Is it justifiable to execute criminals?

[-:Undertaker:-]

in who's opinion are certain laws 'trivial?' I don't know the whole of switzerland's system, but I disagree that the majority of people should be allowed to ban minarets. surely people should be allowed to practice their religion regardless of what other people think. That's called freedom. That's why I think that the system is very flawed. Who decides what should be set to a referendum and that certain laws passed by the majority could in theory conflict with minority's personal freedoms.

That could be done in a number of ways, possibly the parties before an election could set out legally-binding what issues they would put to a referendum - more so, i'd much rather prefer when a certain number of signatures are reached then a referendum can be held. We would have to look closely at the Swiss system to get the full idea though.

On freedom, but to what extent. I disagree with gay marriage, by me voting against it I do not see how that is taking away somebodys freedom. It is democracy and democracy is freedom, therefore by banning minarets (although I disagree with it to an extent) the majority aka the democratic vote has voted to enforce a certain law. A political party could also propose to ban minarets, so do you disagree with elections also?

Your reasoning for referendums seems to split from the feeling that the state should not play a large part in people's lives - Why don't we just get rid of the state altogether and let people set their own laws for their own land...

The state should not play a big part in peoples lives, it never works. On the other hand, no state at all does not work either. Therefore that is why I am a conservative - conservatism works.

[alexxxxx]

That could be done in a number of ways, possibly the parties before an election could set out legally-binding what issues they would put to a referendum - more so, i'd much rather prefer when a certain number of signatures are reached then a referendum can be held. We would have to look closely at the Swiss system to get the full idea though.

On freedom, but to what extent. I disagree with gay marriage, by me voting against it I do not see how that is taking away somebodys freedom. It is democracy and democracy is freedom, therefore by banning minarets (although I disagree with it to an extent) the majority aka the democratic vote has voted to enforce a certain law. A political party could also propose to ban minarets, so do you disagree with elections also?

Who initiates the proposal and drafting of a bill? Is it the population or the government?

You are taking away someone's ability to do something that in no way restricts you in any way. How can that not be taking away someone's freedom? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom for those in it. That's why you have safeguards in place, such as in the USA, they have the supreme court, which upholds the constitution which stops the deprivation of the minority's freedoms. If you were to ban all mosques, or gay sex, can you not see how that is depriving someone of freedom? A democracy decided to vote in the nazis who killed the jews and took away their freedoms (and then the populations freedoms). Were the Germans free?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Who initiates the proposal and drafting of a bill? Is it the population or the government?

You are taking away someone's ability to do something that in no way restricts you in any way. How can that not be taking away someone's freedom? Democracy doesn't guarantee freedom for those in it. That's why you have safeguards in place, such as in the USA, they have the supreme court, which upholds the constitution which stops the deprivation of the minority's freedoms. If you were to ban all mosques, or gay sex, can you not see how that is depriving someone of freedom? A democracy decided to vote in the nazis who killed the jews and took away their freedoms (and then the populations freedoms). Were the Germans free?

The government would draft the bill and legislation behind it.

I can see how its banning somebodys freedom to an extent, and thats why I would think long and hard about a possible ban on mosques, infact i'd most likely oppose it. Many people disagree with drug use and thus its illegal, are we taking away peoples freedoms to smoke drugs aswell?

On Nazi Germany, theres a lot more behind it than you think - The Nazi Party would never of gained power if it wasn't through bullying tactics, the burning of the Reichstag, the state of emergency imposed and the death of Hindenburg. The Nazis simply did not walk into office as you seem to make out.

[Ardemax]

I did answer and you know yourself that I did, hence why you are now asking me whether or not I seriously said that. Yes I am, thats democracy. If a Nazi Party won an election fair and square then a Nazi Party is the democratic government of the country. However what you have ignored is my very point; the vast majority of the British people do not want jews exterminated and would never vote for a Nazi Party - therefore comparing a referendum on the extermination of the jews to a referendum on whether or not the death penalty should be brought back makes no sense.



The Council or Europe and the European Union are closely linked, I proved that at the time. On the policies/manifesto, yes you are. In a referendum you are voting on one policy instead of numerous policies. If the people are not 'informed' enough to make a decision on one policy in a referendum, how on earth can you say that they have the capability to make an 'informed' decision on the formation of a government, a body which passes thousands of pieces of legislation each year.

A modern day Nazi party could be seen by some people as the BNP

[alexxxxx]

The government would draft the bill and legislation behind it.

I can see how its banning somebodys freedom to an extent, and thats why I would think long and hard about a possible ban on mosques, infact i'd most likely oppose it. Many people disagree with drug use and thus its illegal, are we taking away peoples freedoms to smoke drugs aswell?

On Nazi Germany, theres a lot more behind it than you think - The Nazi Party would never of gained power if it wasn't through bullying tactics, the burning of the Reichstag, the state of emergency imposed and the death of Hindenburg. The Nazis simply did not walk into office as you seem to make out.

