There are several vital differences between totalitarianism and all the orthodoxies of the past, either in Europe or in the East. The most important is that the orthodoxies of the past did not change, or at least did not change rapidly. In medieval Europe the Church dictated what you should believe, but at least it allowed you to retain the same beliefs from birth to death. It did not tell you to believe one thing on Monday and another on Tuesday. And the same is more or less true of any orthodox Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim today. In a sense his thoughts are circumscribed, but he passed his whole life within the same framework of thought. His emotions are not tampered with.
Now, with totalitarianism, exactly the opposite is true. The peculiarity of the totalitarian state is that though it controls thought, it does not fix it. It sets up unquestionable dogmas, and it alters them from day to day. It needs the dogmas, because it needs absolute obedience from its subjects, but cannot avoid the changes, which are dictated by the needs of power politics. It declared itself infallible, and at the same time it attacks the very concept of objective truth.
George Orwell
This is indeed the problem, we should not be told what we should believe, and we are a product of our upbringing, education and the society in which we live. Of course, we should challenge any attempts to impose the beliefs of any totalitarian regime, but neither should we really believe we know what it really is like to live in this sort of environment.
Imperfect though it is, most, if not all of us here, do live in a democratic country. We should be thankful, but we should be vigilant that our civil liberties are not eroded. Emotion is all very well, but it does not make for stable government.
Debate and tried and trusted, but not inflexible consensus, with due regard for the process of law, plus a long history of stability, should be a recipe for success. ( Cripes, did I really say that? What a stupid idea. Most of the electorate are seriously stupid, illiterate and are not deserving of a say in the future of our country, even supposing they were consulted). But we are at the tender mercies of the EU, so does this matter? Yes, but this is not going to change in the near future, sadly.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fixit! Bring back hereditary peers to the House of Lords, and why on earth tinker with the Act of Settlement 1701?
Boadicea's Chariot 
Hmm!
I find your article interesting Araminta, but either I, or you, must be a little confused. I’m sure it’s me.
Boadicea and I have business to attend to for a few hours this morning, but I shall attempt to respond when we return.
The UK democratic? “You have to be dreaming” [The Castle] 🙂
Hmm, yes, it obviously must be me, Bearsy, you always find my posts confusing. So do I and I write them!
England is the home of democracy; cough, splutter and choke! Trust me, I’m an amateur historian. 🙂
Pistols at dawn (ish) or à demain.
I’m off to bed. 🙂
I wasn’t anticipating a duel – more like agreeing with you when or if, I could be sure of what you were advocating. 🙂
I actually understood this on the first read. But then, I also enjoy reading Chinese philosophy and count Nehru, Jinnah, and Mountbatten as inspirations. We do not know how lucky we are to live in the West. Things may not always be perfect, but at least we are free to say that and at least try to find ways to make things better. If we don’t like the countries in which we live, we’re also free to leave. It makes me think of the DDR and how different things were there. If people said anything that was not considered acceptable they’d be put under surveillance by the Stasi. If they tried to leave they would be shot.
If anything, the underwhelming nature of the British government represents voter apathy and laziness. Cameron was, in the end, elected by the British people. He was also made the leader of his party by members of his party. He is easy to replace and the current government will be gone when its term is over. Or the bizarre marriage of the Limp Dims and Tories breaks up, whichever comes first.
Oh, and agree with you about the Lords, Minty.
I’m still thinking, but daughter’s coming to dinner and I’m chef today, so time’s limited. 😦
A lot of generalisations that result in errors here.
Para 1.orthodoxies from cradle to grave-rubbish, take the Tudors, changed the religion of the people more often than they did their underwear! One week you were bowing the knee to Rome the next being burnt as a heretic according to the whim of the religion of the monarch.
Para 2. Totalitarian regimes change dogmas. Well Genghis Khan and his grandson kept the same regime of killing everyone they could lay hands on for a good long time over a large part of the known world of the time. Haven’t noticed Saudi Arabia changing their tune either.
Para 4 a democracy? So they say, but it bears very little more than a passing resemblance to the real thing.
the wishes of the people are not taken into account and some are a damned sight more equal than others.
Most so called democracies are bought and paid for by wealthy special interest groups. The more the word is trumpeted the less it is to be believed.
Last para, smug and silly, that is exactly what you are supposed to think whilst your standard of living and those of your progeny slip gently into serflike poverty.
Are your children and grandchildren likely to be able to afford the same style house as that in which you live? Very few are.
Had I a dog in the race I would back Occupy any day of the week. They at least have the sense to know that they have been robbed of their fiscal future by the post war generation and the newly minted robber barons.
Wake up and smell the roses which are acquiring ever so gently a whiff of cordite.
On first reading, I would say this. People, by that I mean the vast majority of the population, though obviously not clever, erudite people such as those who contribute to this site, does need to be told what to believe if only so that there can be a common cause. United we stand, divided we fall etc. That belief may have to evolve gradually to cater for changing culture and advancing technology, but the basic dogmas need to hold fast. People may be free to believe what they choose, but they need to be careful about what they preach as this leads to revolution and warfare.
The reason Western Europe was so successful over the past 1000 years was down to the fact that Christianity unified everybody, even if it was against their will in many cases. It was by no means a perfect system, nor even a necessarily good system, and certainly not the truth, but, it was better than the rest. For most it was believable and it offered hope to the weak, poor, sick and oppressed, keeping them in check and preventing more revolutions and unrest than might otherwise have occurred. Just look at parts of the world where there has been no unifying creed. They are fraught with tribal upheavals in much the way that Europe was in the first millennium, the Dark Ages. Besides, much of what Christianity taught was actually quite beneficial to society. Of course it was open to abuse, but so is democracy. Sadly, that is just human nature, or rather I should say that is just nature.
Islam is spreading so fast because it also unifies its adherents. It grows in strength every day, and it does so at the expense of Christian civilization. Atheism may be the most logical explanation of our world, but it is also the most damaging to a society where alternative, theist beliefs exist. Atheism allowed Islam to gain a foothold in the Christian world. As an atheist, one may not approve of Christianity, but I believe most atheists would chose it rather than Islam as a state religion. Make no mistake, atheism is not an alternative. There are far too many people on this earth, 7 billion as of today, apparently, who need something to believe in. Lets try and present them with something that benefits them in this, the real world rather than the hypothetical next.
Dare I say it, but there is a certain arrogance about those educated people who live in the West who believe that the majority of people ought to believe the same way that they do. They have no idea of the issues that face the vast majority of the world’s population. It is a privilege to be able to afford to be an atheist. The billions of people who grind out their lives in a struggle to survive need some form of hope to keep them going. For some material gain as fed via the media rapidly becomes an illusion when they realise the impossibility of ever achieving it. Life after death is in many ways a far more tangible prospect.
As hypocritical as it is, this is a case where people need to be told, ‘don’t believe what I believe, believe what I tell you.’
Even as a nominal Catholic, I am with you 100% on the Act of Settlement and though you did not say it I see no reason to change the rules regarding male heirs. I imagine most Catholics feel this way. The monarchy is an anachronism; so much about it is illogical in the world in which we live, but, it works.
Am also with you on hereditary peers. Anachronistic too, but those people voted with their conscience, not their political allegiance. So bring ’em back I say. How I yearn for those days when I used to be able to pop down the House of Lords to join all my rellies and chums for a drink at the bar.
Dear old Orwell. He delivered this (a speech) in 1941, and it was about Literature. I wonder how he would see the survival of literature sixty years after his demise?
Later in this talk he refers fondly to “non-totalitarian Socialism”. “That,” he says. “at any rate, is the only hope to which anyone who cares for literature can cling.” Didn’t happen George. Your worst nightmare came true.
Oh dear, back to the dinner. More later – I hope. 😦
” Lets try and present them with something that benefits them in this, the real world rather than the hypothetical next.”
Let me just explain. Of course Christianity relies on the next world to deliver on its promises, but it does not require you to blow yourself up in order to get there. It enables you to live a rich and fulfilling life on earth if you are able but merely asks that in doing so you adhere to the rules of common decency.
Christopher.
Absolutely spot on with your comment! We may complain about our admittedly flawed versions of democracy, but it is a hell of a lot better than living under a totalitarian regime!
Sipu.
Very good comment too. Yes, it is arrogant to imagine that we have the right to impose our system of government and belief systems on the rest of the world.
“Anachronistic” has its charms; I much prefer it to knee-jerk political tinkering.
Bearsy.
Quite right about my Orwell quote, After a few years of “non-totalitarian Socialism”, I must say it is not my preferred choice, but I’m rapidly losing faith in the current coalition too.
Tina.
Thank you for your contribution, but I think you have completely misunderstood the point of my post!
While I’m pleased that I was born into Western Society – I’m even more delighted that I was born when I was… I had many more advantages than my grandchildren have – most particularly a good, free education and plenty of employment opportunities. They simply are not available for my grandson’s generation…
Like Christina, I don’t feel that Western Governments are what I would call democratic… sure I can put my cross (es) on a voting form every few years but all I get is a bunch of over-paid, self-satisfied politicians who renege on every one of their promises, and line their pockets at my expense. And Christina has it right – Democracies are bought and paid for by wealthy special interest groups.
I think Sipu has a fairly good point. Society does need some sort of unifying creed – as long as we don’t revert to the idea that if people don’t subscribe to that view they will be removed permanently from society. That attitude prevailed in medieval Europe as it still does in many Islamic States – and among Islamic communities in the West. There needs to be a balance between the the right of the individual to disagree with the prevailing creed and the right of society to insist on a minimum level of compliance to that creed. Difficult, but necessary, tight-rope to walk.
I certainly prefer an Upper House of Review that owes no allegiance to a political party – whether they be hereditary or elected for life – don’t care which as long as they are not required to ‘walk’ a party-line.
I do see the need to change the 1701 Act of Settlement, it really is a nonsense to continue with the notion that only male heirs have any value. I can see that changing the laws of succession to the throne will, inevitably, have implications for the rights of sons to inherit other titles, such as Dukedoms, in preference to first-born daughters… I’m waiting (with bated breath!) to hear anyone raise this point! – wait for the next instalment of ‘equality for women…. 🙂
As for continuing the ban on marriages to Catholics – I’d far prefer a Catholic spouse to one of another religion that has no understanding of the Christian principles that underline Western society. All non-CiE spouses should be banned – or none. There really is no reason, in my opinion, why one particular brand of Christianity should be treated differently from other brands or other religions.
It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me why the male line of succession has had priority. It’s been the males who have rushed off to get killed in battle, though hopefully having impregnated their wives beforehand and leaving an heir and spare. A cousin who is very involved in Scottish country dancing and all the lore that goes with it told me that in Scotland the clan and tartan come through the mother, since the father was quite likely to have been killed. Since my maternal tartan is a cheerful red, I prefer it to the paternal dark green anyway.
Male primogeniture, Sheona, made perfect sense in the past. It is distinctly feudal, I agree, but it designed to keep large estates in the family. Little point in passing it to females, whose property on marriage belonged to the husband.
Boadicea, since it makes little difference to most of us, whose “estates” generally can be disposed of as we see fit, my feeling is that the aristocracy should feel free to do the same.
My feeling is that there are rather more important issues for our government to consider!
Boadicea.
Thanks for your comment. Yes, I take your point, and largely agree with you with respect to the current state of both our democracy and our education system.
I was looking more at the bigger picture, in many parts of the world, people have no voice, and education of any description is sadly lacking.
Boadicea: spot on about the 1701 Act of Settlement. Had it been discarded, Victoria II would have been the Queen Empress, not the empress of Germany. Kaiser Bill mark II would not have been around and most likely a more liberal, pro-British Kaiser would have been in power. That would have hopefully been able to avoid the worst of the First World War.
I stand to be corrected, but I was not aware that the Act of Settlement involved male primogeniture. I thought that was a separate issue that predated the Act, the main thrust of which was that any heir had to be descended from Electress Sophia of Hanover and may not marry a Catholic.
