The Underworld Of Lightly (& Logically) Moderated Discussion & Debate


    Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Share
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Waireka on Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:17 pm

    Wanganui Mayor Micael Laws has accused Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples of not understanding the concept of democracy.

    His accusation came as part of a mounting war of words over yesterday's decision by the New Zealand Geographic Board that the city's name should have an h added to it.

    The spelling is already used for Whanganui National Park and the Whanganui River.

    The board decided the spelling be changed to Whanganui after local iwi committee Te Runanga O Tupoho petitioned for the change. Land Information Minister Maurice Williamson has the final say.

    Mr Laws dismissed the call by Dr Sharples for Wanganui residents to "embrace" the decision and accept "the gift" as "a powerful unifying force in the life and future of the city".

    Dr Sharples said he could understand that generations had adopted the name Wanganui and identified with it, but called upon its citizens to "show pride in Maori history and embrace Maori language, treasures which make us unique on the global scene".

    Mr Laws said Dr Sharples "plainly does not understand the concept of democracy. Or any culture that is not Maori".

    "Wanganui people have twice and overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire (to retain the h), and we have a culture of our own that also requires and deserves recognition."

    Mr Laws said both names had co-existed since 1991 - neither the council nor the community had sought to declare one choice as the "winner" and the other as the "loser".

    "It is deceitful to suggest that any disunity has emanated from any other than the quarter - those who wanted to campaign against that co-existence," Mr Laws said.

    Last night iwi committee spokesman Ken Mair said it was not a question of majority rules, but simply correcting an historical spelling mistake.

    But Mr Laws rejected that view.

    "How can it be? Historical research suggests that this current spelling was the original written transcription," he said.

    "That was in 1837 and it assumed its own identity and mana from thenceforth. In essence, Wanganui assumed an identity independent of its Maori origins."

    Mr Laws said the council would appeal directly to the Government over the decision.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Waireka on Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:18 pm

    Obvious Micael Laws doesn't 'get Mobocracy'.
    avatar
    dabiarch
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  dabiarch on Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:20 pm

    should that be Dr. Peter Sarples silent
    avatar
    Jesus Christ
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Jesus Christ on Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:21 pm

    Democracy is mobocracy. There is no distinction.
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Waireka on Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:26 pm

    Jesus Christ wrote:Democracy is mobocracy. There is no distinction.


    We have a representative democracy, no?

    You are way more onto it with this than I am.

    If we had a mobocracy, smacking would be legal again.
    avatar
    Psalter
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Psalter on Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:32 pm

    One should never say "an historic"... it is contrary to the purpose of adding an "n" to an "a".
    avatar
    Jesus Christ
    Nymph
    Nymph

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Jesus Christ on Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:25 am

    Waireka wrote:
    Jesus Christ wrote:Democracy is mobocracy. There is no distinction.


    We have a representative democracy, no?

    You are way more onto it with this than I am.

    If we had a mobocracy, smacking would be legal again.

    We do have a Representative Democracy, as opposed to a Direct Democracy (where we would directly participate). But this does not change the fact that it is a "mobocracy". I hate that term, mobocracy. It seems to be used by those who support democracy to defend it against this mythical "mobocracy" which actually embodies within it all the negative things about democracy itself.

    Democracy is a mobocracy, because decisions are handled in the exact same way. For example, you call the Whanganui referendum on the letter insertion mobocracy if it would be allowed to be upheld simply because a majority of people though that's the way it should be. This is indeed throwing an apple to the mob; giving them what they want because there are more of them than the other guys. It is making a fallacious assumption that what the majority of people wants, is what is right for the country. This is absurd.

    Now, in Representative Democracy, individual decisions, you would say, are not voted upon and upheld, and thus we do not have mobocracy. Oh no! This is not true. We do vote on individual decisions; very fundamental ones. We vote on who will run the government. While this has very different implications to voting on every single issue, it is using the same fallacious logic; that what the majority want is best. Don't you see that there is no difference here? The issue may be different, but it is not the issue that makes the method. The method is the same in both cases, and thus surely is the same system of government. One also need only to look at the huge cloud of "public opinion" hovering over the heads of politicians at all times to realise that the majority pushes and shoves governments around in Representative Democracy, anyway. Indeed, they need that single, mindless vote at the end of three years.

    This is a really poorly written summary of my thoughts on the matter. I've actually being doing a lot of work on an ultimate critique of democracy recently, and plan to post a full critique of sorts on the forum sometime soon. I actually am beginning to believe that the problems we have with democracy today could, ironically, be solved by moving to a more pure form of Direct Democracy, where citizens were forced to write lengthy submissions in order to participate in the making of political decisions; all of which would be done by the people at large via debate and consensus. I obviously have very little faith in the people, so it may seem strange that I want to give them more power, but the necessity for debate, lengthy discussion and formal submission, I think, would keep politics relatively confined to those of a more intellectual nature, and force people to consider their opinions beyond a gut reaction of racism or bloodthirst. It would also help nurture the intellectual abilities of those who are not so intellectually able, but also desire to participate.

    Again, this is a poor summary of my ideas. Also, I finally got the "Micael Laws" joke Laughing Here I was sitting here the whole time thinking "she's made a spelling mistake!" Smile
    avatar
    relict
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  relict on Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:01 am

    Jesus Christ wrote:We do have a Representative Democracy, as opposed to a Direct Democracy (where we would directly participate). But this does not change the fact that it is a "mobocracy". ...

    We do vote on individual decisions; very fundamental ones. We vote on who will run the government. While this has very different implications to voting on every single issue, it is using the same fallacious logic; that what the majority want is best. Don't you see that there is no difference here?

    I do see the similarity of principle you are pointing out, but I would not go so far as to say there is no difference. The use of the prefix 'mob' implies a lack of methodical reasoning, which in theory, should not be missing in the decisions made by representatively (?) democratic governments. Okay, so in reality, that methodical reasoning has been either missing or misguided in some of National's education policies, but hopefully most of the time, it plays more of a part than it would in a hypothetical 'mobocracy' situation.

    Jesus Christ wrote:I actually am beginning to believe that the problems we have with democracy today could, ironically, be solved by moving to a more pure form of Direct Democracy, where citizens were forced to write lengthy submissions in order to participate in the making of political decisions

    What pay rate will people be able to expect for wading through Dream_Builder's submissions?
    avatar
    Waireka
    River-God
    River-God

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Waireka on Sat Sep 19, 2009 11:18 am

    Jesus Christ wrote:Again, this is a poor summary of my ideas. Also, I finally got the "Micael Laws" joke Laughing Here I was sitting here the whole time thinking "she's made a spelling mistake!" Smile

    Embarassed

    Sponsored content

    Re: Micael Laws: Sharples doesn't get democracy

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Tue Dec 12, 2017 7:19 pm