This illustrates the problems with refferendums. They are too polarised. yes or no. Where's the possible answers, yes, if these points are changed, no, never. That's why it's difficult to redraft laws, you have to pretty much guess public opinion on what needs to be changed, re-drafts or edits of current drafts are too difficult with so many different views, it takes an age and a lot of money to sort out a law/bill.

Yeah, you are taking away someone's freedom to use whatever they want to pleasure themselves, and in my opinion, it should be up to responsible adults to decide for themselves. Obviously there are negative externalities of the use of certain drugs (serious addiction and therefore crime to feed the addiction), but perhaps the criminalization of the drug itself is part of the problems caused.

I've had to write countless notes on how the nazi party consolidated power, but at the end of the day that is what happened, they were voted in by the population, using scapegoats for their problems. Promising better lives for the majority at the expense of freedoms of the minority.

[-:Undertaker:-]

This illustrates the problems with refferendums. They are too polarised. yes or no. Where's the possible answers, yes, if these points are changed, no, never. That's why it's difficult to redraft laws, you have to pretty much guess public opinion on what needs to be changed, re-drafts or edits of current drafts are too difficult with so many different views, it takes an age and a lot of money to sort out a law/bill.

Not always, on the European Union option you could have a number of options;

a) remain in the European Union as we presently are.
b) stay in the European Union but repeal EU control over the courts, agriculture and other areas
c) Leave the European Union but remain a member of the EFTA.
d) Leave the European Union and other-related bodies and seek independant trade agreements with European nations.

On the expense of drafting laws, please do not bring cost into this again - it costs very little for one law such as this and once its in it will seldom need changing again. The other point is that you support the European Union which costs the state billions in legislation every year and costs billions to business every year who have to enforce silly European regulations.

Yeah, you are taking away someone's freedom to use whatever they want to pleasure themselves, and in my opinion, it should be up to responsible adults to decide for themselves. Obviously there are negative externalities of the use of certain drugs (serious addiction and therefore crime to feed the addiction), but perhaps the criminalization of the drug itself is part of the problems caused.

Of course there are negative parts, and many people see mosques springing up over the United Kingdom as a invasion of our culture. I certainly too would not wish to see mosques everywhere. If a party proposes to ban mosques in a general election, what would you do if they won? - nothing, because they are democratically elected. It is the same with socialism, I see it as freedom to be able to set up my own business however socialist parties if they gained office would nationalise all business aka remove property from the individual and give to the state.

I've had to write countless notes on how the nazi party consolidated power, but at the end of the day that is what happened, they were voted in by the population, using scapegoats for their problems. Promising better lives for the majority at the expense of freedoms of the minority.

They were not voted in, yes they got votes and fair play although nobody was to know that the emergency act would be enacted by Hitler - but the fact is that if they didn't have their own private army, if they did not bully other parties and politicians and if they did not burn down the Reichstag then they would not have gained power to establish a dictatorship.

On the referendum subject, i'm afraid the minority in the death penalty issue are not worthy of life in my eyes and the eyes of many others, including your average criminal who would love to get hold of Ian Huntley and co.

The majority come before the minority, thats democracy like it or not.

[alexxxxx]

Not always, on the European Union option you could have a number of options;

a) remain in the European Union as we presently are.
b) stay in the European Union but repeal EU control over the courts, agriculture and other areas
c) Leave the European Union but remain a member of the EFTA.
d) Leave the European Union and other-related bodies and seek independant trade agreements with European nations.

And you think this makes referedums a great way of passing laws, when the average guy on the street won't know these things, the benefits and the drawbacks. It's really flawed.

On the expense of drafting laws, please do not bring cost into this again - it costs very little for one law such as this and once its in it will seldom need changing again. The other point is that you support the European Union which costs the state billions in legislation every year and costs billions to business every year who have to enforce silly European regulations.

Great comeback... :rolleyes:

Of course there are negative parts, and many people see mosques springing up over the United Kingdom as a invasion of our culture. I certainly too would not wish to see mosques everywhere. If a party proposes to ban mosques in a general election, what would you do if they won? - nothing, because they are democratically elected. It is the same with socialism, I see it as freedom to be able to set up my own business however socialist parties if they gained office would nationalise all business aka remove property from the individual and give to the state.

So freedom for the majority and oppression for the minority. Sounds great. This has nothing to do with socialism.

They were not voted in, yes they got votes and fair play although nobody was to know that the emergency act would be enacted by Hitler - but the fact is that if they didn't have their own private army, if they did not bully other parties and politicians and if they did not burn down the Reichstag then they would not have gained power to establish a dictatorship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Pa...ection_results

Quite a number of votes they got there. We have laws to prevent unfair influence by parties and third parties BUT I can't say that this could be true for referendums.

On the referendum subject, i'm afraid the minority in the death penalty issue are not worthy of life in my eyes and the eyes of many others, including your average criminal who would love to get hold of Ian Huntley and co.

The majority come before the minority, thats democracy like it or not.

Not everyone who will vote no in this subject is a criminal. Plus you've highlighted an issue that is a problem.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And you think this makes referedums a great way of passing laws, when the average guy on the street won't know these things, the benefits and the drawbacks. It's really flawed.

