nfr....the cost to the taxpayer and the country for this wedding.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

Any governing power/decision is necessarily an expression of the people's will.

That doesn't make the institution undemocratic as it was installed by the sovereignty of the people

I don't think this is necessarily true at all, and we can witness this at the moment in the middle east.

The democratic revolutions of the 18th century were a result of the above being shown to be expressely un-true; for years an absolute monarchy had held power against the will of the people through fear, intimidation, encouraging ignorance and religion, when people finally snapped their 'will' came through.

The sovereignty of the people is a very modern idea, as it assumes an educated and informed populace having choice, something that has always been denied by Monarchy.

[The Equalizer]

Mr. Sipwell, like your comments, very thoughtful.

I, like others, detest these wasters. If anyone thinks they are worth their money, lets see some real cost /benefit analysis, like any business and prove it.

As for their land, they didn't buy it. They were not given it, like in America when the settlers arrived (who had to work the land which was the condition I believe.)

Their nasty, cruel ancestors stole it from the peasants and then worked them like slaves, taking all the money in the form of "taxes". Driiving families into starvation and illness.

IT IS TIME TO GIVE THE LAND BACK to it's rightful owners. The British people. They have enough money, they can just fade away and do whatever they want. I hear Monaco is a nice place. If not big enough, try Montana, awsome place! :011:

Hear hear! Let's build another Tesco Metro on the Buck Palace estate!

[jarv]

I am embarrased now, forgot to mention the american indians and the mexicans who lost out. I think some indians have received a few token gestures in recent years. Probably not enough though :dft001:

[sipwell]

Any governing power/decision is necessarily an expression of the people's will.

That doesn't make the institution undemocratic as it was installed by the sovereignty of the people

I don't think this is necessarily true at all, and we can witness this at the moment in the middle east.

The democratic revolutions of the 18th century were a result of the above being shown to be expressely un-true; for years an absolute monarchy had held power against the will of the people through fear, intimidation, encouraging ignorance and religion, when people finally snapped their 'will' came through.

The sovereignty of the people is a very modern idea, as it assumes an educated and informed populace having choice, something that has always been denied by Monarchy.

The current Arab Spring precisely proves my point. They legitimately got rid of a dictatorship which commandeered them for the last decades. In some cases that proves harder than necessary (Libya, Syria) but in others (Egypt, Tunisia, Jemen) the people actually sovereignly decided to oust them. It would be considerably more difficult (and have no support from the West) if a revolution would be started against someone that was legitimately chosen by a majority of the people but is attacked by a minority... So, popular sovereignty prevails. The point is that it is the people who chose their political system. Be it a dictatorship or a democracy. As long as that principle is put into practice, the popular sovereignty has been fulfilled.

The idea of the sovereignty of the people stems from the 17/18th century (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau), precisely the time that the Britain underwent their great changes. The English civil war precisely led to the Parliament obtaining the true power, rather than the absolute monarch. (See the referencing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Civil_War for further reading). I agree with you that the Parliament then wasn't exactly how we would define a Parliament in the current age, but then again this was the expression of the will of the people at that time in history. The decisions that body took are still decisions which are, by any means, taken by a popular sovereignty.

Sovereignty has little to do with actually being educated or informed. Hobbes' Leviathan is a rather good explanation of the whole issue at hand. In a state of nature law, the strongest (or most clever) ones survive and dominate the rest. People however can sign a social contract, which entitles them to certain rights (protection of life and property) but forces them to certain duties (taxes, acceptance of the rule of law, ...). At its essence, the stupid and uneducated farmer can accept the principle of popular sovereignty if that will guarantee the protection of his cattle and his harvest.
Democracy, in the form we know it, is an expression of sovereignty of the people but can't be equated with it. Democracy is an expansion of the rights you already have under the social contract. It is saying: not only do I want my livelihood and property protected, I want to have a say in how it should be protected as well. It is, in other words, an upgrade of sorts.


@ jarv: I am not defending the principle of constitutional monarchy. As far as politics go, I am an old school Communist, that is a Communist from before that dreadful post-1917 era. I have been thought (indirectly) by Ernest Mandel, one of the great minds of the second half of the twentieth century (I work as an assistant to his former assistant, now professor). In true communism, people should be allowed to make their own choice. The only condition is that people make an informed choice and the communist must, unbiased, provide them with ample information on the matter at hand (that explains why the London School of Economics was founded by Communists or that you can find many People's universities in different countries). Now, as communist theory argues: an informed choice will always be a choice which follows your best interest. People in democracies tend to vote against their own best interest (look at presidential elections in the US, where the poor vote for Republicans for instance). In normal circumstances, the large majority of the people would, if they were informed properly and acted rationally, vote communist. :)

[finnster01]

I need to lie down now. Head has exploded again.

