance.
For example, would it be democratic for a democraticly elected Parliament to give all power to a tyrant? Probably no. :)
My philosophical problem with this system is that it effectively means that, despite the money coming from taxes that have already been collected (i.e. constitute a public resource), people who paid more taxes are able to pay more to their charity, NGO and/or church of choice than people who paid less. But then again as a rich gay atheist in a country of poor heterosexual Catholics, I don't really think I should complain. :P
I usually give my 1% to gay rights groups or (recently) to the foundation that helps my boyfriend's sister who has cerebral palsy.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
The system was created by a parliament that was elected right?
A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
The system was created by a parliament that was elected right?
A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic.
Well I suppose if they go beyond their authority in some way, like reforming the political system in a way that goes way beyond their mandate (such as the political coup by Pierre Laval following the French defeat in 1940)...but probably not when putting together a system of funds distribution which is what I specifically discussing.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 12:13:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 12:04:24 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 12:00:10 PM
The system was created by a parliament that was elected right?
A system created by a democratically elected government is not always democratic.
Well I suppose if they go beyond their authority in some way, like reforming the political system in a way that goes way beyond their mandate (such as the political coup by Pierre Laval following the French defeat in 1940)...but probably not when putting together a system of funds distribution which is what I specifically discussing.
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.
Btw, one negative side effect of the 1% system (probably less applicable to churches, but quite applicable to NGOs/charities) - they end up spending a lot of money on advertising. :P
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM...instead allow each citizen to dedicate 0.5% of his or her annual taxes to a "church" of choice.
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:47:07 AM
...but if you think about it, it is quite undemocratic.
Could you please explain to me how the
direct, personal choice of an individual taxpayer to either contribute to a church of their choice or not is "undemocratic"?
----------------
As for the "Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all I can say is that I agree with four of their five doctrines... :lol:
Quote» We believe pirates, the original Pastafarians, were peaceful explorers and it was due to Christian misinformation that they have an image of outcast criminals today
» We are fond of beer
» Every Friday is a Religious Holiday
» We do not take ourselves too seriously
» We embrace contradictions (though in that we are hardly unique)
And personally, despite the above, I hope that their case is thrown out of court as being "vexatious and totally without merit".
I already explained why I think this is undemocratic. Read the thread please.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 12:27:53 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 12:27:53 PM
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.
"You thinks"? Is that Canadian speech?
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:47:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2013, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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.
:wub:
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.
:huh: 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?
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2013, 04:04:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:47:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2013, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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.
:wub:
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
Quote from: Valmy on March 18, 2013, 04:42:08 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 12:27:53 PM
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).
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 04:16:23 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 19, 2013, 04:04:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 11:47:07 AM
Quote from: Tamas on March 18, 2013, 10:19:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 10:15:45 AM
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.
:wub:
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.
:huh: 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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 04:16:23 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 18, 2013, 03:46:56 PM
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 19, 2013, 08:39:57 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 04:16:23 AM
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 :P).
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
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 :P).
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.
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
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 :P).
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?
Quote from: alfred russel on March 19, 2013, 10:55:41 AM
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."
Quote from: alfred russel on March 19, 2013, 10:55:41 AM
Quote from: Martinus on March 19, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
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 :P).
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
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.
What does being acceptable or normal to me have to do with whether it is democratic? What exactly are the requirements for something being democratic? The lawmakers pass laws you think are normal and acceptable?
Something is democratic when they foster to the concept of democracy, will of the majority of people.
Wether directly,indirectly or both count could be argued for all sides.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
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.
What does being acceptable or normal to me have to do with whether it is democratic? What exactly are the requirements for something being democratic? The lawmakers pass laws you think are normal and acceptable?
I am just struck by the fact that you dont think there is anything wrong with Gerrymandering which led me to believe you either dont know what the word means or that it has become an acceptable practice where you live.
fyi Gerrymandering isnt merely changing electoral boundaries. It is changing them in an effort to gain a particular political advantage so as affect the outcome of elections.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2013, 11:48:06 AM
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2013, 11:35:09 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 18, 2013, 09:09:38 PM
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.
What does being acceptable or normal to me have to do with whether it is democratic? What exactly are the requirements for something being democratic? The lawmakers pass laws you think are normal and acceptable?
I am just struck by the fact that you dont think there is anything wrong with Gerrymandering which led me to believe you either dont know what the word means or that it has become an acceptable practice where you live.
fyi Gerrymandering isnt merely changing electoral boundaries. It is changing them in an effort to gain a particular political advantage so as affect the outcome of elections.
I think there is alot wrong with gerrymandering. I just think the way we gerrymander is democratic if against the spirit of how they should be redrawing the districts.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2013, 12:10:00 PM
I think there is alot wrong with gerrymandering. I just think the way we gerrymander is democratic if against the spirit of how they should be redrawing the districts.
