La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 LDV perhaps I have a too science fiction view of the future! The present situation is getting more and more 'Orwellian' and the political sub-group of society certainly appear to increasingly want to control and have oversight over communications. Terrorism and 'international crime' serve as useful and plausible reasons for increasing the surveillance society. The pessimistic view is that this will lead to ever increasing controls over our day to day lives. Totally, which is why I mentioned in another thread how much the American government, and every government in the world loved it when 9/11 happened. Just look at all the legislation, largely unnecessary that came out of Britain. Not so sure I would agree with the comparisons of government. Modern 'democracy' is the real first form of government where it has been pretended that the system is about government OF the people. Prior to that there have been systems where the people have input to the same very limited degree as today, but the government was never declared to be representative of the people in the strictest sense, not until 1800s. What I think needs to seen is that no liberal democratic system in history and at any stage has really in effect been government by the people. Even American in the late 1700s was not a government of the people. I don't agree with what you say about the widening of the franchise. You sound as if you think that a smaller franchise will lead to better representation or that politicians used to reflect the interests of the people more so when the franchise was limited. But governments have never had the interests of the people in mind. Once someone has power their interests immediately change, they are not a reflection of the people you represent. This is the same regardless of the size of the electorate and extent of competing interests within the electorate (i.e. not the elites). If future technologies allow each of us to intervene in the political process and to represent ourselves we will in one sense be going back to a pre-Westminster system of popular democracy. Will future politicians pull the plug on mass communication technologies? They may have to if they want to keep power centralised. But will they be able to? I don't know where you get this idea of popular democracy. I don't believe it has ever existed. Pre-Westminster is feudalism, not popular democracy. It's a bit like saying Tynwald was democratic. You would have to explain more about what this intervention in the political process would entail. I don't understand the specifics. It is, as you know, how that technology is used. How do you circumvent the power and control of the government? How do you make decisions and implement them in society using new technology? I am interested, just wonder how it could come about. If politicians tried to pull the plug on the internet there would no doubt be serious consequences, because it would be a complete affront to freedom that could hardly be adequently justified in a liberal democratic society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 LDV perhaps I have a too science fiction view of the future! The present situation is getting more and more 'Orwellian' and the political sub-group of society certainly appear to increasingly want to control and have oversight over communications. Terrorism and 'international crime' serve as useful and plausible reasons for increasing the surveillance society. The pessimistic view is that this will lead to ever increasing controls over our day to day lives. Totally, which is why I mentioned in another thread how much the American government, and every government in the world loved it when 9/11 happened. Just look at all the legislation, largely unnecessary that came out of Britain. If the majority of people really knew the implications of all the laws that came out there would be more outrage at the Labour government that there is at present. I am currently writing an essay on British threats to democracy and you may be amazed (I am) at how much complicity there has been in the torture of terrorists suspects over the past eights years. Not so sure I would agree with the comparisons of government. Modern 'democracy' is the real first form of government where it has been pretended that the system is about government OF the people. Prior to that there have been systems where the people have input to the same very limited degree as today, but the government was never declared to be representative of the people in the strictest sense, not until 1800s. You could argue that the Norse systems of government were much more open and participtive than anything since. The level of 'representation' in the Westminster system gradually increased over the centuries and the centre of power gradually shifted from the Lords to the Commons from the 16th century onwards. It certainly had a very limited franchise - really up until women got the vote in 1928 What I think needs to seen is that no liberal democratic system in history and at any stage has really in effect been government by the people. Even American in the late 1700s was not a government of the people. It has always been government by a small elite whose power rests of their wealth and property. They have wanted control and have wanted to keep it in their hands. In a liberal democratic society people have always had the ability to express their views within society and to their government. But decision making has only remained in the hands of the elite. The elite want representation because it keeps control in their hands. They will not relinquish that control without resistance. I don't agree with what you say about the widening of the franchise. You sound as if you think that a smaller franchise will lead to better representation or that politicians used to reflect the interests of the people more so when the franchise was limited. But