I think you may be right, Sipu, but I’m a bit hazy on the subject. I was under the impression that the Act of Settlement was the last definitive legislation concerning who could succeed to the throne and covered both.
Thinking about it, male primogeniture does indeed predate the Act and is probably enshrined in Common Law, and may not be covered by Statute.
Boadicea: I, for one, am happy that we do not have true democracies. Democracy inevitably breaks down into mob rule. Furthermore, a number of matters are either so complicated that people otherwise preoccupied with the mundane toils of everyday life simply do not have either the time or energy to study, much less have vote on it. Nor do people have the time to vote for every single law that is passed. The systems we have now, be it the USA, Australia, or the UK pre-1997 are perfectly fine. It’s the idiots warming seats that is the problem.
Sipu: you are, of course, correct. I read the text of the 1701 Act of Settlement and found nothing at all about androcentric primogeniture, nor could I find anything about it in the 1689 Bill of Rights.
Christopher – we will have to agree to disagree. I strongly object to being presented with a set of ‘policies’ by politicians which are then discarded once the election is over. I object to the fact that once politicians are elected there is no way of removing them until the next election. The three independents who sided with Gillard went against their electorates’ wishes and there is no way they can be removed or, worse still, be held to account for their actions.
I don’t think that male primogeniture is enshrined in Statute – it just is!
Boadicea: I agree with you. What I meant to say is that the constitutional set-up isn’t the problem, the politicians are. The best system in the world can be rendered useless by the depravity of politicians.
It would be nice, however, if there was a recall option in Australia. That might just keep them a bit more honest. Still, there is also a risk to that as seen in Wisconsin where the party that lost the most during the previous elections attempted to undermine the majority-party by recall election for no other reason than that they simply wished to gain control over the state senate once again.
Christopher, I obviously didn’t express myself clearly. I think the electorate should have the right to dismiss their MPs – and Parliament.
I think the system is the problem. It is deliberately set up to keep power in the hands of the top and away from those at the bottom.
Boadicea: Yes, I see your point.
Is that really a problem? I mean do you want people at the bottom to have power? Of course, if they did, they would no longer be at the bottom! I firmly believe in a democracy based on a qualified franchise based on age, education/intelligence and tax payments.
In this part of the world a universal franchise means that it is in the interest of the ruling party to keep the masses as poorly educated as possible so that they do not know who or what they are voting for. They believe everything they are told by those who control the airwaves, which is the government and all the government does is blame others for the poverty and high levels of unemployment. Educational standards have fallen off a cliff in the past 15 years and unemployment is 40%. The majority of South Africans should not be allowed near a polling booth.
An educated, employed, tax-paying electorate would ensure that the best people run the country. The base would be broad enough to be relatively liberal without being socialist or too elitist. Thus the wider community would benefit as would the economy. While it would mean layers of social classes there would be nothing to prevent people rising through those classes based on their merit and abilities.
Sipu
I’m a great believer in calling a shovel a shovel and a spade a spade… This discussion is about democracy – that is rule by the people. What you are describing is an oligarchy, rule by an elite distinguished by birth, wealth or some other criteria.
Your description of the electorate in your part of the world is irrelevant – the majority of Western voters (those who bother to vote) are far more educated and politically wise than people like you give them credit for. And even if some are not – they pay for the Government they get and are entitled to expect that their views are considered and taken into account and not dismissed on the grounds that ‘they don’t understand what they want’. How utterly arrogant!
It is downright dishonest to describe the system whereby those at the top take no notice of those at the bottom, who have ‘elected’ them into power, as a democracy. It is an absolute con-trick.
While one may fool some of the people some of the time (etc, etc) it is my belief that those at the bottom of Western society have finally woken up to the fact that their so-called ‘democracy’ is a sham and that the people they elect are not one bit interested in the issues that concern those who actually do the work to produce the wealth that those at the top squander.
The lack of respect for politicians, the frustration at political decisions (like the continued membership of the EU) and the support for the ‘Occupy’ movement are all symptomatic of the loss of faith in Western democracy. It may take some time longer for those at the bottom of African society to wake up – but God help you and those who think like you when they do. We in the West have centuries of tradition that we do not erupt into the sort of violence that we see in places like Africa – but I have no doubt that if Western Governments do not take account of the aspirations of their electorates there will be real violence in Europe. One can repress people for only so long.
There was a wonderful comment by a financial advisor on tonight’s news… he stated that markets had fallen because the Greek Government had decided to hold a referendum on the latest ‘bail out’. ‘Fancy that’, he said with a huge smile, ‘ the Government is actually asking the Greek people if they are willing to accept the financial austerity being imposed on them’. My comment on this was “Great – real democracy in the land of the real home of democracy’. I wonder whether the Greek people would have joined the EU if they had been told the truth about what that would mean.
I know I wouldn’t have voted to stay in the Common Market had I been told the truth about what that vote truly meant.
Yes Sipu I do mean that the opinions of those at the bottom of society should be taken into account and given equal value to those whose sole motive is to make huge profits and who, at the moment, are running the world.
Well Boadicea, since we are calling spades, spades, I can only say that I think for somebody of your age and level of education, you are incredibly naive.
But let me start by saying that your opening paragraph is of course incorrect. This is a discussion about forms of government and as such is not limited to democracy. Let me quote a phrase from the opening paragraph of the post: “totalitarianism and all the orthodoxies of the past”. Further, Aramnita specifically called for the return of the hereditary peerage to the House of Lords; hardly democratic.
You go on to say that I am talking about ‘an oligarchy, rule by an elite distinguished by birth, wealth or some other criteria.’ I said nothing about birth or wealth. But, there are other criteria – ABILITY. I see nothing wrong with elitism. We should all aspire to be elite.
