World Forums

"who am I to judge, I live in the US."

Yes, in the US Freemasonry is very different, isn't it.

Or, is it?

: : :

Or, is it?

The meaning of life, or is it?

Anyway I have to ask. You're a regular here but we really don't know who you are.
As you can see we mostly wear our lives on our sleeves. It's cool if you don't want to reveal because as far as I can see, you add knowledgable perspectives.

Synthese:

"Innovation of the referenda kind are necessary to create a check and balance. Look at the American system of triumvirate power in the three branches of its government. Learn something."

What's your point? The USA does not have national referenda.

Any ministerial office should be run by an elected official answerable to the electorate in a parliamentary democracy. Not some crony who kisses ass for an elected Prime Minister/President who has nominated them.

In the parliamentary system, the people elect the members of parliament, and the members of parliament elect the prime minister and approve his or her nominees for cabinet. That is parliamentary democracy.

But that's really beside the point. You want the EU to dictate the political system of the member states. That's showing a huge contempt for the idea of subsidiarity, as well as a total ignorance over the cultural differences and national traditions within the diverse Union that is the EU. And it has no place in any future EU constitution.

So you approve of ex-Ministers of State becoming lobbyists in Brussels? I shouldn't doubt that.

Nope, that's not what you said or I said. This is what you said: "prevent elected officials from returning to any private activity connected to thier past responsibilities"

And this is the consequence of that suggestion:

A former minister of agriculture could not return to farming
A former minister of fisheries could not return to fishing
A former minister of communications could not sell mobile phones or deliver mail
A former finance minister could not work in a bank or other financial institution
A former minister of justice could not return to practicing law as an attorney
A former minister of health could not return to working as a nurse or doctor
A former minister of energy could not return to working at a petrol station or at a power plant
A former minister of education could not return to working as a teacher

And the same would go for committee members in parliament, regional assemblies, local councils etc.

And, as a consequence of that, all these positions would be filled by people who did not risk losing their professional livelihood if they should be ousted after the next election or retire from politics altogether. No one working as a teacher, professor or lecturer would accept the education portfolio in an elected position if they knew that it would mean that they could never return to that job again. Instead, the teacher would ask for another portfolio. Maybe she could swap with the economist. The teacher would take the finance portfolio and the economist would take the education portfolio. Brilliant.

Who wants to preserve/promote a system that is dysfunctional? An idiot, that's who.

But you voted to keep it the way it is. Idiot!

The constitution proposed made no reference to the word "referendum"

Neither should it have. But I'm not going to discuss again the idea of the referendum as a superior method of democracy. Suffice it to say that I support the representative democracy, and that in one of the few countries where referenda is part of every-day life, namely Switzerland, people turn out in average numbers of 30% (which means 70% prefer the people's elected representatives to deal with the issue) and that a consequence of direct "democracy" in Switzerland was that universal suffrage was not introduced until 1971.

The purest form of democracy is 2 cats and 1 mouse voting on what to have for lunch.

It's as if the people's consent was not to be considered in matters of politics ... probably because the representative elite thought them too stupid to be concerned

The people elect whoever they want to elect. If the people's representatives are stupid or ignorant, then that's a reflection on the people who voted them in.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/bw/20050713/bs_bw/tc200507136688tc120;_ylt=AlVOOjH1xweVUGWhVwOx.9iyBhIF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

Europe's Patent on Failure: A proposed law to create Europewide rules for patenting software was soundly defeated July 6 in Strasbourg, France, after five long years of wrangling among the
European Commission, the European Parliament, and aggressive lobbyists.

Good sense made an appearance at the European Parliament recently.

A proposed software patent law, simple at first, and confused by amendment after amendment, was finally voted down as unworkable. Does this remind anyone, other than me, about the hazards of "catch all" legislation ... like the last Constitution. KISS!

Software patent law is part art and part emotion. Once one starts patenting software based upon a presumption that it has a specificity (function and purpose), then lawyers will simply confuse matters by claiming infringement when another piece of software seems to work in a similar manner (even if its purpose is different).

The danger is therefore that patent law does not protect the authors of software but simply creates another business niche for argumentative lawyers. In most instances, it is best to keep lawyers out of litigation if at all possible. A lawyer exists to go to court because his/her fees are dependent upon a court trial. So, better to go through mediation, which is rarely the case since everyone wants "justice" to be done and be found "right" by a court of justice.

What's your point? The USA does not have national referenda.

Aside from persistently crowing about "democracy", the US does NOT necessarily have the most democratic system on earth. They simply think they do, because they constantly repeat it to themselves.

