In what way do you feel you are justified to “attack” because you disagree with the result of a public referendum? Your post is the sort of thing picked up by the news after things physically explode, you realize.
2 Likes
Because history has taught us that if you wait for things to “physically explode,” civilization and decency have already lost the battle, already been disenfranchised. You cannot safely ignore tyranny flying on the wings of demagoguery any more than you can safely ignore your own home burning down around you. I attack with my speech and expression from the moral high ground, the book of enlightenment ideals in one hand and the book of history in the other.
You seem to have misunderstood my argument entirely. I’ll try to boil it down.
When there’s people who say A and there’s people who say B and the people who say A find the ‘earnest discussion’ of people who say B unconvincing and those who say B find the ‘rational arguments’ of A self-serving, then we have what you’d call a societal conflict.
It’s going to be either A or B and society must choose. Back in the day, this was done through things such as having the largest, spikiest stick, or through the mandate of heaven or divine right or things such as that. We’ve largely decided that this is not good and leads to much suffering and little progress and so what we do now when the A-side and the B-side can’t agree is count how many people say A and how many people say B and go with that. This isn’t close to fool-proof, as the last two hundred of history show exceptionally well, but it does have certain benefits: it satisfies the preferences of a majority of people and not the preferences of some small group, and crucially it provides a way to have a societal conflict which doesn’t go much past a stern word or two. Back in the day societal conflicts used to be resolved by war and torture and genocide. We do a lot less of that nowadays, as bad as things seem. In fact, if you adjust for technological progress we’re all playing remarkably nice nowadays.
This is why people defend democracy. Yes, it occasionally produces incredibly bad results, but compared to the alternatives it is amazing. It is the least worst system.
Now some people might discuss different tweaks to it, maybe use a method based on futarchy with voting budgets, perhaps, but the point is that you’ve done no such thing. What you’ve done instead is, well, rant. This is not particularly persuasive in the ‘earnest discussion’ department.
In fact, you’ve not only ranted, you’ve said in pretty much exact terms that your side is absolutely good and absolutely right and that any opposition is willful perversity and an act of evil. Now, see, here’s the thing. That’s what every fanatic thinks. Every. Single. One. And you might say “Ah, but I am objectively right.” Yes. And that’s what they say, too. You will note that you’ve put no evidence forward, advanced no argument. What you did was stack bombast upon outrage hoping that will suffice.
But let’s put that aside. What the hell does it even mean to be ‘objectively right’ on Brexit? What if you don’t care about the economy taking a ding and just want isolationist sovereignty? That’s not a position whose rightness or wrongness you can derive from first principles. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t automatically file everything I disagree with into the ‘wrong and evil’ column.
Do you?
Do you think that this is wise?
I now have a green light to attack, undermine, shame, sabotage, subvert, and end this wrongfulness.
And this, precisely this, is the problem: if we accept the spurious accusation of illegitimacy towards results we don’t agree with, then civil discourse becomes just this: attack, undermining, sabotage, subversion. Anything for the Cause. Think on how you’d react if the side you think so poorly of does the same and then—if you are so into goodness—think back on your Kant and the first formulation of the categorical imperative. Or, if you are into divinity, think on Matthew 7:12.
It’s apparent you’ve chosen complicity with or support for the side of darkness and are now facing off against the good.
Empty bombast. Childish rhetoric. This is not the opening crawl of a Fantasy RPG, and an insipid one, at that.
I am not arrayed with the orcs on one side of some bridge and you are not striking a heroic pose at the head of a column of elves. What I am doing is trying to have a civil discussion on, narrowly, the issue of what’s to be done about Brexit (which is very likely to damage the British economy beyond repair), and broadly about the obligation to respect democratic results.
5 Likes
None whatsoever. You can soften the blow by carefully cultivating a voting system which is representative, fair, and responsive[1], of course, but that only allows the will of the people to be perceived more clearly. If the will itself is malign then there’s nothing the system itself can do[2]: at that point you are not solving the problem of democracy so much as the problem of people.
Nobody has a good solution for that one.
Though I hear hugs help.
[1] I’m a big fan of pyramidal delegation-based systems which support recall elections at any time and at any level.
[2] Well. Nearly. You can make giving rights easier than taking them away, and discrimination difficult, but ultimately every quorum can be satisfied and every constitution altered.
1 Like
[quote=“LapsedPacifist, post:23, topic:87360”]
…we have what you’d call a societal conflict. It’s going to be either A or B and society must choose. (Voting) … satisfies the preferences of a majority of people and not the preferences of some small group… In fact, if you adjust for technological progress we’re all playing remarkably nice nowadays. [/quote]
I think that it’s absurd that you appear to be complicit with the reality that 17.4M Brits can strip away substantial pieces of others’ lives and profoundly harm the interests of the other 16.1M Brits. Not when we are discussing something as elemental as their ability to be a part of European society and live in a pluralistic cosmopolitan wider world of thought and belief, connection, participation, and mobility. Attempting or doing so largely on the basis of rhetoric that appeals to emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance seems to me beyond atrocious.