I stated that I believed in a qualified franchise, based on age, education/intelligence and tax payments. That might mean, for example, a voter must be over 25, must have passed some sort of Scholastic Aptitude Test and must have declared an income and made a tax return for 5 out of the past 8 years. It does not mean that he must be born an aristocrat. It does not mean that he must be wealthy. It does not mean that he must be male. It does mean that he likely to be mature enough to consider the wider implications of what he is voting for. It does mean that he probably has a brain that enables him to make informed decisions. It means that he is more likely to contribute to society rather than just live off benefits. It follows that he is far more likely to be socially aware and that he is likely to consider what is good for the community as a whole rather than what is good for himself. The biggest contributors to social reform are those who are most successful academically and/or financially.
You say that the people in the West are far more politically wise than I give them credit for. They are not! The majority of the British electorate read trashy papers like the Sun and the Mirror and confuse paediatricians with paedophiles. Most of them are barely literate, let alone politically or economically informed. The majority of the voters in the West are very poorly educated as you yourself have often complained. They could not tell you the first thing about the political situation in their country. They base their vote purely on whether they think they will have more money in their pocket at the next pay day, or in the case of a substantial minority, when they next visit the dole office. I will never forget how in 1979 the Sun headlined an article saying that the Bee Gees would not tour Britain if Labour was returned to power. Murdoch knew the intellectual waste land of his readership, I knew it. I am amazed that you apparently did not. I have no doubt that the short comings of the British electorate are reflected in the US, Europe and even Australia.
You seem to believe that some sort of Utopia is obtainable and that all it requires is for the poor, huddled ignorant masses to be listened to and all will be ok. They are people just like the oligarchs, plutocrats and aristocrats that you seem to so despise. They are every bit as greedy and self serving. The only difference is that they lack the abilities, education and sophistication of their more successful counterparts. You say that what happens in Africa is irrelevant. It may be as far as the West is concerned, (only it is isn’t because African politics impacts the rest of the world), but it clearly demonstrates what happens in a democracy where the opinions of the incompetent count as much as the opinions of the competent. You may have a sound knowledge of certain periods of history but you appear to understand very little about human nature. Ivory towers spring to mind.
As for the Greek government offering a referendum, what a cop-out by the cowardly leaders. Who is better qualified to determine whether the bail-out would be good or bad for Greece: the ignorant peasant tending his goats on some rocky island, or a group of well educated able people who can look at the country as a whole? They may make the wrong decision, but at least it will be an informed decision. In this case, however, all the government is doing in this case, is passing the buck and is passing it off as a sop to democracy.
Your comment, ‘Great – real democracy in the land of the real home of democracy’, is laughably romantic and hopelessly wrong. The Greeks may have invented the word, but true democracy has only been practised there for a very short period of time. In Ancient Greece, only male citizens who had completed their national service were allowed to vote. Slaves, women, aliens, children, those who had not paid their debts were not able to vote. In other words the majority were disenfranchised. Of course, in recent centuries democracy has been virtually non existent with various occupations, monarchies and dictatorships, military or otherwise.
“We in the West have centuries of tradition that we do not erupt into the sort of violence that we see in places like Africa “. Ha, ha, is what I say to that, and you, a historian. You call me arrogant. For Christ’s sake, just take a look at what has happened in the West since your Greeks invented democracy. Barely a decade has gone by since then with out some sort of war or revolution that has caused havoc and chaos. The Civil War, Glorious Revolution, American Revolution, French Revolution, WW1, Russian Revolution, WW2 to name just a few.
The word democracy covers a multitude of sins. When would you say democracy as you know it, arrived in the West? You talk about centuries of tradition. Most men could not vote until the mid 19th century. Women did not get the vote in the UK until the 1920s. Not even 1 century ago. Is it democracy if children do not have the vote? Are they not people too? If you can give the vote to an illiterate imbecile in his 40s, why not give it to a literate 12 year old. Was not the 16 year old William Hague better qualified to vote than most of the UK. What about non resident or non citizen tax payers? Do they have no right to determine how their taxes are spent?
“those at the bottom of Western society have finally woken up to the fact that their so-called ‘democracy’ is a sham”. Of course it is a bloody sham, because it is being manipulated. Those at the top in the US, in the UK, in the West as well as in Africa, realise that the majority of the electorate are bleeding idiots. That is why the Labour and the Liberals want to lower the voting age to 16. They want to expand the idiot base. The want to be able to promise i-Phones and pocket money to children so that they will vote for them. People like you think democracy is the be-all and end-all. It is not. Like everything else that is man-made it is flawed, immensely flawed. I am suggesting that rather than persevere with such a system, modify it; improve it; qualify it.
Continuing the theme of spades and shovels, you really need to set aside your class, religious and sexual prejudices and look at life from an objective point of view. Life is not fair. Some are born pretty, some are not. Some are intelligent, some are not. Some are strong, healthy charming, numerate, literate, benevolent, musical, hard working, conscientious, athletic etc, some are not. There will be those who can paint, sing, create and those who cannot. There will always be a need for some one to design and some one else to build. There will always be rich and poor. There will always be cleaners and those who have things cleaned.There will always be leaders and followers. Life is hierarchical.
What we can all agree on is that we would all aspire to reduce suffering as much as possible and improve the standard of living for as many as possible. But you cannot please all of the people all of the time. Some will always be at the bottom of society. As Christ said, ‘the poor will always be with us.’ Get over it.
Boadicea: don’t forget the Tea Party movement which objected to this elitist rule without the negative aspects inherent to the OWS movement. In California it’s very easy for voters to overrule the state parliament and recall the governor. Perhaps the 1876 California Constitution would be a good model?
Boadicea and Sipu.
I’m following your exchange of views with interest.
I’m in agreement with Sipu on many points, democracy is an imperfect form of government but better than any alternatives that spring to mind.
Your view, Boadicea, if I didn’t know you better, sounds impossibly socialist! Those at the bottom of society, against those who make huge profits; it sounds almost like Capitalism versus Communism but I’m sure that is really not what you meant.
I also agree with Sipu’s view about the referendum in Greece. It sounds to me like a cynical exercise in passing the buck! The hapless citizens of Greece are hardly in a position to make an informed decision on how on earth this will turn out. I think they are between a rock and a hard place, no one can predict the outcome of this referendum on Greece or the rest of Europe, or the effect on the global economy.
