On removing government.

[Hermit]

Good point. In fact such a good point I wonder if the public are responsible enough to be trusted to have access to the very killswitch they should have.

However if we cannot trust the public, why do we hang on to democracy exactly?

Truly a conundrum, ain't it? I love two of Churchill's quips expressing just that:

"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

[Audley Strange]

I think that depends on the point of view. I'm sure dictatorships are a a more effective form of government. Sure, the people might not like being subject to the whim of an authority they don't wish to recognise, but most of them get things done pretty quickly.

[amused]

I think politicians should be subject to random blood testing.

And pop quizzes.

[Svartalf]

Systematic composting you mean?

[amused]

[Svartalf]

Pass politicians in woodchipper, and throw the chips on compost pile, rinse and repeat until you have politicians worth keeping, keep chipper ready to use in case the current batch is needed as fertilizer.

[amused]

Seems a bit harsh....on the bacteria in the compost pile.

[Svartalf]

I got talked out of feeding the damn politicos to the pigs because the humane society was picketing my pig pen.

[Rum]

The only legal way in the UK is if the current government suffers a defeat in a vote of no confidence in Parliament. They are obliged to quite in those circumstances. It has happened in the past - here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motions_of ... ed_Kingdom

The queen technically dissolves parliament and I imagine there are are other unusual circumstances in which she has the power to do so - say if the PM goes totally bonkers or some such.

Yeah I know that, but those are internal processes. I'm looking to see if we have the security measure in place where the public can somehow call a vote of no confidence. We all know democracies can end up with crazy bastards in power and in essence we are entirely culpable for putting them in power, as such we should have the ability to remove their mandate quickly in the event they are dangerous.

It's like revolution, yes that's an option, but that should only be necessary if they refuse to go. Do we have killswitches? If not why not? Is it a stupid idea or not? I'm actually pondering whether or not this might actually be something that protects democracy.

I dunno.

The government, civil service and military spend a great deal of time working on scenarios and contingency plans. I know this from my own local government experience where we did this a lot. In my case we had plans in place for anything from Sellafield blowing up to a major flu pandemic and how to manage the shutting down of schools in an orderly fashion. The emergency planning group, which involved people from all departments (I represented Children's Services) was disconcertingly held in Carlisle Castle's radiation, germ and and bomb proof crisis management offices which always spooked the hell out of me). Those big lead and steel doors gave me the creeps!

So I am almost 100% certain that there are contingency plans for shutting down government if the situation requires it.

I bet the plans are confidential though.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I got talked out of feeding the damn politicos to the pigs because the humane society was picketing my pig pen.

Could have been worse, could have been PETA.

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

.
People
Eaten by
Tough
Animals.

[Svartalf]

I love PETA, very nice folk
People for
Eating
Tasty
Animals

[Seth]

Most democratic governments are, wisely, fixed term. However, I'm wondering if there is any way that the populace can remove a Government from power within that fixed term, if say parliament was suddenly filled with a group of total morons who just openly exploited their position. But is there any kind of political failsafe or killswitch we can use in that case? Can we call an automatic no confidence referendum if we get enough signatures? Is there some way to have them removed through the judicial system or even a magic whistle to call the Generals in?

I'm not sure we have anything like that in the U.K. but I'm wondering do other nations? If so what mechanisms are in place so your country doesn't turn into Syria?

Of course there is. The ultimate political failsafe is called "revolution" and in the US (though not the UK) the ability of the populace to remove a tyrannical or despotic or simply incompetent government that refuses to cede power when directed to do so by a vote of the people is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, which protects the natural human right to keep and bear arms which is at least in part intended for the purpose of ensuring that tyrants and despots and their minions end up dead.

The reason Syria is experiencing government-sponsored massacres is that Syria, like most other countries including the UK, has disarmed the general populace, reserving the keeping and bearing of arms to the government and it's minions and agents. That's how tyrannies work.

You folks in the UK are just completely fucked I'm afraid, and you'll just have to bend your knee and tug your forelock to any government that comes along because you have willingly forfeited your rights and surrendered the only tools that can possibly rectify the situation when all other political efforts have failed.

Hoist on your own petard I'd say, and well deserving of it as an example to everyone else why allowing government to ban the possession of arms by the citizenry is a very, very bad idea.

Enjoy your servitude, because it's all you're going to ever have I'm afraid.

[Jason]

That's all very well and good Seth, but of what import is a government ban on arms of any sort to a revolutionary? Or is it your contention that such bans are actually effective in preventing the import and distribution of arms on a large scale?

In my experience, restrictions and prohibitions are ultimately ineffectual. Those who wish to arm themselves have little trouble doing so. The imposed legalities of a tyrannical government are justly dismissed Martin Luther King wrote "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws". What is a law prohibiting the populace living under brutal and tyrannical government from procuring the means to effect change if not unjust?

It seems to me that many citizens of the United States of America are all too quick to tout their precious right to bear arms with little consideration given to the practicality of the course of action it would imply. Civil rebellion, or revolution as it comes to be called if successful or popular, on its own without the support of the military or the support of the military of one or more foreign nations is doomed to failure. They lack the training, leadership, materiel and resources of a standing army and would simply be cut down in swaths by the well trained, equipped and supplied forces of the government they are rebelling against.

It's a comforting security blanket, but the notion that an armed citizenry is in anyway a guard against despotism and tyranny was outdated over one hundred years ago.

[Audley Strange]

Most democratic governments are, wisely, fixed term. However, I'm wondering if there is any way that the populace can remove a Government from power within that fixed term, if say parliament was suddenly filled with a group of total morons who just openly exploited their position. But is there any kind of political failsafe or killswitch we can use in that case? Can we call an automatic no confidence referendum if we get enough signatures? Is there some way to have them removed through the judicial system or even a magic whistle to call the Generals in?

I'm not sure we have anything like that in the U.K. but I'm wondering do other nations? If so what mechanisms are in place so your country doesn't turn into Syria?

Of course there is. The ultimate political failsafe is called "revolution" and in the US (though not the UK) the ability of the populace to remove a tyrannical or despotic or simply incompetent government that refuses to cede power when directed to do so by a vote of the people is guaranteed by the Second Amendment, which protects the natural human right to keep and bear arms which is at least in part intended for the purpose of ensuring that tyrants and despots and their minions end up dead.

The reason Syria is experiencing government-sponsored massacres is that Syria, like most other countries including the UK, has disarmed the general populace, reserving the keeping and bearing of arms to the government and it's minions and agents. That's how tyrannies work.

You folks in the UK are just completely fucked I'm afraid, and you'll just have to bend your knee and tug your forelock to any government that comes along because you have willingly forfeited your rights and surrendered the only tools that can possibly rectify the situation when all other political efforts have failed.

Hoist on your own petard I'd say, and well deserving of it as an example to everyone else why allowing government to ban the possession of arms by the citizenry is a very, very bad idea.

Enjoy your servitude, because it's all you're going to ever have I'm afraid.

Man I'd love, LOVE to see those revolutionary Americans attempt an armed revolt. I get the feeling the response would make Syria's actions look even handed.

[Rum]

Seth thinks if the merican government gets really unpopular there will be an armed uprising because people are allowed to own their own peashooters?