Did you ask people like my Swedish online friend’s British girlfriend just how “nice” she thinks the Brexit vote is? Did you ask British pensioners of all ages living established lives in Europe as Brits how “nice” they think the Brexit vote is? Did you ask the Europeans living and working in Britain how “nice” they think the Brexit vote is? I could go on a long time, a lot of people are staring at the spectre of this “nice” act arbitrarily and capriciously smashing their lives in an irrational act of madness. Your “progress” is harmful and obscene.
This is why people defend democracy. Yes, it occasionally produces incredibly bad results, but compared to the alternatives it is amazing. It is the least worst system.
There’s democracy, and then there are myriad fallen and failed forms of government rule, many of which incidentally do include citizens casting ballots. Which is the Brexit closest to when it is objectively based in largest part on demagoguery and objectively creates extreme harm in a near majority? Just what sort of democracy credibly calls this severe result something a ‘least worst system’ produces? “Democracy” is meaningless if it doesn’t stand for a system that is reasonable and sufficiently respectful of the needs and preferences of all its citizens and participants while performing its deliberation and measuring its actions.
What the hell does it even mean to be ‘objectively right’ on Brexit? … That’s not a position whose rightness or wrongness you can derive from first principles… I don’t automatically file everything I disagree with into the ‘wrong and evil’ column. Do you think that this is wise?
Objectively right means a slim majority of people swayed by demagoguery don’t get to thrust their metaphorical dicks into the lives over 16.1 million Brits and then proceed to molest and rape them with some irrational, arbitrary, and capricious preference to dominate and control and change their innocent lives by stripping away from them continued direct access to European life as Brits. That is basically political rape. Objectively. You don’t “automatically?” Oh, because I do? Share with us your insight into my “automation,” by all means, friend.
…if you are so into goodness—think back on your Kant and the first formulation of the categorical imperative. Or, if you are into divinity, think on Matthew 7:12.
Oh, and so we’re talking about my quantifiable “goodness,” now? I’m a fan of the golden rule that verse alludes to. If I were a demagogue pushing for Brexit, I’d want someone to stand up and stop me, too, and so I think we’re just fine with that.
What I am doing is trying to have a civil discussion on, narrowly, the issue of what’s to be done about Brexit (which is very likely to damage the British economy beyond repair), and broadly about the obligation to respect democratic results.
That’s fine, but now, hey, you know what? There’s the direct threat of objective harm and mayhem to the lives of a near majority of Brits of all stripes and walks to talk about.
2 Likes
Since you saw fit to cut apart my comment when responding to it, how it is, I wonder, did you manage, while wielding the scissors, to, say, miss the part where I used ‘nice’ in relation to being killed in a civil war which is how hashtag-exits used to be handled. I mean, you had to specifically remove that sentence in order to misunderstand my point and run off on your lengthy self-righteous tirade about how I haven’t asked X, Y, or Z about how nice things were. Tell you what, I’m confident they are more satisfied with their current lot, whatever it is, then they’d be being shot because their politics are wrong.
Because the alternative to voting around these issues is… what precisely? Investing Elizabeth II with supreme power? Making you the monarch? High Council of Wisdom holding all the power? What? You can’t just not like a result and think the people who voted for it are dumb and therefore decide that ignoring that result and disenfranchising those people is not only okay, but an absolute good. If you can do that, why not everyone? Who made you arbiter of morality? Why ascribe any legitimacy to any vote if you disagree with the outcome?
If I chisel away the layers upon layers of overwrought hyperbole (Political rape? This idle use and casual devaluing of so terrible a term borders on the obscene.) and rhetorical flailing that seem to encrust your post, I find myself looking at the following argument: Leaving the EU is, for reasons you fail to specify, so extreme a restriction of basic human rights that mere majority cannot possibly be enough to strip them away.
Now that is an argument, albeit a spectacularly poorly rendered one.
So, first let’s fill in those reasons you failed to specify, and no
Not when we are discussing something as elemental as their ability to be a part of European society and live in a pluralistic cosmopolitan wider world of thought and belief, connection, participation, and mobility.
does not count. ‘Being a part of European society’ is not predicated on being a part of the EU, and living in pluralism or cosmopolitanism is not predicated on being in the EU, either. London will remain one of the most cosmopolitan cities on the planet, whatever happens, and the vibrant multiculturalism that characterizes it is due largely from people from former colonies and Commonwealth countries. Places not in the EU manage to have quite a sufficient supply of European immigrants, after all.
Either way, access to the EU common market or the free movement in its territory are not fundamental human rights. Most of the world does not have them, after all.
So which rights are abrogated which deserve specific protection? The only one which comes under the heading of ‘human rights violation’ rather than ‘oh no, you will have to get a visa occasionally’ is the issue of mixed families. Splitting apart a family is cruel and arguably against articles 12 and 16 of the UDHR.
And if the interpretation of Brexit and the invocation of Article 50, in the UK is such that all European nationals including those with long residence and those who have started families is such that they will be expelled, then this is an outrage, a violation of human rights, and something worth standing up against.