Araminta – I always describe myself as a conservative with a social conscience. It seems to me that far too many Conservatives forget the social consequences of their thinking.
Christopher – a quick Google has left me as ignorant of the 1876 California Constitution as I was before I looked! Can you give me a link to a brief outline?
Sipu
I stand corrected on the nature of this debate.
I think my exact words were: ‘an oligarchy, rule by an elite distinguished by birth, wealth or some other criteria.’ That most certainly included your criteria of ABILITY. I have no problem with raising the voting age. But I believe that one of the arguments for lowering it to 18 was that if one could be called upon to fight and die for one’s country then one should have a say in how it was run.
And that is precisely my point. We require everyone to contribute in some way to society in the form of taxes (and everyone pays tax one way or another) or by life and limb, therefore everyone should have a say in how the country is run.
There are many intelligent people who have not had the benefit of formal education, just as there are many who do not make tax returns. There are also plenty of idiots around waving paper qualifications and tax returns. Your system allows only those who think they know best to make decisions for everyone. Your proposition is Rule by the Arrogant…
Your comment:
Do you really believe that money and education make people altruistic? Of course they don’t. Give most people the opportunity to feather their own nests at the expense of others and they will. And you consider me naive!
I see you are beating your drum about inequality again. I would have thought by now that you should know that I accept that the world isn’t fair and that one must accept that …
… but we don’t have to make it harder for those who aspire for better or deny people the right to have their say in how their world is run.
The myth of democracy in the West is wearing thin. One may not be able to please all the people all of the time – but Democratic Governments should aspire to please all of the people some of the time..
Araminta
The Greek referendum may well be a cynical attempt at passing the buck – and I am just as worried about the effect on the global economy (more specifically my economy!) should Greece keel over as anyone.
But the present crisis has not been brought about by those who are now being told they must pay for it. It has been brought about by precisely those people who Sipu thinks should run a country – the rich and the extremely well educated…
Even Mrs Mop without a paper qualification to her name and on income support knows that she cannot keep borrowing for ever… and that the bailiff will knock on the door one day.
Every analysis that I read shows that the fiscal provisions needed to deal with the problem hardly touches those at the top – but are causing real hardship to those at the bottom. As one of our analysts said this week: ‘How dare a man taking home $95,000 a week call someone who earns $750 a week greedy.’
Who knows how the Greeks will vote? There seems to be a real need for Greece to take a long hard look at its tax and benefit systems. But, I think (hope!?) that there is far more chance of Greece being able to make those changes if the people are asked to make them rather than have them imposed on them by what so many there (and elsewhere in Europe) see as the ‘foreign’ dictators of the EU.
Thanks for that, Boadicea.
I think you are right, but as you point out, once having signed up for the EU, and more specifically the Euro, thank goodness we didn’t, there is no fiscal control other than that imposed on all by diktat. There is little room for manoeuvre in most aspects of the economy.
My own thoughts, and I am no economist is that the whole point of the EU, is that members join, there is huge investment from the founding members with regard to infrastructure and etc., in order that they eventually become new markets for trade, that is they create a whole new consumer market. It worked up to a point, but then with the sub-prime fiasco, it all went horribly wrong.
Actually, I don’t think there was a real problem with the theory, as a trading block, but in reality, it was long-term, flawed, and was always vulnerable. One solution does not fit all, and diverse economies need different policies. Now we all really have to worry about how this will all pan out.
I would have thought anyone with an ounce of Common Sense would have realised that a Common Market would work, but not a Common Currency or a Common Political system.
It seems to me that trying to weld so many diverse countries into one glorious political Union was a case of hope and idealism over reality!
The trouble, in my opinion, is that far too many theoretical economists and politicians forget that they are dealing with human beings – each with their own hopes and aspirations – and not mindless robots that will simply fit into the schemes of those ‘who know best’. I’ve had more than one or two arguments with both about that!
As you say one solution does not fit all – it might work in a totalitarian society where one can simply remove those who disagree – but eventually even that system will crack.
I’m not so daft as to think that every bit of legislation should pass through the electorate – but laws that radically change a country (such as the political union with Europe) should.
My disgust at the way politicians bleat on about being democratic is that, increasingly, they don’t even make the attempt to appear democratic – it’s all so b**y high-handed! Vote us in so that we can tell (order) you to do what we want… oh! and by the way if we screw up you can pay for our mistakes… and if we do the opposite of what we said you must simply accept that we know better…
Grrrr!!!
Sipu: ‘Some will always be at the bottom of society. As Christ said, ‘the poor will always be with us.’ Get over it.’
What next – the old ‘are there no workhouses’ routine…? Dickens would be turning in his grave. And as a good socialist, may I remind you that Christ also said that it would be harder for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven than for a camel to enter the eye of a needle.
One thing that has emerged from the eurozone crises is that the stated aim of a group of European nations working together to show that all has been forgotten and forgiven as regards past emnity has not been completely successful. The Greeks have obviously neither forgotten nor forgiven Germany. To have Merkel tell them that their economy will be run by outsiders until it’s been sorted out was a bit of a red rag to a bull. What I find puzzling is why Greece was allowed in to the single currency at all. A bit of googling shows that the Greek national debt started to grow rapidly as soon as Greece had joined the EU under the leadership of Papandreou père. Therefore Greek debt was already out of control by the time the euro came along. So why have such a country, whose economy obviously did not meet the criteria by a long chalk, in the single currency? A recipe for disaster. I was under the impression that it was Germany’s Gerhard Schroeder who pushed for Greece to be included; other people seem to think it was France. I hope that all the behind the scenes manoeuvres will be brought to light.
The problem with the infrastructure of the EU, Araminta, is that it has expanded enormously and unnecessarily. As you say, as a trading bloc the EEC worked perfectly well, and without a single currency. The problem is that the europrats have got carried away and cannot now admit to having been wrong and having themselves created the problems they are facing. I don’t think democracy has been involved since both France and the Netherlands ignored the results of their own referendums on the Lisbon stitch-up and poor old Ireland was made to keep voting again and again until it got the desired response.
