tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post8877459141433444606..comments2023-10-10T05:17:55.737-07:00Comments on Crushed By Ingsoc: By Whose Authority?Crushedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02479751225625007588noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-7505699517787246122008-11-30T09:32:00.000-08:002008-11-30T09:32:00.000-08:00So what's the answer then? Throw the whole process...So what's the answer then? Throw the whole process out and create a new one? And if so then "which" people would be chosen to create the new government, and how you one go about choosing them? It all gets a bit circular in my mind...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-12076684849270520212008-11-30T12:59:00.000-08:002008-11-30T12:59:00.000-08:00Crushed political parties were created by universa...Crushed political parties were created by universal suffrage in their current form. You go back to the early nineteenth century and there really weren't any political parties as we understand them today- there were loose associations based around clubs like the Carlton Club. Political parties as we know them today were the creation of the late nineteenth centuries and the early twentieth century- the time when the first semi-democratic and democratic elections happened. So for example a big change was the creation of mass membership organisations- those came in the late nineteenth centuries things like the Primrose League. <br><br>In a second strand, what do you make of John Locke's argument of presumed consent? It features quite largely in the Two Treatises.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-5656752970174315002008-12-01T05:55:00.000-08:002008-12-01T05:55:00.000-08:00Crushed, Parliament got to be in charge after havi...Crushed, Parliament got to be in charge after having a civil war and cutting the King’s head off. If Cromwell’s son hadn’t been pretty useless we would have Lord Protectors instead of Kings. People felt they needed to have someone in charge in those days, because that’s how it was generally done. <br><br>When the second Lord Protector turned out to be such a disappointment Parliament decided to give the job to the ex King’s son instead. They dusted off the title “King”, but the job description had been re written in the meantime by Parliament. <br><br>The new King was pretty smart and used the rules to get some power back with a bit of a balancing act.<br><br>Later when the King’s brother got the job in turn the silly man thought he really was King and didn’t bother with the balancing act. <br><br>Parliament decided they didn’t like him any more than his daddy, so they amended the job description yet again and head hunted another William to come and be King instead. The old King’s brother had to run away. <br><br>Later on William passed the job of King on to his kids…<br><br>That still leaves Parliament. Why are they in charge? <br><br>Because they raised an army and took charge is why. They still have an army and Police and jails that says so, you better believe it.<br><br>That still has us asking who gets to be in Parliament and how you get to be part of Parliament. That has changed over time, slow to catch up really. It used to be guys only got to decide. Guys who owned real estate essentially, then it was guys over a certain age. Early last century they finally let women have a say too. <br><br>So parliament is in charge because it says so… and can make it stick. The rules as to how it works and who decides who should get to be in it are negotiable over time.<br><br>You are right the governing party often gets much less than half the votes. You are right about performing seals voting for what they are told to if it’s right or not. You are right about the manifestos take the whole package or leave it thingy.<br><br>Except the manifesto’s, according to a blogger I know in sl, are “Not subject to legitimate expectation”. <br><br>Still it seems to me it’s better than lots of other systems, and mostly seems to give enough of us, just about enough of what we want the system to do. So long as we keep an eye on the ball and enough of us make a fuss when it starts not to.<br><br>I figure the good thing about Parliament is it’s basically made up of people who have to sleep in the bed they make, even when they don’t get to make it any more, so they do need to pay some attention to the rest of us that get to share it with them and do need to think a little bit about what it will be like to live under their own more stupid laws.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-19568035783889469192008-12-01T17:54:00.000-08:002008-12-01T17:54:00.000-08:00Fusion- Well, direct democracy. No reason in this ...Fusion- Well, direct democracy. No reason in this day and age that the entire people can't be the legislature.<br>And appoint executives and judiciaries directly.<br><br>Gracchi- Well, mass parties date to the 1860s- 1870s. Joseph Chamberlain and Randolph Churchill in the main.<br><br>I would argue they were quite well entrenched by 1885, when Universal Suffrage was introduced. Look how successful Parnell's organisaton was in that year, already a formidable party machine.<br><br>I think Locke's arguments can be seen as kind of groping to the truth, but not getting there. I find LOcke interesting, if only to compare to Hobbes. Locke, of course presents the classical Whig arguments, the arguments on which the Glorious Revolution was fought.<br><br>But I don't think they approach the fundamental position of where consent derives from, which is Rousseau's Social Contract.<br><br>Moggs- They did, yes. It was believed Republics couldn't work in countries bigger than city states.<br><br>Interesting view of Charles I's sons- the traditional view, tis true.<br>Charls II was certainly more intelligent than his brother- but ultimately, his brother was a historical loser- mainly because he actually converted to Catholicism openly, whereas Charles kept it quiet.<br><br>I often wonder what would have happened had Charles actually brought the Treaty of London into force.<br><br>William died childless :)<br><br>I'm not sure it DOES give us what we want.<br><br>The people would never agree to ID cards, I don't think. They wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq.<br><br>I think laws passed would be a lot more LIBERAL if they were subject to a direct vote.<br><br>Parliament has a vested interest in keeping the laws illiberal...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3334391160365031546.post-47093837657081959252008-12-01T23:25:00.000-08:002008-12-01T23:25:00.000-08:00Mixing my Willimas... That'll teach me not to rely...Mixing my Willimas... That'll teach me not to rely on unaided memory. The grand daughter of James suceeded the daughter, but not Mary's daughter, but it is irrelevant to my argument.<br><br>The 1689 Bill of Rights, the 1701 Settlement Act established the supremacy of Parliament. Parliamnet even had the right to name the royal succession for goodness sake. <br><br>I figure that puts Parliament pretty firmly in charge and Royalty the pretty lights they used to distract the public. I know it is not quite that simple, but it gives the picture.<br><br>But universal suffereag in 1885? That not really true is it? <br><br>Even the 1918 Representation of the People Act only gave <i>women over 30 who also owned property</i> the right to vote – not all women, not most less well off women. But all men over the age of 21 got the right to vote.<br><br>Women didn't get electorial parity till 1928.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com