Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Demonic demos

The wife considers the politicos' attitude to democracy, and ain't that impressed.
So when the demos vote to ban minarets or vote for parties you don’t like, it’s outrageous. But when the demos vote to pick your pocket, store your DNA on a database, lock you up for a month without charge, or demand you prove you’re not a paedophile every time you step outside your front door, that’s totally fine.

Of course, my dear: how could it be otherwise...? Oh, and "representative democracy" is the biggest con on the planet.

Apart from anthropogenic climate change, of course...

9 comments:

Brian E. said...

The best answer would be
"When it can be arranged for us to build and use a Protestant Church (with bells)in Riyadh, we will be happy to see a similar sized mosque built in our capital"

Anonymous said...

I have gone beyond rational debate with this bunch of weirdo's.
They are really weird people.
They breed them in university "special interest groups".
Then they become political researchers.
Then they become Politicos.
Then they impose their warped logic on us.
It's bonkers.
ps AGW is now definately, "shite".

yours
Anonymous

Devil's Kitchen said...

Brian E.

So, the best response is that until you stop being a religious tyranny, we will lead by example by being a religious tyranny...?

DK

Richard Allan said...

Isn't that the Libertarian view in a nutshell? That only certain things are fit to be voted on?

You've said that there should only be two laws in a libertarian society (we know what they are). So, logically, the Demos is allowed to vote on who enforces these laws; but if the Demos votes to amend one of these laws, or add another one, they can't? Help me out here.

Anonymous said...

Richard:

I think the idea is that they can only amend the laws that apply to themselves, i.e. form a voluntary socialist enclave or something.

Letters From A Tory said...

I think you'll find 'political integrity' is right up there with 'representative democracy' and 'climate change' as the biggest cons.

Anonymous said...

Devil,
You are oversimplifying and distorting the reality of the danger in your brief comment about 'religious tyranny'.
Be in no doubt that believing muslims would include you in their category of 'enemies.'
Also be in no doubt that their freedom to worship in Switzerland has not been curtailed.
They just can't build minarets,and the minarets are, at best, a symbol of assertiveness and more probably a symbol of aggressive intent to dominate.
The Swiss voters have got this one right.
The freedom of belief and worship is preserved but dhimmitude,however thin this end of the wedge is, is rejected.

Anonymous said...

Even by the standards of the Koran banning minarets is not "tyranny" directed against Islam:
http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/5023796.html?thread=33416500#t33416500
An Oxford professor of islamic studies, who is also an Immam, has stated today that there is no Koranic requirement for minarets and, therefore, no Koranic authority for their construction. In view of this, a minaret becomes a matter for the local swiss planning authorities and all the press commentary about human rights (etc) becomes nonsensical. As an additional example, the principal mosque in Paris has no minaret but has a small frame structure with the crescent moon on it.

stephen said...

I think the idea is that they can only amend the laws that apply to themselves, i.e. form a voluntary socialist enclave or something

Soi how would that work in practice? I can vote for drink driving laws to apply to me but not anyone else? So I am sober but everyone else is driving around plastered. I can see she why libertarians aren't keen on democracy for no one in his right mind would vote for a libertarian society!