They do have a larger usage of referenda at the state level, however, than we've seen to date in Europe. In Europe, the only country that has fully integrated referenda into its political process is, as you know (since we've already had this discussion here), Switzerland. In fact, many states make usage of referenda extremely difficult, since they feel it "perturbs the political process".

So, what's my point? It's simple: Democracy is constantly work-in-progress. We can always do better. Integrating citizens into the process takes much work and education and even more trial and error. It has to be learned.

For the moment, we tend to think that ordinary citizens "cannot be bothered" by complex legislation. We think that the archaic method of sending "representatives" to attend to laws and the legislative process is the best form of democracy. I challenge that precept. (NB: Sending representatives to a parliament was simply a usage since distances were large and a national assembly was necessary. The internet has killed "distance" and therefore the usage of representatives must be rethought. What is thier real purpose?)

If we are truly concerned about democracy, then citizens must participate in the process as much as they participate in that of going to the market to find food - which amounts to about two hours a week for a purpose that is vital to their existence. Is democracy any less important?

Boye, you are quite possibly a member of the "politics as usual" community. Traditional politics is one of parties that each support a common platform. The purpose of this is to identify platforms distinctively and present them to the public for acceptance at the voting urn. There is little difference between this and preparing a product for market. What "marketeers" look to underscore and present as an image is product differentiation. Both politicians and product marketeers look to control the debate and in that manner to impose their "product".

All too often these platforms, as usually occurs in the US and Europe, become confused by political personalities. People vote a president more on his/her style than political principals, for as long as the latter are not terribly unconventional. It often descends into mudslinging and character assassination - because candidates cannot divorce themselves from their political platforms, the latter being far more important to the body politic. Or, it should be, but rarely is. This childishness too is "democracy".

I am proposing that the political product be prepared for mass marketing and not the restricted concern of a coterie of individuals who have shown their propensity for confusing the public business with their own personal advancement. Whether it is a question of deciding where to build the town's football grounds or, at the other end, the disbursement of national funds, the political process must take into account public sentiment.

I am looking for "check and balance" in the political process, which, in Europe, has become far too concentrated in political leadership. This cannot work well in the long-term and the refusal of the Constitution was an example of the acute public dismay with the present political process.

Using referenda is a new way of doing politics in most of the world. But, it is not all that innovative. Just look at its impact in the US, California for example. (Even Rome, for a time, had the plebes vote over certain aspects of Roman law.) It will take a long term effort to get people interested in referenda and become accustomed to it habitually.

So, we should start now, since the route is long.

It's cool if you don't want to reveal because as far as I can see, you add knowledgable perspectives.

Thanks for your understanding, Bineaz. That's the way I would prefer to participate.

Where I come from or where I am going to should be of no concern to anyone who will be posting here. In the debate of ideas, it is content that counts. (I also happen to agree with that poster who, as a byline, states that what we say here will affect little. It is a mere drop in the ocean of words that transit the cyberspace.)

My apologies to anyone who may feel offended by that attitude.

A former minister of agriculture could not return to farming
A former minister of fisheries could not return to fishing
A former minister of communications could not sell mobile phones or deliver mail
A former finance minister could not work in a bank or other financial institution
A former minister of justice could not return to practicing law as an attorney
A former minister of health could not return to working as a nurse or doctor
A former minister of energy could not return to working at a petrol station or at a power plant
A former minister of education could not return to working as a teacher

Your reaching at the absurd, Boye. You can do better than the above.

Ministers or other functionaries should not return as lobbyists to the ministries that they once managed. They should not represent in any manner a private enterprise to any government office. This should reduce not only graft but "sweetheart" deals ... of the kind that forced the Pentagon to disbar Boeing from future contracts.

The EU does not have a handle on this problem, though, admittedly, neither does it disburse a budget the size of the US government. But, better to settle the problem now than when it raises its ugly head later.

The relationship of national representatives to the EU, whilst members of the latter, is well worth describing in an amendment to a EU constitution.

The people elect whoever they want to elect. If the people's representatives are stupid or ignorant, then that's a reflection on the people who voted them in.

This is simplistic.

What alternative do we/they have? Give them the power of referenda and you'll see the difference. Or, did the referenda refusal of the Constitution teach you nothing?

If you are really interested, do what I suggested months ago: Have a long look at the way referenda are employed in Switzerland. It is a fine example of its usage at the level of national politics and how a population can be trained to use referenda as an expression of public sentiment. (Ditto California.)

