Jump to content

rohirwine

WFG Retired
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2.853

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by rohirwine

    Same-sex Marriage Bill

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    @Klaas: Iirc, it is common that Israely citizens go to Cyprus to marry if they do not share the same religion, but i did't ever thought of a case like the one you quoted, Klaas.

    @Jeru: can you give us some more clues?

    @Klaas (again): i thinkthat the fact that marriage is sacred is not related only to believers. As an istance, i'm not a believer, but my marriage is somewhat "sacred" to me. In the sense that i really get annoyed if someone makes unasked criticism or makes any sort of nasty joke about it (i'm not talking of innocent and friendly jokes, of course). Nevertheless, i don't think this means that i believe my marriage is sacred in the sense of being granted by a superior being, or because intended for a religious dictated purpose...

    ...it is sacred for me and my wife, for the love we share.

    And i suspect that many people who are not religious think roughly as do i (homosexuals included, of course...)

    :)

    Good Political Representation In Democracies

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    The 2-party system is bad enough, there was a 30 hour session over 4 judicial nominees for gods sake!  One can only imagine what more parties would do in a much larger country.  Would it break down into constant bickering?  Would parties need to compromise with each other to get anything to pass?  Maybe that's a good thing...

    Reading up on Latin America can really put it in perspective at how difficult it can be to maintain a good, fair government.

    Imho, the Latin America situation (as in other countries) does not depend mainly on the electoral system.

    There is a deadly mix of:

    1)Foregin interferences into domestic affairs (and, i'm sorry to say this, among those countries the most active in this sense is the USA).

    2)Enormous public indebtement, wich throws those countries in the hands of the IMF (see what happened in the once propserous Argentina).

    3)Widespread analphabetism and a quite huge poverty: people tend to elect who promise them a miracle (populism: in Italy we have the same situation... :)) or simply exchange their vote for money or some other kind of favor.

    There are some exception to this, the Brazilian case being the most known, but even Brazil has his problems in getting out from this...

    ;)

    Good Political Representation In Democracies

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    @Curufinwe: it is not necessary to have that f*****g mess. In Germany, iirc, they have a mechanism called "constructive distrust", or something like that. I think it works in this way: the government presents a law project, the opposition does the same ont he same subject, if the government issue does not pass, then the opposition law is automatically approved, with no govern crisis. I would like to hear from our German friends if this is true...

    @Adam

    I'm falling more and more into political nihilism

    I hear you. Especially since I tend to get caught up in conspiracy therories that only strengthen the logic of this point of view :D

    Hmm, i would refrain from conspiracy theories if i were you...

    ...most times (after years) they come out to be far from true (at least)... (y)

    Democracy, Good Or Bad?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    As a matter of fact, the only revolution not ended in an authoritarian government is the American one.

    What is a dictatorship? Is a system, where you only have a choice between two parties (the Devil and his associate), a democratic system? Is a country where political trends were forbidden (communism) a real democracy? ;)

    *beginning of point two*

    Please note that i talked about "authoritarian" outcomes of revolutions, not about dictatorships.

    A part from this, i think, if i understood you correctly (new acronim: IIUC, lol ;)), that we agree on the fact that having to choose between two alternatives (devil and his associate) is not a real political freedom (but i'd not call it a dictatorship, where you have no choice, but to agree with the "chief"): this is why i'm strongly in favour of proportional electoral systems and against "bipolarist" ones.

    I understand less your second statement: in wich democracy is communism actually forbidden?

    Not here in Italy, not in France or in other european countries, in the US maybe it's forbidden to use that name, but i'm quite sure there are (minoritarian) marxist political groups (any clues on this from our US friends?). The problem is that, with the experience of the soviet countries, the word communism has lost his "appeal" for many years in the future, and many people do not like to hear good opinions about "communism" because they think about the soviet experience. This is not a surprise for me. But, afaik, there are many communist parties in the western countries (even if they are stil debating if it would be the case to change their names...)

    :D

    Anyway (y) to you... :D

    Democracy, Good Or Bad?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    (y)
    The same things can be said about the French revolution, it all began for a need for democratization, but it ended in a dictatorship

    Well, I have to say that I only half-agree here ... true that some people called for more democracy, but like for the US, it was more a shout from merchants who saw themwelves as aristocrats but were not given the same rights.

    Actually, Louis XVI refused to give the "Third State" (big land owners who were not aristocrats) the same rights as nobles ... and that's what infuriated them ... they just rallied a lot of people who were also fed up with the feasts of the King while they starved.

    Going to split my reply in two pieces here, i beg your pardon.

    I partly disagree with you (even if you are French :D): The "third state" included not only the High Burgeoisie, but the biggest part of it (not only big land owners), only the little artisans being on the edge of the "Fourth State". And even if i agree that it was a incomplete democratization, i think that the French Revolution was nonetheless a democratization process (not completed).

    Moreover, it has been more important for the ideas that it brought on, than for the achievements it reached.

    *end of point one*

    ;)

  13. Why Do German/dutch People...

    in Introductions & Off-Topic Discussion

    Posted

    Moreover Napoleon could make that law only "after" the American Indipendence War, even if France and the U.S. were allied for most of the napoleonic wars period...

    Why could he only make that law after that war?

    @Klaas: that's what I was thaught, so blame my history teacher for that. Anyway, it could be because of both that reasons.

