lexity
Honorary Master
If your definition of democracy is mob-rule, then yes, I do dislike democracy.
Majoritarian Democracy is for primitive savages that have yet to learn what it means to be civilized.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: If you were buying a TV today, which brand would you choose?
CapeXit 2
- Thread starter Grant
- Start date
- Status
Majoritarian Democracy is for primitive savages that have yet to learn what it means to be civilized.
Lex, although I'm with you in principle, it's near impossible to keep a moral balance with a BoR. So far
Though we can certainly do much better than what's achieved here.
And the way life changes, so do its needs, constantly.
(Yes, of course I know it's about the content, which "structure" was referring to.)
Though we can certainly do much better than what's achieved here.
And the way life changes, so do its needs, constantly.
(Yes, of course I know it's about the content, which "structure" was referring to.)
Absolute power corrupts absolutely - this factor will always be a struggle to achieve.
vigras rojara
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2016
- Messages
- 21,472
- Reaction score
- 29,872
You can hear a pin drop.. was it something I said?
That's because everyone has gone off to do secessionist stuff, of course.
Oh wait. No, they haven't.
lexity
Honorary Master
You'll have to explain what you mean, by this, Brian_G.
What, on God's great, green earth, is 'a moral balance with a BoRs'?
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
I'm with you, however I just wanted to point out a fallacy, and make it obvious why this is one screwed up democracy...
i.e., are leaders held accountable ? Is there truly transparency in government? Do all citizens really have equal rights and influence? Is the government really bound by a constitution? Are elected officials accountable to the electorate?
PS: Hi @Brian_G
... 
ToxicBunny
Oi! Leave me out of this...
Screwed up in ways yes.. But it is a democracy.I'm with you, however I just wanted to point out a fallacy, and make it obvious why this is one screwed up democracy...
i.e., are leaders held accountable ? Is there truly transparency in government? Do all citizens really have equal rights and influence? Is the government really bound by a constitution? Are elected officials accountable to the electorate?
PS: Hi @Brian_G
lexity
Honorary Master
Some thoughts.... (if this is too long, then I don't expect you to read it all).I'm with you, however I just wanted to point out a fallacy, and make it obvious why this is one screwed up democracy...
i.e., are leaders held accountable ? Is there truly transparency in government? Do all citizens really have equal rights and influence? Is the government really bound by a constitution? Are elected officials accountable to the electorate?
PS: Hi @Brian_G
I created a thread on some of the problems/fails with the SA constitution. I elaborate on why the equity clause is incompatible with the right to freedom of association. (link loading:
).
As the Americans would say, the constitution is "in tension". It is self-contradictory/ambiguous.
And when you have so-called supreme law that is ambiguous, what happens next? Well, you need citizens to act as arbiters to provide an interpretation of the law.
And BOOM!!! Right there..... is corruption, baked into the cake.
Elaboration:
In permitting this level of ambiguity in the legal code, you are putting way too much power in the hands of your fellow human beings, and expecting saintly behavior under extreme temptation. Let's face it if you work for the State by choice, you are more likely to think and operate under the impression you have been dealt a rotten hand, in life(link to 'mytheory' post loading:
https://mybroadband.co.za/forum/thr...ions-reported-in-tehran.1333906/post-34297293),
... and if so... you will most probably buckle to the temptation to milk the tax-payer/sovereign debt of the people.
It's almost impossible to resist. The only way yo can resist is to get out of the ranks of the State, even then if you are looking to be recompensed for your honestly earned, skilled labor, you may end up working for a PPP i.e. a corporate crony of the State's.
So we can complain about why politicians and their cronies don't represent the people, but if you examine the incentives that are inherent in any State, you will see that it is very much par for the course. Incentives pack real power. They make doing the right thing the overwhelmingly more difficult path to tread.
The sobering truth is that, the people need to find their core values and, as a group of people with distinct core values i.e. an homogeneous moral core, declare themselves a nation, and go on to build trade/sporting relationships with other nations who are respectful of your right to exist as a nation, and vice versa.
So, imo, it would be far better for us to treat the ball as being in our court, and not the court of politicians and cronies. The morale of the peoples has been undermined to such an extent that enforcement for accountability and transparency purposes, is not forthcoming. At least not until a huge amount of damage is done in each case. This is not a sustainable civilizational strategy.
Premier Alan Winde, afaik, and nobody seems to be disagreeing with me when I point this out here or in other forums, is in violation of his oath when he deferred to his own preference on the indication to call a referendum on CI. But the people are now stuck because it takes resources and effort and money to prosecute this bad behavior i.e. to hold these undemocratic people to account.
It is clear that nobody was prepared to handle this bad behavior through the courts. Instead the plan B, which we now know did not pan out for whatever reason, was to create a new political party, the Referendum Party. Despite its ingenuity, it failed to produce a referendum, and has left the movement less certain as to how much support there really is.
I can understand why Brian_G, for instance, is annoyed by all of this. But the solution is to engage in discussion to hash this out until our thinking is more in alignment on the basic core values, because that is, after all, the basis of 'the people' that form a nation.
Without a group of people, defined by their distinct moral code, there can be no meaningful law code. Basically the real division lies between Collectivists and Individualists.
If we keep insisting on putting the legal cart before the moral horse, we are going to go nowhere... other than back into the same Collectivist paradise, of one stripe or another(in this case probably Technocratic Socialism, or just plain Communism) in which over 200 million people perished, in the 20th century alone, excluding war dead.
Last edited:
You'll have to explain what you mean, by this, Brian_G.
What, on God's great, green earth, is 'a moral balance with a BoRs'?
Sometimes you're like one of these by-the-book scholars, I refuse to believe you really don't understand the concept of bad human judgement / manipulation / foresight affecting how good a BoR is or isn't, and especially if it covers all groups' needs.
Anyway, who's got the time.. but here's a clue or two from a friend;
I'm with you, however I just wanted to point out a fallacy, and make it obvious why this is one screwed up democracy...
i.e., are leaders held accountable ? Is there truly transparency in government? Do all citizens really have equal rights and influence? Is the government really bound by a constitution? Are elected officials accountable to the electorate?
PS: Hi @Brian_G
Businesses are still free to make a choice in hiring, they are however incentivized to hire from a broad range on the demographics of this country.
No company is ever told "You cannot hire this white person for this role".
And while I might disagree with it, company's still have a choise in who they hire. No one is forcing companies to hire any one particular candidate.
ToxicBunny
Oi! Leave me out of this...
But But But Mob-Rule, punishment, and stuffs.
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
Not as per the universal definition.
NoStepOnSnek88
Expert Member
As I said many times, I'm always happy to read, I'm not a "one-liner" type person, and this subject/topic still intrigues me very much.
That sounds like there's a "but" involved..
That's thin.
What we have here is racialism, pure and simple. And some of us don't choose to live that way.
What could be simpler
Edit: And let's not forget the mismanagement and blatant wide scale theft, shall we...
Government is bound by the constitutional court, can you think of any one time where the government acted in contravention to the con court? As to holding elected officials accountable, that is a failure of the electorate, not a failure of the system. In a mature democracy, elected officials who act out are forced to resign or drag their party down with them,
If people continually re-elect people who are corrupt and acting in their own interests, that is not a failure of the democratic system. The problem is that many people who vote still remember being ruled by the Nats, and they still hold the ANC in high esteem for liberating them. That doesn't mean the country itself is not democratic.
Again I don''t agree with it, but's companies are not legally obliged to hire only black people.
No problem agreeing with that summation in large part. Difference between us and you lot, we still believe something can be done about it.
- Status