Dilemma with political loyalties

[Cavegirl 10]

I agree with you that we have failures in the system ,and in theory your ideas sound reasonable,but i'm inclined to feel that put to the test a radical change with us the people in control would just turn into a one party system,with a dictator in power and i wouldn't be in favour of that.

 

Somebody has to lead,and as bad as things are now they could end up worse then ever,because ambitious greed for power and corruption would would still be present in some people,how would we go about avoiding that occurring?

 

By doing what humans did for hundreds of thousands of years before control over resources led to hierarchical power structures. We'd be empowered enough as individuals and as collective groups to rebuff anyone who tried to take that power away from us, if only we understood what power we had.

 

Nobody 'has' to lead, there are plenty of societies on the planet today where nobody is in charge and they manage just fine as this article demonstrates:

Nearly all researchers who write about hunter-gatherer bands emphasize the extraordinarily high value they place on individual autonomy. Hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is different from the individualism of modern Western capitalist cultures. Western individualism tends to pit each person against others in competition for resources and rewards. It includes the right to accumulate property and to use wealth to control the behavior of others. In contrast, as Tim Ingold (1999) has most explicitly emphasized, hunter-gathers’ sense of autonomy connects each person to others, in a way that does not create dependencies. Their autonomy does not include the right to accumulate property, to use power or threats to control others, or to make others indebted to oneself. It does, however, allow people to make their own day-to-day and moment-to-moment decisions about their own activities, as long as they do not violate the band’s implicit and explicit rules. For example, individual hunter-gatherers are free, on any day, to join a hunting or gathering party or to stay at camp and rest, depending on their own preference.

 

Intimately tied to hunter-gatherers’ sense of autonomy is what Richard Lee (1988 ) has called their “fierce egalitarianism.” Egalitarianism, among hunter-gatherers, goes far beyond the western notion of equal opportunity. It means that nobody has more material goods than anyone else, that everyone’s needs are equally important, and that nobody considers himself or herself superior to others. Such equality is part and parcel of hunter-gatherers’ autonomy, as inequalities could lead those who have more to dominate those who have less. Hunter-gatherers, of course, recognize that some people are better hunters or gatherers than others, some are wiser than others, and so on, and they value such abilities. However, they react strongly against any flaunting of abilities or overt expressions of pride.

 

From an economic point of view, the primary purpose of the band is sharing. The people share their skills and efforts in obtaining food, defending against predators, and caring for children. They also share food and material goods. Such sharing, presumably, is what allowed hunter-gatherers to survive, so long, in challenging conditions. The hunter-gatherer concept of sharing is different from our Western concept. For us, sharing is a praiseworthy act of generosity, for which a “thank you” is due and some form of repayment may be expected in the future. For hunter-gatherers sharing is not a generous act, nor an implicit bargain, but a duty. People are not thanked or praised for sharing, but would be ridiculed and scorned if they failed to share. Anthropologists refer to such sharing as “demand sharing.” Failing to share, if you have more than someone else, is a violation of a fundamental rule of hunter-gatherer societies (Ingold, 1999; Wiessner, 1996)...

 

According to several quantitative studies, hunter-gatherers typically devote about 20 hours per week to hunting or food gathering and another 10 to 20 hours to chores at the campsite, such as food processing and making or mending tools (e.g. Lee, 2003; Sahlins, 1972). All in all, the research suggests, hunter-gatherer adults spend an average of 30 to 40 hours per week on all subsistence-related activities combined, which is considerably less than the workweek of the typical modern American, if the American’s 40 or more hours of out-of-home work is added to the many hours spent on domestic chores.