    Because the American Independence wars were fought starting from 1774 to 1777 (IIRC), wether Napoleon siezed power in 1799: in 1777 he was pretty young. (y)

    Good Political Representation In Democracies

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    True but utopic imho. That's just the way how most people are, they like to listen to the things they like, not to serious matters. I don't think you can change much about that, or maybe I'm just too pessimistic about this.

    Well, not all is lost, imho.

    When someone hits the ground he will likely begin to think why it hurts so bad (y)

    The most important thing is that in the meantime still there was someone pointing out things that were going astray. The more people, the better.

    A good work could be done in schools (like explaining the political and electoral system: this was almost ignored in Italy, even if it was scheduled in school programs).

    Every little effort helps, imho.

    Democracy, Good Or Bad?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well, it developed in a dictatorship, but it has been a revolution, indeed.

    And, most of all, IIRC i believe that Cromwell became a "dictator" later, when he lost support from growing sectors of the parliament.

    The same things can be said about the French revolution, it all began for a need for democratization, but it ended in a dictatorship (not talking about the Bolshevic revolution).

    As a matter of fact, the only revolution not ended in an authoritarian government is the American one.

    Ah, Klaas, i didn't have the Netherlands in mind (y)

    Good Political Representation In Democracies

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Well, i was not talking about direct corruption: even if many politicians are not directly rewarded for their favours, they still get much support from big companies or other kind of lobbies (not necessarily linked to the economic world). I'm thinking of the funds granted for the presidential elections in the USA, for istance.

    In Italy we too had a great season against corruption, unlike Belgium alas, today there are more and more politicians (and not all of them are from mr.Berlusconi's friends) who keep on saying that the law actions against corrupted politicians were a political manouver to overthrow the government.

    But this was not the point. I find that, sadly, politicians tend to be less prepared in their work and rely every day more on tv audience and a good media strategy rather than on a good agenda. Moreover, this is of course joined with a political "unreadyness" of the electors, who let themselves be blinded by populistic promises and do not think in a medium-long term.

    So, i must agree with you and amend my previous thinking with the next proposition: political and civil education is vital for the vitality of our democracies. Active partecipation of responsible and politically-aware citizens in the decisional processes is desiderable, if not needed.

    After all, we have no right to criticize our politicians if all we do about it is sitting apart and giving caustic comments waiting for the "election day".

    (y)

    Matteo

    Good Political Representation In Democracies

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    It is an issue linked to the "Democracy. Good or bad" thread.

    I'll explain my point of view.

    It's my humble opinion that there is no clue in discussing if democracy is a good thing if we do not decide wich kind of democracy we are talking about.

    I firmly believe that democracy is the best political government developed on earth, but it must be made accessible and affordable to every citizen. Most of all, a democracy should satisfy the representative needs of the major part of his citizens.

    Otherwise people could get progressively annoyed and disappointed with the political system.

    This leads me to the second part of my consideration: how much our politicians (in western countries, but not only) act as to meet this fundamental requirements?

    Not much, imho. There have been clearly many issues lately that were completely disattended by the "bigs" on Earth (it comes to my mind about the environmental problems, the Iraq war, just to remain in international issues, but i'm sure that even in domestic affairs every country has similar examples), mainly because they owed much to economical powers and various lobbies for their election, or for their political fortunes.

    Imho, this has to be stopped, if we want to save our democracies, and if we want that our democracies should be looked at as an example of justice and not as the reign of corruption.

    Matteo

    Same-sex Marriage Bill

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    I agree with Curufinwe: the total separation would be the best solution, but...

    ...but many believers do not want that the state is separated from religion (i'm mainly thinking about some catholics and muslims, but i'm sure that there are other religions do not agree on the necessity of separation).

    So, even if the topic is "same-sex marriage bill" (wich regards legal union, btw) the real question should be: "will (christian, mainly) belivers tolerate that a state (Ohio) allows legal unions between homosexuals"?

    Wich lead us to the problem of religion and state separation.

    Matteo

    Democracy, Good Or Bad?

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    After all, almost all modern democracies initially were born out from revolutions (thinking of England, USA, France, mainly). And they were bloody affairs indeed. After all, in those periods (and not only those) the phisical struggle replaced the political one quite often only because the political field of action of parliaments (or other kind of assemblies) was quite limited (and this is almost tautological, in an absolute monarchy).

    The only chance to change something was to phisically oblige the government (and the king) to change his mind or to remove it from power. I think that today this is quite unnecessary (in many states, at least), since people have many more ways to get listened to...

    Matteo

    Downfall Of Nations

    in Hall of Intellectuals

    Posted

    Here's some more pondering material...

    -Has there ever been a downfall of a nation where greed was not a factor?

    -Is it the greed of the people or the greed of the leaders? Both? Does this trend change over time?

    Greed it's a term too much imbibed with a moral connotation.

    People usually tend to survive, a small minority enjoys a life standard that allows us to call them greedy. Society usually tries to survive, and social models arise or (down)fall for the simple reason that thei're fit no more for the current situation.

    The western roman empire fell for both economic and social reasons: no one had any reason to accur in defence of the emperor, since his loyalty was bonded to local princes for survival reasons (the "princes" were the real persons to control economic wealth and production and thus the possibility of survival). After many centuries this was the same reason that led the Bizantine empire to decay and, lately to fell under the strokes of the Turks (and the Western powers: Bulgaria, Venice, Serbia and so on).

    So, especially in ancient-medieval and modern times, greed equalled the need for human groups to extend exploitable lands for many reasons (demographic increases, dietary changes and so on). Maybe only today we can speak of greed, but debating this point would lead as far OT...

    (y)

×
×
  • Create New...