Well said Bleuebelle!
There will always be some at the bottom of society – simply because that is the nature of society – some will rise – others will fall.
But that doesn’t mean we should disregard them and consider them worthless. I’m the last person to want everyone who is born ugly to have cosmetic surgery on the NHS, or to lower the standards required for professions so that those with less ability can compete on’ equal’ terms…
But it is heartless to simply write off those who, through no fault of their own, are at the bottom with the words “The poor are always with us . Get over it”.
Well, I tend to speak more from the heart than the mind when it comes to things like this, again, I suspect, like all good socialists…but instinctively, that is what it always comes down to, for me.
Boadicea: the California State Constitution is over a thousand pages long, so I’ll briefly summarise the relevant parts.
California voters have a right to recall the governor, the members of the cabinet, and members of both the State Senate and the State Assembly.
California voters have the right to overturn laws passed by the state parliament as well as to pass laws on their own, regardless of whether the state parliament approves of it or not.
All matters dealing with increases in taxed have to pass by a 2/3rds majority in both houses of the state parliament or be sent to the voters for approval.
Voters have the right to overturn any tax increased imposed on them.
To qualify for the ballot, any measure must be brought forth through petition. Eight per cent of California’s voters must sign any petition for it to qualify.
To recall any member of the state government, 12 per cent of voters have to sign the relevant petition.
I will keep this brief.
Thank you Ara for agreeing with some of my sentiments.
Bluebelle, my point with regards to the poor always being with us is that no matter what you do, there will always be people at the bottom of society. The poorest sector of British society may think that they are hard done by, but they are hugely wealthy compared to the poorest people of Africa or Asia. Wealth is relative as is one’s position in society. You will never get rid of the poor, no matter what you do.
Boadicea, the Greeks and other leaders who have screwed up Europe are there because they were elected by fools. If there was a truly qualified vote a whole different range of competent and honest leaders would come forward. Leaders who would not have to lie in the way that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown did.
You deny that the wealthy and educated become more altruistic. Of course you are wrong, again. Start with the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and work your way down through all levels of wealth and sectors of society. Whether it be fund raising for AIDS, cancer screening, malaria, schools, hospitals, community projects, etc, etc, the programs are always led by the wealthy and/or well educated. Whether it is serving on charitable boards or other non profit organisations such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, or even the magistrate service, it is the better off middle class people who give their time. Even the aristocratic land owners of old gave, and those who are still around continue to give, huge amounts of time, energy and money to various good causes. The London City Livery companies are full of well to do people who contribute huge amounts of time and money to good causes. My brother in law happens to be the master of one of them and I am well aware of the good that they do.
There are two measures of wealth in this world, time and money. To a large extent we make our own wealth when it comes to money and there is huge disparity across society. But when it comes to time, we are, to all intents and purposes, equally wealthy. Yet it is the financially wealthy and well educated who get off their butts and give up their limited time to attend those church fetes, council meetings, fund raising events, charity stalls, or to offer counseling such as in the CAB or Samaritans. They offer their time to various projects required by the community but not funded by taxes. Perhaps you do not know such people. I am surrounded by them, both in Africa and when I am in the UK. Likewise, I am well aware that the poor and uneducated do almost nothing to help the wider community, despite their abundance of time.
Sipu, true.
Not too many round here do anything but bleat.
Your point is summed up in the saying: If you want something done, ask a busy person to do it, Sipu. My experience of voluntary work only confirms what you say.
Good morning all.
Having just quickly caught up with recent comments, and having very little time this morning to respond, I find little if anything to justify your comment # 46, or #48, Bearsy.
Thus far there have been interesting, intelligent and well argued contributions and opinions from all. I would rather it continued in this fashion.
Thanks.
Your post Araminta, your rules. I have removed my comments and those relating to them. Except for this one, which you can, if you wish, delete yourself. Bearsy.
Sipu
I think I covered your point about there will always be those at the bottom of society.
The argument that the poor of Africa and other such places are worse off than the poor in Europe is a cop-out. How Africa (or elsewhere) deals with its poor is not relevant to how Europe deals with its poor. They are Europe’s poor and Europe’s problem.
How Africa and elsewhere deals with their poor is their problem. It amazes me that the dirt-poor of Africa, India and other such countries, who can see what the super-rich of their lands enjoy, do not rise up and demand higher standards of living… Give it time.
As to your assertion that if there was a truly qualified electorate (as you define it) a ‘better’ class of people would offer themselves for election – I have never read such a load of nonsense in my life. Sure they might well be representative of the ‘better’ sort of people who voted them in – but they certainly would not be representative of the poor souls at the bottom who actually do the physical work that provides the wealth of the nation – without whose labour those at the top could not prosper.
As for b**dy Bill Gates – and all his ilk. The money they ‘generously’ give away is from the exorbitant profits that they make from their over-priced goods – prices that are protected by the bullying tactics of the US in asserting that their laws should over-ride the laws of sovereign nations. It’s my money and your money that he’s giving away… Thanks, but I’d like realistic prices and the choice of where MY money goes – and it wouldn’t be to Africa, India or any other such country but to those in Australia who are are in need.
Whoopee do! The rich and privileged support ‘good’ and ‘worthy’ causes – how very nice of them… how very paternalistic… how grateful the poor should be that those who live off their labour should decide what are ‘good’ and ‘worthy’ causes….
Thanks, Bearsy. 🙂
Sipu #49 {#ref not found}
No spousal or misplaced loyalty in Bearsy’s comment #46 {#ref not found} – just agreement with my opinions even if they were somewhat more fervently expressed that I did!
Araminta
I have really enjoyed this post – something to get my teeth into!
I’ve just noticed that Bearsy has removed his comments after your #51 {#45} or whatever number it has now become.