 

One anthropologist, Marshall Sahlins (1972), has famously characterized hunter-gatherer societies collectively as “the original affluent society.” An affluent society, by Sahlins’s definition, is one in which “people’s material wants are easily satisfied.” Hunter-gatherers are affluent not because they have so much, but because they want so little. They can provide for those wants with relatively little work, and, as a result, they have lots of free time, which they spend, according to one observer of the Ju/’hoansi (Shostak, 1981, p 10), at such activities as “singing and composing songs, playing musical instruments, sewing intricate bead designs, telling stories, playing games, visiting, or just lying around and resting.” These are just the kinds of activities that we would expect of happy, relaxed people anywhere.

 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hunter-Gatherers_and_Play#Social_Play_as_a_Mode_of_Governance_in_Hunter-Gatherer_Bands

 

Interestingly, the UK currently lies beneath Iraq and Kyrgyzstan in the 2012 global happiness index.

[harestone 10]

CG, you are my hero, how is the woodland thing going. ?

[janie48 98]

By doing what humans did for hundreds of thousands of years before control over resources led to hierarchical power structures. We'd be empowered enough as individuals and as collective groups to rebuff anyone who tried to take that power away from us, if only we understood what power we had.

 

Nobody 'has' to lead, there are plenty of societies on the planet today where nobody is in charge and they manage just fine as this article demonstrates:

 

 

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Hunter-Gatherers_and_Play#Social_Play_as_a_Mode_of_Governance_in_Hunter-Gatherer_Bands

 

Interestingly, the UK currently lies beneath Iraq and Kyrgyzstan in the 2012 global happiness index.

 

Thanks for that Cavegirl i've just had a quick glance, i will look at it later,the forum will be closing in a few minutes.

[gnvqsos 10]

The suggestion I made was basically the same as we have now only with no party politics

 

Each constituency forms it's own party, they choose a representative who signs a legally binding contract to stand down if they fail to represent the majority view of the constituency on any issue wher some predetermined percentage of that constituency express an opinion.

 

Then they vote for that person in an election.

 

If enough win then the people will be in charge.

 

Ok debates will grind on forever, decisions will be arrived at slowly, but they will be the electorates decisions and not those of a bunch of lobbyists or a handful of people in the cabinet office.

 

We only really need quick decisions from government in times of crisis

 

We have been in crisis since 2008 if not longer.Your model may work in a highly fractured federal system but not in a modern nation.Can you imagine the HS2 being built sporadically in sections with huge gaps where people either have not approved or have opted to reject its construction.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 06:05 ----------

 

The suggestion I made was basically the same as we have now only with no party politics

 

Each constituency forms it's own party, they choose a representative who signs a legally binding contract to stand down if they fail to represent the majority view of the constituency on any issue wher some predetermined percentage of that constituency express an opinion.

 

Then they vote for that person in an election.

 

If enough win then the people will be in charge.

 

Ok debates will grind on forever, decisions will be arrived at slowly, but they will be the electorates decisions and not those of a bunch of lobbyists or a handful of people in the cabinet office.

 

We only really need quick decisions from government in times of crisis

 

What will happen if the lobbyists operate directly on the electorate through advertising etc.?Do you think you can exclude such power brokers from political influence,they will mutate to meet a new challenge like a virus.

[maxmaximus 10]

Sorry to everyone for going off topic, but I've been meaning to say this for a while: I find it interesting how vilified Halibut gets. What he tends to get vilified most for is asking questions: people who are hardly shrinking violets, who never shy away from giving us the benefit of their opinions every 3 minutes, suddenly become very coy when Halibut asks them about their motives or to explain why they think they way they do. Interesting, that. I always think it shows they have something to hide.

 

The other thing he gets vilified for a lot is being persistent, asking a question until someone gives a straight answer or just holding consistent views and values.

 

So I find myself asking whether I would prefer to live in a country where asking questions about peoples' motives, asking for rationales behind beliefs and holding consistent values is considered a good thing, or a country where these things are considered deviant and to be discouraged and stamped out. And because I wouldn't like to live in Iran I always choose the former.

Not sure how this would qualify as a question.

 

Except black votes for you of course, what with you saying black people aren't allowed to British and everything.