Again, implying that the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Your view is not worth more than that of somebody elses just because you consider yourself more educated in certain areas than others, pure arrogance.

Great comeback... :rolleyes:

Just pointing out the hypocrisy, thats all.

So freedom for the majority and oppression for the minority. Sounds great. This has nothing to do with socialism.

The death penalty is not oppression for the minority, on mosques - yes if the majority in a referendum voted to ban mosques then that should go ahead, even though I have my reservations against it. This is a democratic country and you abide by the laws of this land and its people if you wish to live here. Islam is not part of our culture or history and therefore is a topical issue. Banning mosques is not oppression, is banning ciggarettes from public places also oppression?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Pa...ection_results

Quite a number of votes they got there. We have laws to prevent unfair influence by parties and third parties BUT I can't say that this could be true for referendums.

I never said they did not get a substancial number of votes, what I have said is that without the things I listed they would never of gained power. On referendums, why, are the evil conservative media going to tell everybody what to do while the Guardian speaks the truth to the workers of the world! :rolleyes: - please, referendums are very fair, a newspaper cannot sway somebodies opinions and neither can a political party. Everyone forms their opinions throughout life, and the people of this country are not stupid or deluded.

Not everyone who will vote no in this subject is a criminal. Plus you've highlighted an issue that is a problem.

Criminals should not get a say on this subject, the people should decide what their most important issues/laws are and whether they wish for them or not. It is not up to the European Union or the Lib/Lab/Con elite, or you for that matter to tell the British people that they simply are far too stupid to understand the issues such as the death penalty and the European Union.

Elitist alex, and its exactly what you are being.

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes — are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight or those who view their own views as so; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

[alexxxxx]

Again, implying that the British people are too stupid to make their own decisions. Your view is not worth more than that of somebody elses just because you consider yourself more educated in certain areas than others, pure arrogance.

It's not about being stupid. I don't know how to fix a toilet. I don't know how to build a house. I don't know how to fix cars. I don't know how to install electrical sockets. I don't know how to perform a heart operation. That's why I'm not a plumber, a builder, electrician or a surgeon. I don't know know everything to do with making decisions that effect me. That's why i'm not a politician. I appoint my own plumber, my own builder, to an extent my own doctor and my own politician to do the best job that I would like doing.

Just pointing out the hypocrisy, thats all.

Like you've said about UKIP, you don't agree with everything they do, but you agree with their general outline. Likewise with the EU in my case.

The death penalty is not oppression for the minority, on mosques - yes if the majority in a referendum voted to ban mosques then that should go ahead, even though I have my reservations against it. This is a democratic country and you abide by the laws of this land and its people if you wish to live here. Islam is not part of our culture or history and therefore is a topical issue. Banning mosques is not oppression, is banning ciggarettes from public places also oppression?

Banning something is by definition denying someone the freedom in partaking the said action. So yes, banning both mosques and cigarrettes from public places are oppression. However, you can say that people smoking cigarrettes in public places tramples on people's freedom to live a healthy life. A mosque on the other hand does not affect anyone else's freedoms.

I never said they did not get a substancial number of votes, what I have said is that without the things I listed they would never of gained power. On referendums, why, are the evil conservative media going to tell everybody what to do while the Guardian speaks the truth to the workers of the world! :rolleyes: - please, referendums are very fair, a newspaper cannot sway somebodies opinions and neither can a political party. Everyone forms their opinions throughout life, and the people of this country are not stupid or deluded.

They were not voted in,

well evidently they were voted in. just as the electorate was influenced, whether it be violently or via propaganda, in many ways doesn't make the result any less valid at that point in time. The guardian does not speak fact in many areas, nor does many news outlets. But when you start presenting opinion as fact (as you see in FOX NEWS in the USA) and in the mail, guardian, etc you have direct manipulation of ones thoughts of things they are not in direct contact in. When you have Cameron going round to Murdochs house for dinner and the next day announce they will quash some of OFCOMs powers when elected and then the Sun changing their stance, can you not tell that there is some sort of alliance of the state and 'free' media. Glamorization or substantiation sells. The truth often doesn't.

Criminals should not get a say on this subject, the people should decide what their most important issues/laws are and whether they wish for them or not. It is not up to the European Union or the Lib/Lab/Con elite, or you for that matter to tell the British people that they simply are far too stupid to understand the issues such as the death penalty and the European Union.

Elitist alex, and its exactly what you are being.

If elitism gains the best results then yes. However i'd call it specialisation. Just because someone THINKS something works in a certain way doesn't make it TRUE which is what referendum's largest downfall. Just because i believe my migranes come from stress doesn't mean they are, nor should i be able to prescribe my own drugs.

[Black_Apalachi]

Heyyy, just thought I'd dip my toes into this party. Ardemax you automatically lost the argument when you made the following post;

Let's base this on real events, shall we?

You're high up in the Nazi cabinet and Hitler tells you to exterminate thousands of Jews in a death camp.

The public agree with this.

What would you do?

Reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law :L xx