Brexit.. No way out

I did watch it.

He's entertaining, no doubt, but he also has an agenda to push and always does.

Like I said, he only presents one side of the story.

For instance, does Oliver mention things like this:

https://www.vox.com/2016/6/25/12029962/why-did-britain-leave-the-eu

 

Yes, God help them if they ever try to rid themselves of their oligarchs in Brussels that have made themselves billionaires on the backs of the people while imposing negative interest rates to save their decrepit poorly run banks.

 

I have given up nothing. You give up on democracy, you are giving up all your rights.

 

I don't think that is true. People had property rights even when ruled by a king.

 

Not really. Rights were limited by the will of the King.

 

Rights are always limited by whatever government is in power.

If you believe in democracy you should stop bemoaning the decisions that are democratically decided.

 

In a Democracy, rights are limited by the rights of others. Not by the will of a dictator. And that includes the rights of idiots who are too stupid to know how to use their rights. This is why we get Trump. And this is why we get Brexit. But we also have the possibility of changing it. We don't have that in a Dictatorship.

It's because I believe in Democracy that I can bemoan the decisions that are democratically decided. Because by bemoaning them, I can help change them. If you don't believe in Democracy, not only do you give up the right to bemoan. But you don't even have a reason to. I mean, why would you bemoan decisions if you don't have a say on the matter?

 

Rights, in this country, are limited by the will of nine Supreme Court judges, and you know it. And the Brexiteers, et al, they know how to use their rights or Brexit wouldn't happen.

If you are content to be ruled by idiots, so be it. I will bemoan such a condition.

If I think a decision is bad, I can bemoan it to my hearts content no matter how it is arrived at. My boss at work often made bad decisions and I bemoaned them to anyone who would listen.

 

Not. They are limited by the will of the people who elected the Presidents who nominated them, and the Senators who confirmed them. They can be changed as the will of the people as to whom they elect changes.

In a dictatorship, they are limited by the will of a dictator.which will never change.

Don't confuse "knowing" how to use the rights with having them. Democracy guarantees having them. It doesn't guarantee that they will always be used well. Sometimes they won't. But, on the bright side, sometimes they will. And that's why it's worth it. Never happens in a dictatorship.

What makes you think that a Dictator would not be an idiot? In a Democracy, if you are ruled by an idiot, you have the possibility of changing them. Not so in a dictatorship. You do understand that once you renounce to Democracy you advocate dictatorship, right?

It is, of course, very easy to find the flaws on anything. But completely useless if you don't have an alternative. Especially difficult to make the effort to try to correct the errors. But if you just criticize and propose no alternative, you are just engaging in intellectual masturbation.

Because you live in a Democracy.

And your boss may tolerate them so long as they don't include replacing your boss, or going fundamentally against his will. Funny thing about dictatorships is that even in a private environment, criticism is tolerated less than in a Democracy.

 

The will of the dictator changes when the dictator dies. The same way the will of the SCOTUS changes, come to think of it.

Why not in a dictatorship? Many monarchs in history are celebrated for their policies.

Not at all. There are several alternatives found in history.

[quote[It is, of course, very easy to find the flaws on anything. But completely useless if you don't have an alternative. Especially difficult to make the effort to try to correct the errors. But if you just criticize and propose no alternative, you are just engaging in intellectual masturbation.[/quote]

I have an alternative, an Aristocracy. A hereditary class educated that their duty is to rule wisely.

 

So you prefer the dictator?

In history, maybe. Not necessarily by the subjects who had to submit to their will or be thrown to the lions.

Like what? I would like nothing more than seeing you defend one.

An alternative to what? That is a dictatorship! Educated by whom? It is ridiculous to have the rulers judge themselves if they are ruling wisely. I'm sure if you ask Trump he'll tell you that he's ruling wisely. Only the majority of the people can judge that. And they might make a mistake now and then, but they can also get it right once in a while. You can be sure that leaders who judge themselves will always get it wrong.

 

Of course in history, and the populace, too. There were many popular kings. Historians take that into account.

I think it is ridiculous to have the people decide if the king is ruling wisely. Just ask John Oliver. What you and I consider wise is probably diametrically opposed. Which ever party can dominate the media and the schools get to determine what the people consider "wise."

Democracies may work if diversity in the electorate is low. One way to do this is to limit the franchise as was done in Rome and in the USA for most of its history.

But with increasing diversity comes increasing divisiveness. The US government is all but paralyzed because of pathological partisanship. And the situation is growing worse. The electorate is divided by two very different ideas of what is wise.

What good is democracy if it paralyzes the government and the government fails to maintain public order?

 

The people wouldn't "fall for bigoted demagoguery" if they weren't suffering already.

 

I don't know who you're talking about. But I'm sure if you look hard enough you could find a handful in History. But you seem positive you'll get one of those and not one of the huge majority who responded to anybody who bemoaned with the Gallows.

In a Democracy we don't want the government to be paralyzed, Whereas in a Dictatorship we want the government paralyzed.

I say again: if you want to give up your rights, that's up to you. But most of us will fight to keep ours. So "public order" is the last thing we want. The right to "public disorder" is a human right.

 

There have been great kings, terrible kings but most were just mediocre. Sort of like Presidents. If you need an example of what I am talking about, try the Tang Dynasty of China:

"The Tang dynasty was largely a period of progress and stability in the first half of the dynasty's rule, until the An Lushan Rebellion and the decline of central authority in the later half of the dynasty. Like the previous Sui dynasty, the Tang dynasty maintained a civil-service system by recruiting scholar-officials through standardized examinations and recommendations to office. The rise of regional military governors known as jiedushi during the 9th century undermined this civil order. Chinese culture flourished and further matured during the Tang era; it is traditionally considered the greatest age for Chinese poetry.[11] Two of China's most famous poets, Li Bai and Du Fu, belonged to this age, as did many famous painters such as Han Gan, Zhang Xuan, and Zhou Fang. Scholars of this period compiled a rich variety of historical literature, as well as encyclopedias and geographical works. The adoption of the title Tängri Qaghan by the Tang Emperor Taizong in addition to his title as emperor was eastern Asia's first "simultaneous kingship".[12]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_dynasty

And yet, our Democracy is paralyzed and I don't see a way out of it that includes democracy. And I am surprised you consider rioting, raping and looting a "human right," though.