Democracy versus the Individual

13/09/2010 2:24 pm

Which of these democratic outcomes has the higher justification?

Ultimately the National Government as they hold the purse strings.

Under what circumstance would an individual, or groups of individuals, be justified in taking direct action in opposition to the elected mandate of either local or central government?

What do you mean by 'Direct Action? Withdrawing labour or torching the council chamber?

Is there a difference in a representative trades union urging its members to resist the will of government and a media tycoon urging his readership to campaign against the government?

No. The main difference is how each 'urge' is reported...

14/09/2010 10:04 am

"Fools to the left of me, jokers to the right"

Stealers Wheel.

We can all just quote you know...

15/09/2010 10:19 am

In response to the first question - I would argue that the moral justification is with local government. More people voted for the provision of caring services in determining the make up of their councils than voted for economic restraint in determining the make up of the government. Indeed the services first argument can be seen as having achieved the greater share of the vote at the general election too, hence why we have a coalition government. This would imply therefore that the mandate being claimed for cuts is not as outright as suggested, thus PSRs main premise is incorrect.

The second question is an interesting one, especially since the recent police request to avoid cutting their budget so that they can enforce cuts by crushing protest in other services and sectors. So much for solidarity! As a nation we appear to lap up the media view that protest is bad, but then expect grass root movements abroad to rise up and topple elected regimes that we disagree with. We applauded, funded and supported the Solidarity movement, enabling Union freedoms to win victory over the oppressive and elitist Communist system of the USSR, yet condemn our own Unions for defending pay conditions and safety in the UK.

I would say that direct action is acceptable where to take no action would lead to the greater harm or detriment. Personally, I will consider direct action where I see financial or social harm against the majority, such harm against the minority where alternative actions can achieve fairer outcomes, or risk to safety or life.

For the third question, absolutely. Like them or loathe them a Trade Union is a regulated entity with a clear and published agenda, supported by its members. Where interests with government are at odds then opposing the government is justified. The likes of Murdoch, whilst successful and with a massive readership (happily recieving their free CDs, bingo-lotteries, and other incentives) has only his own business and personal interests. Such disproportionate wielding of power is at odds with democracy and risks peverting government.

15/09/2010 10:54 am

and that difference is determined by historical context (the winners right the history) and who wins the PR war (or in current reality, who has the backing of Murdoch)

15/09/2010 11:27 am

Hey Nonnynonny you are wrong again.

All coinage has 'legal tender' limits:

COINS:
Coins are only legal tender throughout the United Kingdom for the following amounts:

£2 - for any amount, £1 - for any amount, 50p - for any amount not exceeding £10, 20p - for any amount not exceeding £10, 10p - for any amount not exceeding £5, 5p - for any amount not exceeding £5, 2p - for any amount not exceeding 20p, 1p - for any amount not exceeding 20p.

The best (and legal) method I herd (pun intended) was a farmer who wrote a cheque...on a cow. It was in protest at bank charges.

15/09/2010 11:56 am

Every citizen, or subject of the crown as we are not citizens of the UK but only of Europe

Lots of people still believe this fallacy, despite the words "British Citizen" being clearly printed in their passports.  "Subject" has no clear legal status and hasn't since at least the 40s.  We all call each other "mate" in this country because of our seafaring past - but we're not actually sailing the briny when we do it.

15/09/2010 12:24 pm

'Heynonnynonny 11:58'

The limits are absolute.

So don't try giving the Queen a quid in coppers ok.

16/09/2010 8:57 am

PSR is no Stalinist.

Maybe a Trotskyist?

PSR would seem to advocate social revolution through working class mass action. Which is fairly Trotskyist...

Up the Tooting Popular Front.

16/09/2010 10:34 am

Careful PSR or I'll rattle my sabre.

I prefer evolution to revolution myself.

16/09/2010 10:58 am

People has all the right to direct violent action against any goverment who is proved to purposefully infringe basic human right of its people to an intollerable extent. And people have done so in the history of almost every country in the world and they will go on doing so in future.