Yes, the Swiss vote many times in the year on referendum issues, and the voter participation is often minimal. Nonetheless, it is a "check and balance" that is so necessary in the political process - a lesson that most European nations are just beginning to learn.

Just look at the relatively "new notion" in Europe that the Judiciary branch should be independent of the Executive branch. There are still Eastern Block nations that have not yet understood ... and they are recent members of the EU.

Anyone who thinks that the political process that we presently have is the best of all possible worlds has his head stuck in the ground and his ass high in the air - which is a very dangerous posture ...

Bineaz: The meaning of life, or is it?

I don't know if this question intended to open another avenue of discussion in this thread or not.

It is, perhaps, worthwhile mentioning the difference in cultural values between the EU and the US. (Which I've done before, so excuse the repetition.)

Europe is largely a collective culture and the US is an individualist culture. Cultures are dynamic things and this is therefore obviously a simplistic categorization. For instance, the US during the Johnson years was more collective in its concern for social values. It has changed direction sharply and is now more individualistic with its fixation on capital accumulation and its adulation of the rich. (Those whom the gods would destroy, they first shower in fame.)

The EU was constituted of European countries that knew, both before and after WW2, a cohesion based upon social values. Historically, this was a reaction to the fact that riches (ownership of the means of production) had accumulated in the hands of a comparatively minor percentage of the population. This is always dangerous in any society since it creates social fractures that develop hatred and therefore severe reaction.

The two current perspectives on economic activity, between the US and Europe, are therefore quite different. The US is firmly within a value-system based upon personal enrichment. Many American looked at the stock market as a money-printing machine, until the bubble changed radically that attitude in 2001. They then looked upon declining interest rates (of housing mortgages) and rising property prices as a means to unlock residual financial value. This "attitude" towards markets is very different from Europe.

First, Europe is just embarking upon a program of housing development that will turn renters into owners. Secondly, though they thought that the stock market was a worthwhile investment early in this century, the bubble put that dream to waste and Europeans retracted greatly from the market. The market has been correcting itself from a long decline since early 2003, but the Europeans have largely not flocked back to it.

In fact, much of Europe is in serious decline in terms of net wealth, and most concerns are fixed upon subsisting rather than expanding personal wealth. But, what is the important consequence of this decline?

It is that its traditional (through a long history from 1945 to 1990) faith in a persistent economic growth managed by a political elite has come to a screeching halt in the last decade. (The politicos haven't noticed that evidently and if they did, they haven't offered a cogent response. To wit, the Constitution fiasco.)

This experience has strengthened, in the lower classes, their adhesion to social entitlements and therefore "social values" that they felt the constitution betrayed - which was not at all the case, but the political class was inept at explaining "Why that was not the case".

Will social/personal outlooks change between the US and Europe? Indubitably. Societies are in continuous flux. But, given what has happened in the US, and underscored by Bush's unilateral behaviour regarding Iraq, the animosity towards an American value-system based upon personal enrichment will take a long, long time installing itself in Europe. (Any economy where 85% of the riches generated go to only 5% of the population is seriously questionable. Why? Because most of that personal wealth is then handed down, and not earned, within the family. This is a betrayal of social fairness and the notion that "everybody has a chance".)

Tony Blair is an innovator, but I suspect he understands very well the fundamental differences between the two societies. There is much that Europe can learn from the US, as regards industry and commerce and the Holy Grail of sustained productivity - but there is also much that the US can learn from the EU as regards social equity. (The US spends four times more per capita on health than Europe, for a medical system that is classed 37th by the WHO.)

I am not sure if this was what you intended by your remark, but thanks for the opportunity to harp on some very salient differences between the two societies.

For instance, the US during the Johnson years was more collective in its concern for social values.

As Maggie Thatcher did for Britain and to some extent Europe.

Because most of that personal wealth is then handed down, and not earned, within the family. This is a betrayal of social fairness and the notion that "everybody has a chance".)

What strikes me is how ruthlessly the ruling interests in the US have worked to install their objectives. The elimination of the estate tax is a prime example. The estate tax was originally created--before the income tax--to address that very issue as the titans of the turn of the century had amassed great wealth.

You want the EU to dictate the political system of the member states.

If the EU Constitution was to contain elements related to a "social Europe", then why not a "democratic Europe"?

If the nations were capable of determining the voting rights within the EU, why not the reverse - that referenda be adopted for all matters of significant importance?

Why is it always one way? Because it is the political calculus of existing systems that dictate such. There is no reason why reverse change cannot happen. None. Besides, the EU has been forcing countries to adopt legislation since inception. Why not one more bit?