governments have never had the interests of the people in mind. Once someone has power their interests immediately change, they are not a reflection of the people you represent. This is the same regardless of the size of the electorate and extent of competing interests within the electorate (i.e. not the elites). I think you may have misread what I said - my point is that as the voter franchise was extended (ostensibly enlarging 'democracy' Parties enforced tighter and tighter rules on their members to manage political discipline - so as more people got the vote politicians got less and less freedom to vote in Parliament according to their own conscience. I don't mean that smller franchises give more democracy - just that larger ones have not delivered it. If future technologies allow each of us to intervene in the political process and to represent ourselves we will in one sense be going back to a pre-Westminster system of popular democracy. Will future politicians pull the plug on mass communication technologies? They may have to if they want to keep power centralised. But will they be able to? I don't know where you get this idea of popular democracy. I don't believe it has ever existed. Pre-Westminster is feudalism, not popular democracy. It's a bit like saying Tynwald was democratic. LDV there was more participation in the Norse and Anglo-Saxon Assemblies than there ever was in the Westminster system. My view is that the Norman and post Norman era intrduced much more authoritarian rule which continues in a modified form to today. You would have to complain more about what this intervention in the political process would entail. I don't understand the specifics. It is, as you know, how that technology is used. How do you circumvent the power and control of the government? How do you make decisions and implement them in society using new technology? I am interested, just wonder how it could come about. I would like to see more general discussion of this. I don't know of any major work being done on the impact of future technologies on the political system (other than trivial stuff on e-voting). maybe I need to write "2084" to stir things up a bit! If politicians tried to pull the plug on the internet there would no doubt be serious consequences, possibly even revolution (even in badly directed sense) because it would be a complete affront to freedom that could hardly be adequently justified in a liberal democratic society. Although Britain is one country that has had some serious attacks to its civil liberties from the government and people are largely apathetic. But then liberal democratic governments only survive becase of general apathy. Maybe if the internet was switched off or we went to a PRC style censorship and supervision people would start to resist? Or would we just roll over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 any new petitions made to National electric grid?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 You could argue that the Norse systems of government were much more open and participtive than anything since. The level of 'representation' in the Westminster system gradually increased over the centuries and the centre of power gradually shifted from the Lords to the Commons from the 16th century onwards. It certainly had a very limited franchise - really up until women got the vote in 1928 But in what sense, partipatory in being allowed to pass over your views to your ruler, or in decision making? But it certainly was an interesting to have the people come to their rulers and state what was wrong with things. I think you may have misread what I said - my point is that as the voter franchise was extended (ostensibly enlarging 'democracy' Parties enforced tighter and tighter rules on their members to manage political discipline - so as more people got the vote politicians got less and less freedom to vote in Parliament according to their own conscience. I don't mean that smller franchises give more democracy - just that larger ones have not delivered it. Oh I see what you mean. But it would not necessarily be of benefit to have politicians vote their conscience. To go back to what I was saying, once in power one's interests alter. Whereas you might be a man of the people before entering government you are certainly not when you become a politicians. You can only have meaningful democracy when people participate in decision making. LDV there was more participation in the Norse and Anglo-Saxon Assemblies than there ever was in the Westminster system. My view is that the Norman and post Norman era intrduced much more authoritarian rule which continues in a modified form to today. I agree with what you say about the Normans. But I don't believe there is a continuation today, not that you imply that. We are not in a feudal state. Representation is totally different from the authoritarian of the Normans. I would like to see more general discussion of this. I don't know of any major work being done on the impact of future technologies on the political system (other than trivial stuff on e-voting). maybe I need to write "2084" to stir things up a bit! What is your theory on the potential of technology? Are you talking about a reform on methods of participation or removal of the system? Maybe if the internet was switched off or we went to a PRC style censorship and supervision people would start to resist? Or would we just roll over? Not likely in the near future. It would cause massive uproar. It is too blatantly a threat to freedom. Many would roll over. Liberal democratic systems breed apathy, it is how they survive. But too many will not stand for it. I think so anyway. You or I wouldn't roll over. Nobody using this forum would either, certainly not Albert Tatchlock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 any new petitions made to National electric grid?? lamp post cam action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.