I really cannot see why anyone should object to his saying that he does not
In my opinion, it’s really about time that everyone understood that that society is absolutely dependent on everyone’s abilities and efforts… those who provide the money or brains for industry are dependent on those who provide their labour – neither can survive or thrive without the other. And neither have the right to discount or denigrate the other’s abilities or worthiness.
Hmmm….. just looked at the lack of comments on the site – it would seem that Charioteers do not like ‘heavy’ discussions … shame!
I think all of the chat has made this issue too complicated. My philosophy is that there is no harm in being told what you should believe, after all, people do it at all levels every day, but every harm in being told what you MUST believe.
Boadicea:
I started writing a reply to your 46, but I am afraid that I got too depressed. Let’s just say I find your arguments gobsmacking.
It seems to me that you think the haves are automatically ‘effete, idle rich bastards’ who consider themselves superior to the have nots who are automatically deemed to be oppressed. Is this a class warfare thing?
On a positive note, I am glad you enjoy such discussions, I do too, but I am often left fearfully disappointed by those who I feel should know better. But perhaps you are just taking the p**s?
One place I’ve never been too fond of was San Francisco’s Financial District. Block after block of nothing but skyscrapers. The streets are packed with seemingly mindless, soulless corporate drones. On their mobiles, with each other, they walk detached from the rest of the world. The area truly feels surreal. It has the desolate feeling of being in the middle of the desert miles from anywhere, even when the eyes declare this sensation to be a false one.
I’ve grown accustomed to walking down the street, BMWs, Mercedes-Benz, Jaguar, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Maserati, Lexus, etc driving down the congest streets. The suits they wear, men and women, are often impeccably tailored. Very rarely is a hair out of place. I can only remember the rare occasion when any have shown me courtesy. If there was any interaction, it was often negative.
Getting pushes aside by a high-powered clique, my presence not registered. For the most part, though, I don’t recall have much of any interaction. It’s a different world, one which I never want to be a part of. At the same time, they’ve never interfered with my life or offended me more than any other group. They’re not as bad as, say, the Cantonese who would shove me off the bus to get a better seat or the tossers driving around blubbering away on their mobile phones nearly ploughing me over on their way to Starbucks. I’m in one of the epicentres of the “occupation” movements and have seen first hand what it is and how it is.
Today I can’t go to bank to get my weekly money because they’ve decided that the entire district has to be shut down, all banks and businesses must close — or else. They’ve encouraged squatting and law breaking, they’ve ruined one of the nicest parts of the city. Suddenly the corporate drones are becoming more sympathetic figures, as least they’re doing something with their lives other than interfering with the basic functions of mine. I will report back tonight on how their planned shut-down of the university will go, I’ve already had a class cancelled.
Hello again, Boadicea.
In answer to your comment #48. I was in a bit of a rush this morning and didn’t have the to time do anything other than have a brief glance at new comments here.
I had no intention of removing Bearsy’s comments; my comment #45, was intended to be polite request that this thread should continue to be a good tempered discussion without it turning into an acrimonious exchange of opinion on the moral standards of fellow authors, which unfortunately tends to happen quite frequently on “heavy” discussions. I am guessing that this could be a reason why some people are reluctant to join in. It was Bearsy’s decision to remove his and the related comments, which was fine by me.
I enjoy these sort of discussion too, Boadicea, and I’m pleased you enjoyed contributing to this one.
Hi Christopher.
Do I take it you are having a bad day? Your formatting makes your comment a bit difficult to read. Would you like me to have a go at sorting it out?
I’ve just adjusted the line spacing: hope you don’t mind!
Boadicea.
I don’t think this is a cop-out, in fact it’s absolutely germane to the subject of my post!
As Sipu pointed out, wealth or poverty is relative, and globalisation means that we in West, or multinational corporations use cheap labour (or the poor) from abroad in order to maximise profits, and provide us with cheap goods. Whether this provides welcome employment for these people or is exploitative depends on your viewpoint.
Thank you, FEEG.
Yes, absolutely agree!
Sipu.
Oh dear, but I hope you are not feeling too depressed. I have enjoyed reading your contributions to this debate, so many thanks for taking the time and trouble.
Whist I am not in total agreement with every detail, on the whole, and in the context of this debate, I think you have made some extremely valid points.
Also enjoyed reading Boadicea’s spirited rebuttal, but in my opinion, yours are the more persuasive, if slightly cynical arguments.
Oh! Dear! Sipu you seem to have missed my last paragraph on #49
So I’ll repeat
So, no I don’t automatically think that all the ‘haves’ are a bunch of ‘effete, idle rich bastards’, nor do I think that all the ‘poor’ are ‘automatically oppressed’. But, do find your attitude that the right to vote should be dependent on a set of paper qualifications and a tax return and your apparent contempt for the have-nots incredibly depressing…
I am arguing for a better balance in society – the fact that someone taking home $95,000 a week can even consider calling someone who earns $750 a week greedy disgusts me.
Christopher
Thank you for your answer to my California Constitution question. I don’t have too much problem with it – except that I think the percentages required to overturn legislation, etc far too low.
I’m sorry that you have had a bad day! Whilst I have a certain sympathy with the ‘Occupy’ movement – it would make me very angry to have my life disrupted too.
The very small ‘occupation’ in Brisbane was forcibly removed yesterday morning on the grounds that they were disrupting the city… Having walked past their ‘tents’ for the last few weeks I really can’t see that they were doing anything any one any harm.
Araminta
I’m definitely coming round to your view of the Greek referendum… I had no idea when I wrote that it will not take place for another three months, nor that it seems probable that the Greek PM will not survive that long. Good Heavens! The bailiffs aren’t just knocking at Greece’s door they are already inside – and the guy wants another three months to mess up the whole world’s economy!
I love these debates – unfortunately they never happen when I’m on the site! It throws me when comments are deleted and then referred to! More please!
With reference to your #49, Boadicea, what this Charioteer doesn’t like is a sudden change of mood and unpleasant comments coming out of the blue. I think it is this that cuts the number of comments. Sorry, Araminta, I’ve just lost interest in this.
Ah well. I thought this debate was, considering the subjects raised, fairly civilised – I shall go back to learning how to use my new toy… 😉
No problem, Sheona.