However, this, to the best of my knowledge, is not the case. Nobody knows how it will be handled and how it will be is entirely within the power of the executive and Parliament and is completely orthogonal to the question of whether the UK should remain a part of the EU. The obviously correct solution is to provide dual citizenship to all long-term residents and to anyone in a marriage, civil partnership, or prolonged cohabitation.
Either way, you’ve turned an important issue which can be resolved without doing anyone’s rights a serious injury into an opportunity to grandstand.
Objectively right means a slim majority of people swayed by demagoguery don’t get to thrust their metaphorical dicks into the lives over 16.1 million Brits and then proceed to molest and rape them with some irrational, arbitrary, and capricious preference to dominate and control and change their innocent lives by stripping away from them continued direct access to European life as Brits. That is basically political rape. Objectively. You don’t “automatically?” Oh, because I do? Share with us your insight into my “automation,” by all means, friend.
Well, I’ll reserve my insight for how you’ve managed to remove "Do you?’ while quoting me without indicating it. Fascinating. I guess it is difficult to claim I said something while quoting me asking if it is the case?
That’s fine, but now, hey, you know what? There’s the direct threat of objective harm and mayhem to the lives of a near majority of Brits of all stripes and walks to talk about.
Funny. I remember being told quite recently that voting is not how we solve conflicts, but earnest discussion. Tell me, is your conduct here indicative of how you imagine these earnest discussions to go? Because I must say, far from resolving anything, you are in fact creating a conflict with someone who, I’ll remind you, agrees with you about Brexit being a poor idea.
1 Like
With all due respect, I think that I am done here. People will either see validity in the examples I’ve made, or they will respond to your empty rhetoric and specious sophistry. Lives are on the line. May the righteous side prevail.
All British citizens must rise up and demand the Brexit be anulled before it is too late and they discover firsthand how real the harms of it are and how far hypothetical promises for prospects in a post-Brexit world fall short. They must demand it from their local, regional, and national governments, and they must demand it from the monarch herself. Demonstrate to the entire world that you will not allow your lives, potentials, and your futures to be stolen from you by bullies, liars, and thieves. May God Save the United Kingdom and secure its rightful pluralistic European future.
Voting around these issues in itself isn’t the problem. The problem is that for the last thirty years, the 70% of British media that is owned by five right-wing billionaires has been constantly lying about the EU’s waste, illegitimacy and corruption in order to further their own agenda. That they could only muster 52% support with the unfettered access that they have to national discourse says a great deal.
Regardless, the high court case is not an attempt to overturn the referendum decision. Realistically, the government’s tiny majority means that there is no way in hell that this would be a free vote; any Tory MP who voted against the referendum result would be committing political suicide. Besides, there are enough chest-thumping jingoists that have been sufficiently emboldened by the result that to overturn it legally would quite possibly be actual suicide for any politician.
I think Brexit is a terrible, terrible idea but there is no way on earth that Parliament would (or could) vote to completely ignore the referendum. The High Court case is ironically, given all the talk about British sovereignty in the run up to the vote, about protecting the sovereignty of Parliament. The whole reason Parliament exists is because it, and it alone, has been given the right to make constitutional changes, which Brexit most definitely is.
Theresa May’s denial of Parliament’s right to vote on the issue is a genuinely worrying precedent. If Parliamentary approval isn’t required for legitimacy, why not have decisions made by surveys in The Sun automatically become law if they can get support of more than 51% of the readership who bothered to SMS in an answer?
6 Likes
But those sorts of ideals aren’t value neutral. If Democracy requires those sorts of values, and the meaningful elements of society don’t want those values, then why aim for democratic legitimacy?
2 Likes
Oh, I agree, broadly speaking. The line you quote was in response to Chromakey’s, ah, creative interpretation of the concept of democracy.
The problem with the vote-by-parliament plan to unscramble the egg is that, either the parliament rubber-stamps the referendum results (in which case, why bother?) or they overturn them creating a political crisis and also a legitimacy crisis. After all, the parliament and the referendum are both methods for ascertaining the general will and if they disagree which has more authority and why don’t they match?
@Nelsie’s argument about symmetry (i.e. you should exit the EU the same way you entered it: parliamentary vote and referendum) is the best I’ve seen on the topic, but I fear it’s just kicking the fundamental issue down the road: if the parliament and the referendum disagree how do you justify ignoring either?
1 Like
The referendum result was simply a referendum to leave the EU: ‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’. It did not define the terms under which it should leave, or what arrangements it should have with the EU after it does. It does look like the parliament should have the right to vote on the triggering of article 50, the referendum result doesn’t change that in any way (though I’m no constitutional lawyer so we’ll have to see). If the courts do agree with that, and the parliament refuses to endorse the current government’s incredibly dumb plans for the post-EU settlement (which is quite likely), then there’ll be no choice to put the question back to the people, either in the form of a general election and/or another referendum. There is nothing undemocratic about this, this is the very definition of democracy in action.
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
