Liberal Democracy Paradox

The Paradox with Liberal Democracy is that it will not survive because it allows, even encourages, behaviour in the growing number of Special Interest Groups (SIGS ?) which is antithetical to true democracy; the latter being  dependent on personal responsibility and good behaviour.

Just sayin’.

Author: jazz606

An Old Dog

13 thoughts on “Liberal Democracy Paradox”

  1. Jazz. is that Liberal Democracy as defined by the LibDems themselves, or is there a purer version defined by PPE grandees?

    Would you identify, please, some of the SIGS encouraged by the liberal fraternity? What do they do?

  2. It is a comfort to see how many ordinary people are now standing up to ridicule and oppose the “liberal lefties” and luvvies.

  3. Jazz, I asked because I suspect not all democrats of a liberal bent are idiots, nor are all SIGS liberal by inclination. The whole topic is too broad to discuss without some clarity.

  4. What about the LBGT SIG for instance. The whole thing is preposterous, they’ve got us chasing our tails over text on ‘wedding’ cakes, segregation in toilets, guest houses being forced into taking gay couples.
    Notice the apostrophy around ‘wedding’ that’s because I don’t believe there is such a thing as a gay wedding or marriage, no matter how many laws are passed.
    If the conservative majority doesn’t stand up for the norms that have existed for millennia the liberal PC consensus will destroy Western society which is in a more fragile state than most realise.

    Also Liberals seem to be in favour of mass immigration which could lead to this country and others succumbing to Islamification. Well if that happens the first casualties will be the Liberals.
    Talk about turkeys and Christmas…….whoops !! Did I mention Christmas…..that certainly won’t be allowed.

  5. OK. As far as I remember, being very old y’know, Western society has been under threat since Cromwell. Luckily the power of the landed aristocracy is declining but unluckily other kinds of power systems have replaced them. If you think homosexuals should still be pilloried, that’s up to you; but people who disagree with you are now pilloried as a SIG!! Let’s blame the liberals anyway, eh?

  6. The Liberal Democrats in the UK and the Democrats in the US are as far from being ‘true believers’ in democracy as it is possible to be… they are as intolerant of alternative opinions as any totalitarian government has ever been – from Ghengis Khan through to Kim Jon Yong. The only opinions they acknowledge are those that support their own blinkered view of the world and not only ignore those who do not agree, but also denigrate them.

    The present ‘democrats’ have managed to take the ‘high moral ground’ – of course they have. They have learnt that no one wants to be called ‘racist’, ‘sexist’ or any other ‘ist’ – and since, all we Westerners take pride in our tolerance, they have managed to silence debate on issues that need to be discussed – unlimited immigration, acceptance of other religion’s beliefs which contravene our own laws, single sex marriage, etc, etc…

    But, what these “liberals’ do not understand is the politics of opposition. Which is, quite simply, that those people who feel silenced and excluded will, eventually, find a common ground to unite and form a sufficiently powerful and an overwhelmingly large group to challenge the views of what is, in fact, a relatively small number of people with an outrageously loud voice.

    What they also seem to misunderstand is that the backlash will be far more devastating to their policies than it might have been had they been prepared to listen to and accomodate those who, while agreeing with their principles, do not agree with the way they want to implement their ideology.

    I don’t want to pillory homosexuals – or anyone else for that matter. Live and Let Live is, and always has been, my motto – but let me live and believe what I think is right too – and listen to my opinions.

    I’m not sure of Jazz’s objections to Gay marriage. But, I don’t think that any law can or should change the definition of the word ‘marriage’ as signifying the union of two people of the opposite sex. I don’t have any problem with a law acknowledging the union of two people of the same sex and giving them the same legal rights as the legal union between those of opposite genders – but find another word! Stop trying to equate two things that are totally different and calling them the same.

    The present situation whereby every Special Interest Group demands that its views are the only ‘correct’ view is very much like the fragmentation of Christianity in the 16th C when every splinter group believed that they, and only they, knew the road to salvation. Fortunately, the 16th C was less tolerant than we have been and told the dissenters that while they had the right to think what they liked the rest of society was going down the road of what the majority thought – and they could like it, leave it – or lump it.

    The present bunch of ‘ democrats’ will destroy themselves – and the sooner the better,

  7. Boa, does that mean all SIGS are bad – the only good injun is a dead injun-wise? Surely representing commonly held views IS what democracy is about?

  8. Bo has it in one!

    Well, as a surviving member of the dinosaurs I am pleased to exhibit every’ ist’ and ‘ism’ known to woolly liberals and mankind.
    Definitely racist, totally xenophobist, (ergh?) utterly sexist and irrefutably antiLGBTist. And very pleased to be so. Sure I’ve missed some out there but I confidently expect to succumb to those too.

    One of my chief forms of entertainment with the limp locals is to bait them on such subjects in a vocabulary of polysyllabic latinisms of which they have no idea of the meaning. One of my favourites is to assure them, with a straight face that, I shall regard homosexuals worthy of ‘marriage’ when they are able to achieve parturition anally until then one must assume the worst. This appears to be an acceptable answer! Bloody funny, how do these total cretins actually get a vote?

    I swear, we would all be a lot better off if enfranchisement was restricted to that previous to the Reform Act of 1867!!! I’d gladly give up my vote to make sure they didn’t have it either! I cannot think that universal adult suffrage has been anything but an abject failure.

  9. But J: SIGS do not represent commonly held views. They should be called SMIGS or Special Minority Interest Groups.

  10. Janus – you are being deliberately perverse (long may it last!!!) Let’s take two items:

    First the all-in-one-gender-neutral loos. Personally, and I’m pretty sure I’m not in a minority, I do not want to go into a loo with urinals… and all that that entails, and, since very few women’s loos have sufficient cubicles anyway (try those in theatres and other such places!) I really don’t see why I should have to queue even longer than I do so that some extremely small percentage of the population who can’t make up their mind what they are can feel they are ‘not being discriminated’ against.

    Then there is the latest nonsense from the British Medical whatever, that doctors must no longer call pregnant women ‘mother’ – for fear of offending transgenders…

    Give me a break! People have to face the fact that sometimes that the world is not fair, and that it is impossible to provide a ‘level playing’ field’ without discriminating against some one else… and the majority opinion has to prevail.

  11. Boa, as I’m sure you realise, I’m campaigning against catch-all terms and the baby-with-the-bathwater-syndrome. It might be argued that Farage’s Brexit lobby was a SIG – hardly a liberal activity!

Add your Comment

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s