 

It is a statement meant to elicit an emotional response from another member and has nothing to do with the topic, it did what it was meant to do and took the topic off topic, and this is typical troll behaviour.

It didn’t further the discussion but did distract from the discussion.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 07:35 ----------

 

I made a suggestion as to how we could govern ourselves rather than dance to the tune of party politics before the laste election.

 

Ok there were problems with it but nothing insurmountable.

 

I made an interesting discovery.

 

Very few people actually want a true democracy where everyones vote counts and everyones voice carries as much weight as anyone elses.

 

Most people seem to want more of what we have now only with them in charge on the issues that interest them.

 

Very few want a fair systen.

 

This sounds about right.

[jfish1936 10]

By doing what humans did for hundreds of thousands of years before control over resources led to hierarchical power structures..

 

The hunter/gatherer groups have this marvellous system with personal autonomy.

Maybe this is why they rule the richest territories on Earth, have the world's longest life expectancy, and can dictate to all other nations. (Sarcastic Old So&so)

[maxmaximus 10]

The suggestion I made was basically the same as we have now only with no party politics

 

Each constituency forms it's own party, they choose a representative who signs a legally binding contract to stand down if they fail to represent the majority view of the constituency on any issue wher some predetermined percentage of that constituency express an opinion.

 

Then they vote for that person in an election.

 

If enough win then the people will be in charge.

 

Ok debates will grind on forever, decisions will be arrived at slowly, but they will be the electorates decisions and not those of a bunch of lobbyists or a handful of people in the cabinet office.

 

We only really need quick decisions from government in times of crisis

 

Sounds good but humans being humans it wouldn’t take long before alliances where formed into larger and larger groups putting us back to where we are now. And a system that serves the majority isn’t exactly fair on the minority.

[Halibut 12]

Vote for what you beleive in,or near as possible to it,as for the general political situation nothing will ever change until we have real P R where all votes matter.

 

Except black votes for you of course, what with you saying black people aren't allowed to British and everything.

 

Oh do get a life,you really are boring me.

 

Why do I bore you? Is it because I point out the fundamental flaw in your position?

 

You have made two completely contradictory statements - above you claim that you want ''all votes'' to matter, whereas elsewhere you have said black people can't be British.

 

If they're not British, presumably you don't think they should have a vote at all.

 

So one of your statements must be nonsense. Which one is it?

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 08:01 ----------

 

Halibut is a troll,he rarely puts his case he simply issues one liners or deviates from the topic,a bit like this really.I cant think of anyone more predictable than halibut,but here we go again getting off the topic thanks to him.

 

On the contrary. You're saying that because I've pointed out the obvious inconsistency in what you're saying - see above.

 

I believe you call me a troll because you don't like looking silly in public and you cannot reconcile the obvious flaws in your thinking.

[maxmaximus 10]

Why do I bore you? Is it because I point out the fundamental flaw in your position?

 

You have made two completely contradictory statements - above you claim that you want ''all votes'' to matter, whereas elsewhere you have said black people can't be British.

 

If they're not British, presumably you don't think they should have a vote at all.

 

So one of your statements must be nonsense. Which one is it?

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 08:01 ----------

 

 

On the contrary. You're saying that because I've pointed out the obvious inconsistency in what you're saying - see above.

 

I believe you call me a troll because you don't like looking silly in public and you cannot reconcile the obvious flaws in your thinking.

 

It’s not contradictory at all; I could have the belief that to be British one must be white, whist still holding the position that the government elected by the majority can define non whites has British, which gives them the right to vote, and that all votes should be equal and count.

[esme 10]

We have been in crisis since 2008 if not longer.Your model may work in a highly fractured federal system but not in a modern nation.Can you imagine the HS2 being built sporadically in sections with huge gaps where people either have not approved or have opted to reject its construction.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 06:05 ----------

 

 

What will happen if the lobbyists operate directly on the electorate through advertising etc.?Do you think you can exclude such power brokers from political influence,they will mutate to meet a new challenge like a virus.