Thank you for your earlier contributions to this debate. I think it has probably run its course.
Thanks to everyone for their comments. I’m not closing the debate so please feel free to add to it.
New toy, Boadicea?
e-reader. Which, true to my usual form, I messed up within an hour and had to phone for help!
Bearsy reckons I don’t take enough time to read things properly. He just might be right – I once paid $2,500 for a $25 phone bill… it took over a week to get the money back…
Yesterday I hit the French option and couldn’t reset the wretched thing to English!
What fun! Well, you probably don’t think so. I hope you manage to make it work eventually. 🙂
I phoned the shop, Sony Centre. They contacted Sony – I have this belief that shops get through to help desks far quicker than Joe Blogs. Within an hour they had full instructions (in English!) for me to reset the thing.
We did try everything before phoning – including reading the English manual on line… So disaster over – I now have a full set of instructions – in English – on the reader.
Happy reading! I’m still resisting the urge to buy one, but Christmas is coming soon, so…..
It’s taken me a long time to actually get one. I decided to get one before going to the UK – but I couldn’t find a Sony e-reader anywhere here. I then tried in the UK and they weren’t available there either! I considered a Kindle – but it was obvious that there was going to be a new version.
In the meantime I did a bit more research – thanks to Rick. Apparently I can’t use the Kindle to download books from the library. So Sony it was – and then I found that they, too, have a new model!
So far I’m pretty impressed – especially as I got a 10% discount. I’ll only have to download 10 books (rather than buy them) to cut even…. and I won’t have to buy more book shelves!
Interesting. I’ve just checked and South Oxfordshire libraries do not have the facility to download books to an e-reader, or any electronic device as far as I can see, which is a bit of a pain.
They are quite a lot more expensive here than a Kindle. Daughter bought a Kindle a couple of months ago, and she loves it. I had a play with it and I’m impressed.
I shall obviously have to research this a bit more before I add to my Christmas list.
I’d be surprised if your library doesn’t have the facility. It was Rick who told me about being able to down-load from his library – and I was convinced that it wasn’t possible here.
Mind you my local council library doesn’t have that many – I had to join the Brisbane library to get a reasonable choice. I can down-load audiobooks as well – I’m listening to one as I type!
No, disappointing isn’t it? I checked on their website and the Sony site have a list of libraries who subscribe to the scheme, I’d have to join a Berkshire Library but I don’t know if that’s possible since I don’t live there!
I’ll double check next time I go to the library but it doesn’t look promising.
I’m off to bed now, so catch you tomorrow.
No, Boadicea, I felt that Bearsy’s comment was not “fairly civilised”. I stated the fact that my experience of voluntary work bore out what Sipu had said and was told that was “repulsive and unchristian”. I don’t know how a simple statement of fact qualifies as that.
When someone removes their comments from a thread, it is reasonable to suppose that the discussion will then proceed without further reference to the deleted comments or to their author.
In this case, that convention has been ignored, so I might just as well have let them stand.
I am less than delighted by being called unintelligent, illiterate, uncivilised and incapable of rational debate by Charioteers who should know better.
How much simpler it is for the rich to find self-indulgent comfort by occupying a few hours of their idle life demonstrating that they are “holier than thou”. A hypocritical conceit, if ever I saw one.
It’s easy to give money to good causes when you’re rolling in the wealth extorted from the labour of those at whom you look down your noses. It’s a lot harder when you have to count the pennies.
Yes, I find such attitudes repulsive, unchristian – and uncivilised.
The report.
My life went by fairly smoothly. The major walk-out never materialised. There was a small group of protesters occupying the lawn by the university’s central square, but nothing more. I didn’t go to the financial district, but the buses I took ran fairly smoothly.
Boadicea: the occupations are nuisances of varying degrees. In some cases they’re fairly harmless, in some they are getting out of hand — especially in Oakland. The problem is that they often do interfere with business. There have been nearly three thousand arrests in the US. In Baltimore, Maryland there is a scandal because the occupation leaders have advised rape victims not to go to the police. It’s become largely a question of keep the peace. What right to groups have to squat on city commons? Any other events or meetings that take place there, and there usually are many, are disrupted. They also quickly get filthy. There isn’t proper sanitation, they rarely pick up after themselves. In San Francisco the health department has advised the mayor to break the camp up because of this, though he’s thus far played a soft game with them as the mayoral election is next Tuesday.
Here is an article more elegantly written than anything I could come up with:
http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2011/11/02/democracy_versus_mob_rule
“Have any of you stopped to consider how hard it might be for people working a twelve-hour manual day to put food on the table for their children, or to pay their mortgage, to find the extra time and effort to contribute to charitable activities? ”
No, I didn’t stop to consider that working full-time with three children didn’t leave me time for voluntary work. I just did it, particularly since it was for the childrens’ schools.
Christopher
I’m pretty sure that the nuisance of the occupations vary – and that there is a health hazard. Being a bit of ‘let-them-pick-up-the-consequences’ sort of person I’d say let the occupiers suffer. But, of course, it isn’t just them that will suffer!
Sheona
With all due respect, there is a great difference between working as a full-time teacher and working in a 9-5 or 6 job… One can juggle the work-load when teaching, but not when when attendance at one’s place of work is mandatory. I do know I’ve done both 😉
I never managed to get out of attending my place of work, Boadicea. They always insisted on my presence every day, and in a private boarding school that included Saturday morning. The work-load was also set in stone or rather on a piece of paper called a timetable. I obviously taught in the wrong schools.
You obviously did, Sheona!
Just an update, Boadicea.
I did ask in the library about e-books and received an email response. Apparently, Oxfordshire Library Services are going digital next year but no date as yet. They are having technical problems!
Frankly more likely to be financial problems; the library service a casualty of the cuts, but we shall see. Interestingly they are going with the Sony e-book route, but the company they may be using has done a deal in the US to supply Kindle versions as well. They don’t know if this will be extended to the UK yet.
So, I will wait and see what happens.