[The Equalizer]

A Belgian Commie? MODS - GET THIS MAN OFF THE BOARD!!!  :red:

:59:

[TonyGilroy]

No. Let him stay but politely request that he use shorter words.

I agree with Sipwell. The triumph of capitalism is to persuade vast numbers of people to vote against their own best interests.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

@Sipwell I fully accept all the thesis from Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc, but theorising about social contract, and the actual pragmatic approach to power, control and what it means for the average person is effected so much by circumstance and envirmonment that I do not think you can say the people in power are always there because of the will of the people.

For example, someone such as Saddam Hussein. He was bolstered by the US in the 80's to help fight the Iranians and their newly found religious fundamentalism and this in turn allowed him to keep power in Iraq for potentially longer than the sovereignty of the people would have allowed. The US then decided they didnt like the power they had bestowed on him and 'remedied' the situation which gave the Iraqi majority something they wanted in freedom at the cost of stability. Surely this is a case of the will of the people not being acted upon?

I can see your viewpoint now however, since you admitted you are a Marxist, all your arguments now become understandable!

P.S. I really should never have engaged with an academic who specialises in politics with a Marxist bent. Well, you live and you learn!

[finnster01]

No. Let him stay but politely request that he use shorter words.

I agree with Sipwell. The triumph of capitalism is to persuade vast numbers of people to vote against their own best interests.

Although I think you can make the argument that the vast numbers of people got it right when they elected Abraham Lincoln (unless you owned a large amount of West Ham fans working the fields)

[sipwell]

@Sipwell I fully accept all the thesis from Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc, but theorising about social contract, and the actual pragmatic approach to power, control and what it means for the average person is effected so much by circumstance and envirmonment that I do not think you can say the people in power are always there because of the will of the people.

For example, someone such as Saddam Hussein. He was bolstered by the US in the 80's to help fight the Iranians and their newly found religious fundamentalism and this in turn allowed him to keep power in Iraq for potentially longer than the sovereignty of the people would have allowed. The US then decided they didnt like the power they had bestowed on him and 'remedied' the situation which gave the Iraqi majority something they wanted in freedom at the cost of stability. Surely this is a case of the will of the people not being acted upon?

I can see your viewpoint now however, since you admitted you are a Marxist, all your arguments now become understandable!

P.S. I really should never have engaged with an academic who specialises in politics with a Marxist bent. Well, you live and you learn!

So, you are basically saying the same as I do. He was subsidized by a group outside of the popular sovereignty (the United States) and could cling on to power, even though he massacred his own people and created a reign of terror. The fact that he was removed by that same power automatically makes it illegitimate, as the people itself should have decided he had to leave. That is why the Continent didn't want to participate in the war in Iraq, justly so.

Why do my arguments become understandable because I am a Marxist? I am first and foremost a scholar, who spent the last 12 years of his life studying history and political science :)

[AlFayedsChequebook]

@Sipwell I fully accept all the thesis from Hobbes, Locke, Paine etc, but theorising about social contract, and the actual pragmatic approach to power, control and what it means for the average person is effected so much by circumstance and envirmonment that I do not think you can say the people in power are always there because of the will of the people.

For example, someone such as Saddam Hussein. He was bolstered by the US in the 80's to help fight the Iranians and their newly found religious fundamentalism and this in turn allowed him to keep power in Iraq for potentially longer than the sovereignty of the people would have allowed. The US then decided they didnt like the power they had bestowed on him and 'remedied' the situation which gave the Iraqi majority something they wanted in freedom at the cost of stability. Surely this is a case of the will of the people not being acted upon?

I can see your viewpoint now however, since you admitted you are a Marxist, all your arguments now become understandable!

P.S. I really should never have engaged with an academic who specialises in politics with a Marxist bent. Well, you live and you learn!

So, you are basically saying the same as I do. He was subsidized by a group outside of the popular sovereignty (the United States) and could cling on to power, even though he massacred his own people and created a reign of terror. The fact that he was removed by that same power automatically makes it illegitimate, as the people itself should have decided he had to leave. That is why the Continent didn't want to participate in the war in Iraq, justly so.

Why do my arguments become understandable because I am a Marxist? I am first and foremost a scholar, who spent the last 12 years of his life studying history and political science :)

But you are assuming that the people did not want him to go when he was deposed, which is not necessarily true, although is a fact that neither of us could prove or disprove appropriately. I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?

The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

[sipwell]

I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?


The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

No. Mine is more of a moral stance: ultimately the will of the people will always control power. That isn't necessarily so at this moment. Like you, basically said it at the end yourself :)


I am a Marxist in the sense that I believe people should be fully informed before they make a decision. I don't study history from a Marxist lens though (nor is my PhD a Marxist masterpiece).

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?


