[Andrew]

I was given this as an essay by my Political Philosophy tutor. I just finished it and thought it was a pretty interesting subject to debate. Any opinions?

[Echoes]

surely in a real democracy, it's the other way around?

[Forgone Conclusion]

It SHOULD be, but I wouldn't necessarily it is the case. The government sure as hell try to persuade us about things, such as the Euro, or the war in iraq

However, they probably aren't quite that obvious. They just present the figures in such a way that we think it's a good/bad idea

[Andrew]

The question has absolutely nothing to do with existing governments, it's about the limits of legitimate government.

If you think they should convince us about Iraq and the Euro and all that, why?

[Echoes]

i don't think that's the point he's making. he was responding to my point with 'they should do'. Given no country has perfect democracy, it's basically inevitable. I do think it's acceptable under certain circumstances that they seek to change people's beliefs - these beliefs can be hideously wrong sometimes and the government is well placed to have some sort of beneficial effect; that power also puts them in a position to affect popular beliefs for self-serving interests (such as staying in power for longer, getting Halliburton some new contracts, etc), so it has to be carefully watched.

[Forgone Conclusion]

I think sometimes it is necessary for the government to try and make decisions on our behalf, and that someties that is probably for the best, as alot of them are a helluva lot smarter than alot of us. I can't imagine the Wayne Rooneys of this world having much to contribute on the finer policy of the European CAP, etc, so maybe the government SHOULD influence them to vote one way or the other

When it gets bad is when, like Brad says, they use it to their own benefits

[misterj]

Quite straight forward isnt' it ? If, what thy seek to make us believe, is for the benifite of state, and people, then, maybe, thats ok, but if, in their infinate wisdom [because they're all so much smarter than us] ha, fuckin' ha, they decide, for instance, to swap all of our gold reserves, for euros, or attack Iraq, then maybe not. So the answer is, sometimes it's ok, and sometimes not.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

what if they are misguided as to what benefits the state?

[misterj]

We can make our own judgement.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

what if the majority of the state are stupid?

[misterj]

The government would carry out their policy regardless, just as they do now, so, whether they seek to influence what we believe, is niether here nor there.

[Andrew]

I know you're trying hard to come off as cynical and jaded, but really you've just completely missed the point.

[misterj]

This is reality, sunshine, you can believe what you like.

[Andrew]

misterj, on Dec 6 2005, 01:12 AM, said:

This is reality, sunshine, you can believe what you like.

I didn't say you were wrong, I meant you misunderstood the focus of the question.

[Gabriel Synthesis]

it's true, the question is whether they should or not, not whether they do or not

[misterj]

And the answer is still the same, it depends on what they seek to influence the people about.There is no straight yes or no answer, whatever your lecturer chappy would have you believe. Bring him on.

[Forgone Conclusion]

In an idealogical situation (ie a perfect democracy) then no, it shouldn't happen. The state is meant to represent the people's views not the other way around

Obviously this is not always plausable in real life, as the public could well be wrong, but it is what SHOULD be the case

[Andrew]

misterj, on Dec 7 2005, 09:58 PM, said:

And the answer is still the same, it depends on what they seek to influence the people about.There is no straight yes or no answer, whatever your lecturer chappy would have you believe. Bring him on.

First of all, a tutor is completely different from a lecturer. Secondly, no-one is looking for a "straight answer". Thirdly, tutors, at least in philosophy, seek to draw out your opinion, not to give you one.

You're an idiot, I hope you're not planning to attend university or do a job that requires basic cognative and abstract reasoning skills.

[misterj]

You don't know who the fuck your talking to, you little prick, best you learn some manners.

[Adamski]

so maybe we're realising a PERFECT democracy in the sense of precisely representing the views of its constituents won't have PERFECT outcomes, since the masses haven't either the time or cognitive power to work out what's best for them in the long run.

after all, if we all could be arsed to run our own shit, surely we wouldn't bother having a government at all. or maybe we would, we're just too apathetic to do something about it.