So you think there is a correct way to Gerrymander? See when you say stuff like this I gotta think you really dont know what the word means. By definition it is undemocratic. ;)
Just to be clear here, are you considering redrawing any district in response to a census, "Gerrymandering"?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
So you think there is a correct way to Gerrymander? See when you say stuff like this I gotta think you really dont know what the word means. By definition it is undemocratic. ;)
Um...is just drawing districts gerrymandering? :huh:
Clearly I do not know what the word means.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 03:47:21 PM
Just to be clear here, are you considering redrawing any district in response to a census, "Gerrymandering"?
No.
Quote from: Valmy on March 19, 2013, 03:51:35 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 19, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
So you think there is a correct way to Gerrymander? See when you say stuff like this I gotta think you really dont know what the word means. By definition it is undemocratic. ;)
Um...is just drawing districts gerrymandering? :huh:
Clearly I do not know what the word means.
Clearly
Okay could you give us a definition for the word?
You guys honestly don't know what gerrymander means? :huh:
It means the drawing of electoral borders (often with bizarre shapes) to maximize electoral advantage.
I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2013, 05:21:10 PM
You guys honestly don't know what gerrymander means? :huh:
It means the drawing of electoral borders (often with bizarre shapes) to maximize electoral advantage.
Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 06:54:51 PM
I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.
One thing is for sure. You and Valmy dont appear to have any idea what it is. Go back and re-read what I said it was.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2013, 05:21:10 PM
You guys honestly don't know what gerrymander means? :huh:
It means the drawing of electoral borders (often with bizarre shapes) to maximize electoral advantage.
Well that was what I thought the definition was. Clearly I was wrong.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 06:54:51 PM
I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.
One thing is for sure. You and Valmy dont appear to have any idea what it is. Go back and re-read what I said it was.
You are right. I thought it was what Yi said.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2013, 03:28:18 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 19, 2013, 05:21:10 PM
You guys honestly don't know what gerrymander means? :huh:
It means the drawing of electoral borders (often with bizarre shapes) to maximize electoral advantage.
Well that was what I thought the definition was.
Really?
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2013, 03:29:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 19, 2013, 06:54:51 PM
I'm not certain that CC and the rest of us are using the same definition.
One thing is for sure. You and Valmy dont appear to have any idea what it is. Go back and re-read what I said it was.
You are right. I thought it was what Yi said.
Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2013, 03:23:57 PM
Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.
You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly. You can be democratically corrupt, if the majority of the people support it...which they seem to when it comes to the way we draw our corrupt districts.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2013, 03:30:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2013, 03:23:57 PM
Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.
You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly. You can be democratically corrupt.
Yeah, we like to rule out things like one party rule etc.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2013, 03:30:17 PM
Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.
I did not defend it all. Democratic does not necessarily mean good.
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2013, 03:32:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 20, 2013, 03:30:17 PM
Then your posts make you out to be a bit silly given you defended such a practice as being democratic.
I did not defend it all. Democratic does not necessarily mean good.
But it does mean democratic. You suggested that any system created by a democratically elected goverment would itself be democratic simply by viture of the fact the decision maker was elected. Such a notion is absurd.
Gerrymandering is an easy example that creates abuses. Another example is the way the two party system in the US is so deeply entrenched.
But I doubt you will see that as a problem given your previous posts.
So lets use a really easy example. A government is elected and then suspends all future elections because of one reason or another but promises that when the time is right they will hold another election. Still going to argue that a system created by democratically elected representatives will always be democratic? Or is your definition of democracy so pliable that any abuse is possible?
Quote from: Valmy on March 20, 2013, 03:30:24 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2013, 03:23:57 PM
Which is a corruption of democracy hence I agree with CC.
You and CC have a narrower definition of democracy clearly. You can be democratically corrupt, if the majority of the people support it...which they seem to when it comes to the way we draw our corrupt districts.
I think that democracy understood as (just) rule of the majority is very 19th century and no longer thought sufficient in today's world.
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
Quote from: Martinus on March 20, 2013, 03:40:59 PM
I think that democracy understood as (just) rule of the majority is very 19th century and no longer thought sufficient in today's world.
The American system's designed to stop that though. It's arguably far more British :P :bowler:
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
I guess it's semanthics but also probably comes from the fact that both CC and I are lawyers. I know that if I went to my constitutional law exam and, when asked to define democracy, I said that it is "rule of the majority" only, I could at best hope to get C-.
I think a lot of people who are not specifically educated in that area may think this is a definition, but it hasn't been valid, at least in the West, for at least half a century now. Such elements as equality under law (including equal vote), protection of fundamental rights of minorities and rule of law are all considered sine qua non elements of democracy in the modern West - a system that lacks it simply isn't democracy any more.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2013, 01:41:09 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
I guess it's semanthics but also probably comes from the fact that both CC and I are lawyers. I know that if I went to my constitutional law exam and, when asked to define democracy, I said that it is "rule of the majority" only, I could at best hope to get C-.
I think a lot of people who are not specifically educated in that area may think this is a definition, but it hasn't been valid, at least in the West, for at least half a century now. Such elements as equality under law (including equal vote), protection of fundamental rights of minorities and rule of law are all considered sine qua non elements of democracy in the modern West - a system that lacks it simply isn't democracy any more.