Well I did say there would be problems, but they could be worked out.

 

The HS2 wouldn't be built in sections, it would only be started once a route was found, and if we need it it's up to the government to convince the people it's needed convince those on the route the sacrifice is necessary.

 

Lobbyists would still exist but they wouldn't have the power bloc's they have now, they would have to operate on a constituency rather than on directly individual MP's.

 

But as I say very few were interested in the idea, it was too much work or lacked violent revolution with the opportunity to settle a few scores or people were not certain of winning, and some people wanted more of the same just on certain key issues they wanted their way and no one elses they weren't interested in debating issues they just wanted to steamroller their view over everyone elses.

 

So I'm resigned to it remaining an idea

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 13:19 ----------

 

Sounds good but humans being humans it wouldn’t take long before alliances where formed into larger and larger groups putting us back to where we are now. And a system that serves the majority isn’t exactly fair on the minority.

If the elected MP forms alliances thats fine but they will still have to convince their constituency that it's the right thing to do

 

One of the key points was, if they fail to represent the majority view when a specified percentage of their constituency express an opinion on an issue, they get booted out of office, immediately.

 

I think I had a clause in the original that barred them from standing or occupying any political position for a few years as well so they had to get a proper job and learn what the real world was like.

 

Otherwise they can form alliances as they choose, they can even be lib/lab/con/whatever as long as the constituency viewpoint comes first and not as is the case now, a long way last, and only then when an election is imminent and votes might be needed.

[andygardener 10]

The suggestion I made was basically the same as we have now only with no party politics

 

Each constituency forms it's own party, they choose a representative who signs a legally binding contract to stand down if they fail to represent the majority view of the constituency on any issue wher some predetermined percentage of that constituency express an opinion.

 

Then they vote for that person in an election.

 

If enough win then the people will be in charge.

 

Ok debates will grind on forever, decisions will be arrived at slowly, but they will be the electorates decisions and not those of a bunch of lobbyists or a handful of people in the cabinet office.

 

We only really need quick decisions from government in times of crisis

 

But the problem with that is on some issues views are very polarised. If say 25% of people have strong views one way on and issue and 26% strong views the other and 49% don't really care we'd end up with 26% carrying the day. Plus you would have politicians that represent only their constituency, so national interest would always be over ridden by local interest.

 

Add in the fact that on most issues people don't really have strong opinions either way and the ones they do (immigration, capital punishment etc) tend to be actually less important in the big scheme of things than economic issues. Ask most people (myself included) what the optimum rate of VAT would be to stimulate growth while maintaining a balanced tax take and they wouldn't have a clue so asking constituents to make those sort of decisions would be a bit reckless.

[esme 10]

But the problem with that is on some issues views are very polarised. If say 25% of people have strong views one way on and issue and 26% strong views the other and 49% don't really care we'd end up with 26% carrying the day. Plus you would have politicians that represent only their constituency, so national interest would always be over ridden by local interest.

And how is that different to what we have now, in a recent election around 80% of the country didn't want the party that came to power - it didn't stop them claiming a mandate, these things need work but if we stay with the present system that will never happen.

Add in the fact that on most issues people don't really have strong opinions either way and the ones they do (immigration, capital punishment etc) tend to be actually less important in the big scheme of things than economic issues. Ask most people (myself included) what the optimum rate of VAT would be to stimulate growth while maintaining a balanced tax take and they wouldn't have a clue so asking constituents to make those sort of decisions would be a bit reckless.

Fair enough on those issues where there's no strong opinion from the constituency they are free to vote how they choose, they can form alliances or even vote with a party if they want

 

If the people don't exercise the voice they are given then an MP can do what they like and the people can't complain.

 

But at the moment the people can scream and shout as much as they like and the party whip will win the day with a quiet word.

 

We elect these people, they should be accountable to us.