|
Post by Synonym on Jul 6, 2010 21:04:29 GMT
Just being democratic isn't the ONLY criterion. There's the question of 'the tyranny of the majority.' For example, during the 1930s the Swiss voted in FAVOUR of anti-Jewish legislation by popular referendum. The majority of Swiss were prepared to regard depriving Jews of their civil rights as exercising their democratic rights. But ultimately if that is what a people want, and they vote out leaders who will not enact such policies and vote in ones who will, who has the 'authority' to deny them it?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Jul 8, 2010 8:15:19 GMT
Just being democratic isn't the ONLY criterion. There's the question of 'the tyranny of the majority.' For example, during the 1930s the Swiss voted in FAVOUR of anti-Jewish legislation by popular referendum. The majority of Swiss were prepared to regard depriving Jews of their civil rights as exercising their democratic rights. I'd still be appalled if that happened - and I SUPPORT capital punishment (though only for true murderers.) who is any one to call the will of the people the tyranny of the majority..?? either you believe in democracy or you do not...and just because the majority may not agree with you, you call it tyranny and would be appalled...so you are not a democrat or a believer in democracy...for democracy is the WIILL of the people regardless of whether you agree or not RV says.....However, a move to restore the death penalty would require a whole raft of legislation, not least in having to revoke various treaties. a move to restore the death penalty does not have to be complicated... the death penalty is simply reinstated for the crime of... what ever types of murder and treason the people wish.....law is only complicated when men make it complicated.... its as simple as saying ""the death penalty is now in place and all prior legislation is now void "" its as simple as saying premeditated murder for example is a death penalty crime and then prove or disprove premeditation via the courts and sentence accordingly we could have simle but strong laws to serve the people....to work in the interests of the people but you know lawyers always like governments have to complicate to ensure their own interests
|
|
|
Post by jade on Jul 9, 2010 9:49:57 GMT
Interesting stuff this
If a referendum is not a direction to Gov't to do something (join the EU for example), and the gov't has said that it will allow itself to be so directed then all it is is a massive centrally organised petition.
And petitions are pretty useless aren't they?
Do any of you join and sign the online petitions at No10.gov?
Perhaps they could be made the be a gateway to a referendum - if any one of them gets a quazillion votes on them then Whitehall swings into action
O yeah, no administrators. O well that aint going to work then
|
|