I don't disagree with that. I think the problem that Valmy has with the positions you and CC have taken in this thread is that he is looking at democracy as a process--how the system operates--while you are trying to label the outcomes of the process--the actual laws produced by the system--as either democratic or undemocratic. The problem with that approach is it then becomes too easy to simply label outcomes you don't agree with as "undemocratic".
I think I'm in agreement with Valmy. If a system has free elections, rule of law, and respect for minority rights, I'll consider that system democratic, even if it produces laws that I don't agree with.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
You will note that in my very first post on the subject I said that the Rule of Law was critical to a healthy democracy. What you seem to think of democracy is form over substance.
Quote from: dps on March 21, 2013, 12:24:51 PM
I don't disagree with that. I think the problem that Valmy has with the positions you and CC have taken in this thread is that he is looking at democracy as a process--how the system operates--while you are trying to label the outcomes of the process--the actual laws produced by the system--as either democratic or undemocratic. The problem with that approach is it then becomes too easy to simply label outcomes you don't agree with as "undemocratic".
I think I'm in agreement with Valmy. If a system has free elections, rule of law, and respect for minority rights, I'll consider that system democratic, even if it produces laws that I don't agree with.
You are part right. The debate was joined over the question of whether any system created by democratically elected governments will always be democratic. That is a question of substance - are the rules the current government create undemocratic. The answer to that question isnt merely semantics. It goes to the root of the health of the democracy and in extreme cases whether one still lives in a society that could be considered democratic.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2013, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
You will note that in my very first post on the subject I said that the Rule of Law was critical to a healthy democracy. What you seem to think of democracy is form over substance.
I'm looking at it as a political system, and not relying on a value judgment to define it.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2013, 02:47:40 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2013, 12:41:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 20, 2013, 06:48:04 PM
I think the word "liberal democracy" is best to describe the narrower version of Democracy as CC sees it.
You will note that in my very first post on the subject I said that the Rule of Law was critical to a healthy democracy. What you seem to think of democracy is form over substance.
I'm looking at it as a political system, and not relying on a value judgment to define it.
I am not sure what that means. How can one evaluate whether a purported democratic system is actually democratic without analyzing it through the lens of the Rule of Law?
I'm not sure how gerrymandering relates to the rule of law. State legislatures pass gerrymandering laws.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2013, 12:45:43 PM
The debate was joined over the question of whether any system created by democratically elected governments will always be democratic.
Well obviously not. I refer back to my example of Pierre Laval's parliamentary coup and the creation of the Vichy government in 1940.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2013, 02:55:02 PM
I'm not sure how gerrymandering relates to the rule of law. State legislatures pass gerrymandering laws.
I am not sure how the Rule of Law doesnt apply in your example.
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2013, 02:56:50 PM
I am not sure how the Rule of Law doesnt apply in your example.
That settles that.
I'm not looking at as positive or negative. You are looking at it as a positive value, now while I don't disagree that a good democracy is a positive, I'm not defining it as as necessarily positive. To define it as a positive you have to add in other things like rule of law and minority rights, which in my opinion alters the definition.
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2013, 03:02:10 PM
I'm not looking at as positive or negative. You are looking at it as a positive value, now while I don't disagree that a good democracy is a positive, I'm not defining it as as necessarily positive. To define it as a positive you have to add in other things like rule of law and minority rights, which in my opinion alters the definition.
I still dont know what you are talking about. How did an analysis of the type of system used in a democracy become question of positive and negative values. I suppose a system that is corrupt is bad and a system that is not is good. Is that all you are saying? because if that is it why are you arguing with me?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2013, 02:55:02 PM
I'm not sure how gerrymandering relates to the rule of law. State legislatures pass gerrymandering laws.
There's more to the rule of law than passing laws. A legislature could legislate for, say, deportation of immigrants with no right to appeal. That would be a law, from a democratic legislature, but wouldn't be following the rule of law.
Also democracy and rule of law don't necessarily go together. Look at Singapore or apartheid South Africa.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2013, 06:40:45 PM
There's more to the rule of law than passing laws. A legislature could legislate for, say, deportation of immigrants with no right to appeal. That would be a law, from a democratic legislature, but wouldn't be following the rule of law.
Why not?
Quote from: crazy canuck on March 21, 2013, 04:29:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on March 21, 2013, 03:02:10 PM
I'm not looking at as positive or negative. You are looking at it as a positive value, now while I don't disagree that a good democracy is a positive, I'm not defining it as as necessarily positive. To define it as a positive you have to add in other things like rule of law and minority rights, which in my opinion alters the definition.
I still dont know what you are talking about. How did an analysis of the type of system used in a democracy become question of positive and negative values. I suppose a system that is corrupt is bad and a system that is not is good. Is that all you are saying? because if that is it why are you arguing with me?
I'm saying that a corrupt and bad democracy is still a form of democracy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 21, 2013, 06:45:30 PM
Why not?
Because there's more to the rule of law - even in the most stripped back understanding - than that a law is legally passed.
Edit: Sorry to revive but I meant to answer this and then got reminded by first time offender thread.