The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

No. Mine is more of a moral stance: ultimately the will of the people will always control power. That isn't necessarily so at this moment. Like you, basically said it at the end yourself :)


I am a Marxist in the sense that I believe people should be fully informed before they make a decision. I don't study history from a Marxist lens though (nor is my PhD a Marxist masterpiece).

No offence, but that is a bit of a cop out - ultimately the people will control power, but the time-line is potentially infinite!

By the way, I am very impressed with the fact you expressed all of these ideas in your second language! (if that does not sound patronising)

[sipwell]

I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?


The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

No. Mine is more of a moral stance: ultimately the will of the people will always control power. That isn't necessarily so at this moment. Like you, basically said it at the end yourself :)


I am a Marxist in the sense that I believe people should be fully informed before they make a decision. I don't study history from a Marxist lens though (nor is my PhD a Marxist masterpiece).

No offence, but that is a bit of a cop out - ultimately the people will control power, but the time-line is potentially infinite!

By the way, I am very impressed with the fact you expressed all of these ideas in your second language! (if that does not sound patronising)

My second language would be French :P
I am writing a PhD in English, talking 90 % of my time in English and presenting papers at conferences in English. Quite frankly I am glad it isn't in my maternal language :D

But my viewpoint is that you need to judge historical acts on the involvement of the popular sovereignty (as defined above). Involvement  (in gradation) present: decision acceptable. Involvement absent: decision non-acceptable. Simple as that.

[ImperialWhite]

I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?


The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

No. Mine is more of a moral stance: ultimately the will of the people will always control power. That isn't necessarily so at this moment. Like you, basically said it at the end yourself :)


I am a Marxist in the sense that I believe people should be fully informed before they make a decision. I don't study history from a Marxist lens though (nor is my PhD a Marxist masterpiece).

No offence, but that is a bit of a cop out - ultimately the people will control power, but the time-line is potentially infinite!

By the way, I am very impressed with the fact you expressed all of these ideas in your second language! (if that does not sound patronising)

My second language would be French :P
I am writing a PhD in English, talking 90 % of my time in English and presenting papers at conferences in English. Quite frankly I am glad it isn't in my maternal language :D

But my viewpoint is that you need to judge historical acts on the involvement of the popular sovereignty (as defined above). Involvement  (in gradation) present: decision acceptable. Involvement absent: decision non-acceptable. Simple as that.

You Europeans and your language skills...  :014: ( :005:)

Half way through Le Petit Prince and struggling! (If you want to feel stupid, try reading a children's book but take longer than it took you to read Crime And Punishment).

[AlFayedsChequebook]

I think where I differ from your perception of the people in power is that I think it is possible for the rulers to be in power without the sovereignty of the people through fear, intimidation and other unpleasant factors, whilst you believe that the people ultimately are always correct and therefore whoever is in power is there through the will of the people. Is that right?


The Marxist comment was not meant to be derogatory, more that now I know you lean towards a more Marxist interpretation of history, the argument that the people will always ultimately control the sovereignty of a nation makes more sense.

No. Mine is more of a moral stance: ultimately the will of the people will always control power. That isn't necessarily so at this moment. Like you, basically said it at the end yourself :)


I am a Marxist in the sense that I believe people should be fully informed before they make a decision. I don't study history from a Marxist lens though (nor is my PhD a Marxist masterpiece).

No offence, but that is a bit of a cop out - ultimately the people will control power, but the time-line is potentially infinite!

By the way, I am very impressed with the fact you expressed all of these ideas in your second language! (if that does not sound patronising)

My second language would be French :P
I am writing a PhD in English, talking 90 % of my time in English and presenting papers at conferences in English. Quite frankly I am glad it isn't in my maternal language :D

But my viewpoint is that you need to judge historical acts on the involvement of the popular sovereignty (as defined above). Involvement  (in gradation) present: decision acceptable. Involvement absent: decision non-acceptable. Simple as that.

Ok, I get you now - It is a moral guide to whether the decision is right or not.

Without wanting to stoke the flames of the discussion again at the risk of boring other posters, where do you stand with regards to successful actions that may not have public backing or have very fine backing of a majority of people (51-49%) such as the Civil Rights legislation passed in 1960's?

[ImperialWhite]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

[AlFayedsChequebook]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

Precisely - at what point is it a good idea to take decision making away from the people?

I think I may already know the response though...

[finnster01]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

This is one area the muslims got right. You don't mess around with Sharia Law. Literally. Maybe we could have the odd stoning at the Cottage as half-time entertainment?

[AlFayedsChequebook]

AFC - like the abolishment of capital punishment you mean? I shudder to think what we'd be doing to criminals if we were allowed to vote on it.

This is one area the muslims got right. You don't mess around with Sharia Law. Literally. Maybe we could have the odd stoning at the Cottage as half-time entertainment?

Mmm, Sharia Law is paying dividends in the Middle East right now!