Response: Because democratic rights are the purview of national parliaments and its system of laws. Historically, yes, but, so what? History is never a sufficient reason.

Why is the democratic right to vote incarcerated in representative government to the extent that the political system can not only prevent but forbid referenda? What are they afraid of?

Explain to naive me why my right to vote on matters of law should be circumscribed by a national government. (Don't forget that where referenda are allowed, they do not replace representative government but are simply a means of repealing laws passed by referenda. In order for a referendum to be established an effort must be made to obtain a significant amount of citizen signatures to put a referendum to ballot.)

I am awaiting your answer with bated breath, Boye.

What strikes me is how ruthlessly the ruling interests in the US have worked to install their objectives.

What can you expect when a people elect a President based upon the way he smiles, parts his hair, kisses babies, pray in the Oval Office, etc.

Stateside, it is well known that the "product's image" is what sells a President and money is spent to advance/destroy that image. It's more a beauty contest than a competition of ideas.

Having said that, I wonder in what country it is any different. I suspect in northern Europe it is less so, that people really do inspect political platforms and vote accordingly. The maturity of the Scandinavians in matters of politics has always impressed me.

However, the usage of referendums in both California and Switzerland also is effective in checking the overreach of legislative assemblies. Of this I am convinced.

The elimination of the estate tax is a prime example. The estate tax was originally created--before the income tax--to address that very issue as the titans of the turn of the century had amassed great wealth.

Even people like Gates and Buffet are dead against eliminating the estate tax. Perhaps this sort of sick idea is the last paroxysm of right wing politics in the US? Who knows? Most western societies are dynamic and political ideas fall and rise like the tides.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/inter ... rance.html?

NYT: Chirac, on Bastille Day, Lists the Ways France Bests England: President Jacques Chirac of France, raising the stakes in a verbal jousting match with Britain, said Thursday that the French were better than the British in many domains: they have more children, they spend more on research and they live longer.

There's an amusing sparring game going on between Jacques Chirac and Tony Blair. Amusing for us, I suspect, but not for Jacko, a seasoned politico who chooses his skirmishes carefully.

Chirac insists that there is no reason to "copy the English model" (my paraphrasing). Well, he must be blind or perhaps orbiting some planet other than ours.

The Brits have known an unemployment rate of less than 4% for the past decade whilst France has been floundering with 10% (or thereabouts) for more than two decades.

In the final analysis, the unemployment rate is one of the most significant indicators of the public's "well-being". What France has been nurturing over these two decades is a youth that has lost its norms and markers. It hasn't the foggiest notion of what to do in a sea of unemployment given that they have no work experience whatsoever.

Jack is another example of a political mammoth who should be let out to pasture as soon as possible ... to contemplate the vast waste of a political career that has stretched over four decades, largely due to bloodymindedness. Which seems to work in French politics.

Anyway, what makes Jack run is the fact that he is supposedly embroiled in a political scandal involving kickbacks to his party organized whilst he was mayor of Paris. His principal henchman of the time, Alain Juppé, has already fallen on his sword and Jacques is awaited impatiently by the magistrates for his term to end (so as to be questioned). Which Nicholas Sarkozy, who used to date Jack's daughter, will try to orchestrate in 2007.

Talk about political soap operas!

Chirac's profile by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1899119.stm

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displa ... id=4174181

The missing rungs in the ladder: ... More worryingly, there has been a flood of statistics suggesting that income inequality is now reaching levels not seen since the Gilded Age in the late 19th century.

In 1979-2000, the real income of the poorest fifth of American households rose by 6.4%, while that of the top fifth rose by 70% (and of the top 1% by 184%). As of 2001, that top 1% nabbed a fifth of America's personal income and controlled a third of its net worth. Again, this would not necessarily be a cause for worry, as long as it was possible for people to work their way up and down the ladder. Yet various studies also indicate that social mobility has weakened; indeed by some measures it may be worse than it is in crusty old Europe.

And, the above plucked from the Economist does not mention the fact that if one looks at the top 5% of the population, then we see that it garnered 85% of the wealth that the American economy generated. The "American dream", that powerful motivating force, is therefore one that is also highly selective in its blessings.

Are things very different in Europe? It depends where, I imagine. With heavy taxation and redistribution, then that top 5% bracket is not so rich. The higher taxation in Scandanavian countries could mean that the riches are far more equitably shared.

It is possible, however, that as much as 50% of the EU's generated wealth goes to 5 or 10% of its population. Is this fair and equitable?

Some think it isn't. And, if it isn't, what does that mean for the 85% of the wealth generated in the US? It means that the rich get richer and the poor can go to hell.