If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
If Voting Changed Anything They'd Make It Illegal (pic)
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
If Voting Changed Anything They'd Make It Illegal
Voting does change things, it changes the people we have to listen too for the next 2 or 4 years. The thing that doesn't change is they all have the same flawed visions of correcting a system that hasn't worked since the Depression and have also succeeded in making it worse and brainwashing America to hang on every word they say.
Voting does change things, it changes the people we have to listen too for the next 2 or 4 years. The thing that doesn't change is they all have the same flawed visions of correcting a system that hasn't worked since the Depression and have also succeeded in making it worse and brainwashing America to hang on every word they say.
0
Comments
It's They with a capital T.
Don't you know anything... :rolleyes:
Them are They. They are Them. Them They They Them They. Them. Now do you understand?
They shot JFK. They killed Kenny. They bribe politicians. They drive slow in the fast lane. They speak rudely to waitresses etc
Haha, i was trying to think of example of things "They" did, but my mind went completely blank!
It also entirely depends on what voting is allowed, Iran has elections, but if you restrict who can vote and who they can vote for the whole thing is a farce.
Well yeah, but either way, you can always potentially change the world far more by writing a book than you can by voting. Which is why books are always going to be banned by a government before voting is. A good example would be Thailand which is a relatively free and fair voting system, but things such as criticism of the monarchy is banned (the monarchy being fairly similar in role to ours).
Getting worse indeed.
The working conditions may well have improved, but the relationship between workers and senior management is still very similar. Wealth and power is still held in a tiny amount of hands.
The relationship is very different. Real power is much more diffused than it used to be and there are some pretty strong checks and balances (if you work in the system you are much more aware of the checks on what you can do than anyone else. For example I can;t literally spend a penny of public money unless there is legislation to allow me to do so and powers have been handed down by the Accountable Officer).
That's if you don't include invisible power eg Unions, Academics, Universities, Think-Tanks, back-bench MPs (and through them voters) councillors, other Government Department Ministers, the Private Sector (though not nearly as powerful as people think - they don't speak with one voice).
Compare that to absolute monarchies, or even the Victorians and Edwardians and you see an absolutely different pattern of power.
I can see what you mean, but there is still quite often a big divide between those who work and those who have workers.
I'm not convinced the 'man in the street' really has all that much more power now than he has done, yes he can vote - but that rarely happens and when it does its largely a fore gone conclusion.
In any complex society (ie one large enough that people don't know each other directly) you are going to have to have representative rather than direct democracy. And yes, in any system, out of 60million people your vote is going to not be worth much individually on its own. PR is no better than FTP for this (and arguably often worse as it often then falls to behind the scenes horse trading between politicians with no clear link to what electors voted for).
I also think the worker/employer divide is overstated. Most employers work - the majority of people in this country either work for a small company (less than 50 workers) or the public/voluntary sector. And to be honest I've never seen the issue with equality. After all various countries have shown us the best way to achieve equality is to committ mass murder and drive everyone into equal poverty.
There are few democratic countries which have managed it - Sweden for example. But they have a different culture, with stronger communialism, but with the side impact of a strong emphasis on everyone conforming (less by legislation and more by societal pressure).
Now is the UK perfect - probably not. However if you compare it to alternatives overseas and in the past its 95% there (are as places as diverse as the US, France, Japan and Australia). I can have a say in running rhe country, I can put pressure on politicians (they do listen - often much to my irritation). I don't need to worry about food or shelter. The Government won't kill me for speaking out of turn, nor will various anti-state groups and despite claims in the media my chances of getting robbed and murdered by roving bandits is low.
I agree with your observation. However you seem to be suggesting that the diffused pattern of power is for the better.
I will suggest that it is not for the better if you happen to be on the receiving end. The individual is at the mercy of the mob.
On a personal note, you say legislation limits your power but legislation is a two edged sword that can significantly enhance those powers.
It depends how the power is diffused. In the UK at least it is not diffused to mobs.
And of course legislation could change the powers I hold - however it may not be easy to do as people think.
Fair enough, for now, what concerns me is the big number of laws on the books which could massively restrict our freedoms over night. I really think we have set the foundations for a future totalitarian state - and what scares more even more than that is that most people probably wont object.
To an extent it doesn't matter - if we decided to use the laws on detentions without trial to arrest every Muslim, then you'd already need the support of more than just 300+ MPs, but the armed forces, the police and the civil service.
If you have the support of them to do aliberal laws you actually don't need the laws in place. The vast majority of real dictatorships have basically ignored the law and the state does what it wants.
Things like constitutions, law, Government only work because people agree with them and want them to work. For example the US constitution works because not only does the President accept it, but so do the police, army etc. If they decided it was just a piece of paper it would become as useless as the Soviet constitution.
(Which isn't to say I support all the current laws - I think several of them are ill-concieved attacks on ancient liberty, but I don't think we're sleep-walking into a police state).
That is very true, there have more than a few abuses of the constitution in the US and because the people dont care enough its allowed.
I dont know, I just feel the 'hang em high' feeling is on the rise.
except that its the other way round. there have been arguments whether something is covered by the constituion eg are gitmo inmates covered. But when the court says something is unconstitutional the US has taken steps to stop doing it
Are they? I'd say they're the same as ever, for example look at anti-Jewish riots. Come to that look at most trials in 1900 - one of my beefs is that British Military justice in 1914-18 was seen as unfair and quick - when more soldiers had defenders (and especially after 1915 these people would often be professional lawyers) than their civilian counterparts and there was a well orchestrated appeals system with evidence that it was used.
I'm not sure there ever was a golden age of liberalism. Weimar Germany is the closest I can think off. and that liberalism sewed the seeds of its own destruction.
And all the illegal searches, the wire taps, the secret spying on the nation in the aid of the ‘war on terror’ not to mention all the raids and stop searches that take place because of the drug laws - piss tests being a prime example.
Plus the mixing of Church and state with Bush’s funding of almost purely faith based charity projects both in the US and in Africa
You might be right, I would like to think people might learn from our failed criminal justice system at some point, but it doesn’t look all that likely.
The President did decide that.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml