"Rooney" wrote in message
news:9ev9q0p96mb1scpqb1oqksluqrogp1fmgc@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 19:33:23 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rooney" wrote in message
> >news:tel9q0556l5aulhefdnuqpo35ehmn08i3d@4ax.com...
> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 18:25:08 +0000, Oz
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >One function of a working democracy is to allow freedom for minorities
> >> >within it, where what they do does not affect others.
> >>
> >>
> >> That's nothing to do with the definition of democracy. It's just
> >> majority rule - no more, no less.
> >>
> >
> >Are there any democratically governed countries, then, i.e. ones where
each
> >and every decision is put to a popular vote so one can actually determine
> >the majority position on any given question?
>
> I don't think so.

Nor do I - there are no 'true' democracies, merely government systems which
declare themselves to be run on democratic principles. The old communist
East Germany styled itself the German Democratic Republic, for instance.
Mugabe would tell you he's a democrat. Even Saddam Hussein held elections.
..
> >
> >In a parliamentary democracy, shouldn't an MP seek to represent the views
> >and interests of all his/her constituents, not merely the minority which
> >voted for his/her party?
> >
>
> No - not their views. In a parliamentary democracy MPs may vote as
> they see fit, or (if they are career minded) as their whips tell them.

I'm aware of how MPs actually behave, my question was whether they *should*
attempt to represent the views of all their constituents, not whether they
actually did so.

> How can you represent contradictory views?
>

By listening to one's constituents' concerns, acknowledging that an issue
might not be 'black or white' and seeking and voting for compromise
solutions whenever possible, even if contrary to one's own personal
preferences?

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:44:57 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:12:13 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>> How can you represent contradictory views?
>>
>
>By listening to one's constituents' concerns, acknowledging that an issue
>might not be 'black or white' and seeking and voting for compromise
>solutions whenever possible, even if contrary to one's own personal
>preferences?
>

I think that's way oversimplified. You simply can't please
diametrically opposed groups. In the hunting case, there's a group
that wants a total ban and there's a group that wants to be able to do
some hunting: these two positions don't leave room for compromise.

There are many such issues: how do you compromise on capital
punishment, corporal punishment, slavery, equality, etc. And more
to the point - why should you? In other circles it's known as fudging
the issue.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:3ndbq05o4cn36mfl8qqrsi791vqapsifo4@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:12:13 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >> How can you represent contradictory views?
> >>
> >
> >By listening to one's constituents' concerns, acknowledging that an issue
> >might not be 'black or white' and seeking and voting for compromise
> >solutions whenever possible, even if contrary to one's own personal
> >preferences?
> >
>
> I think that's way oversimplified. You simply can't please
> diametrically opposed groups.

Not in all cases, which is why I said 'whenever possible'.

In the hunting case, there's a group
> that wants a total ban and there's a group that wants to be able to do
> some hunting: these two positions don't leave room for compromise.

Parliament could, for example, have put the matter to a popular vote in the
localities concerned - you know, given the voters a free choice. Or they
could have refrained from a total ban but allowed it to continue under
licence, with licensing conditions designed to address the animal welfare
issues underlying some people's reservations about the activities
concerned.

>
> There are many such issues: how do you compromise on capital
> punishment, corporal punishment, slavery, equality, etc.

There are some issues where compromise will prove impossible, especially on
matters of fundamental human rights, but that does not, IMO, extend to all
matters, certainly not ones of a less serious nature.

And more
> to the point - why should you?

In the interests of fairness and justice, perhaps?

In other circles it's known as fudging
> the issue.
>

Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to Churchill
for the misquote.

From:	Robert Seago
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 18:22:43 +0000 (GMT)

The government should just have put the hunt under the same law as
everyone else, that Margaret Thatcher brought in.

If any private landowner could have them removed from their land, that
would be the end of hunting almost everywhere. I admit it might not be so
in the hills as I don't have the experience there.

--
Regards from Robert Seago : http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/rjseago

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:35:24 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to Churchill
>for the misquote.

Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
large L has now become something like fascism).

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:32 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:fpgbq0d0ajte5kps7ee1lair5eu2j9dlis@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to
Churchill
> >for the misquote.
>
>
> Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
> middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
> large L has now become something like fascism).
>

Then we should perhaps agree to disagree, if that's not too woolly for you.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:04:36 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:32 -0000, "BAC"
wrote:

>
>"Rooney" wrote in message
>news:fpgbq0d0ajte5kps7ee1lair5eu2j9dlis@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to
>Churchill
>> >for the misquote.
>>
>>
>> Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
>> middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
>> large L has now become something like fascism).
>>
>
>Then we should perhaps agree to disagree, if that's not too woolly for you.
>

Is that a compromise?

--

R
o
o
n
e
y

From:	BAC
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:32:52 -0000

"Rooney" wrote in message
news:phibq0hsbj2n6u2g2pdij5jkgpjvpsmabo@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:32 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Rooney" wrote in message
> >news:fpgbq0d0ajte5kps7ee1lair5eu2j9dlis@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to
> >Churchill
> >> >for the misquote.
> >>
> >>
> >> Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
> >> middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
> >> large L has now become something like fascism).
> >>
> >
> >Then we should perhaps agree to disagree, if that's not too woolly for
you.
> >
>
> Is that a compromise?
>

It is in the sense we would accept the other's right to hold a different
opinion. Burning at the stake is ecologically unsound, these days :-)

From:	Steve Terry
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:18:59 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:04:36 +0000, Rooney wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:32 -0000, "BAC"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Rooney" wrote in message
>>news:fpgbq0d0ajte5kps7ee1lair5eu2j9dlis@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to
>>Churchill
>>> >for the misquote.
>>>
>>>
>>> Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
>>> middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
>>> large L has now become something like fascism).
>>>
>>
>>Then we should perhaps agree to disagree, if that's not too woolly for you.
>>
>
>Is that a compromise?

no middle way will be accepted.
--

Cheerio,

SUPPORT ISRAEL

Myths & Facts Online
A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict
By Mitchell G. Bard

http://tinyurl.com/ysepr

+------------------------+
| NO PLONKING ZONE |
+------------------------+
| | |
| | | |
..| |.. .| |..
...\| |/.... \| |/..

**********************************************

'You can't win 'em all.'
Lord Haw Haw.

Since I stopped donating money to CONservation hooligan charities
Like the RSPB, Woodland Trust and all the other fat cat charities
I am in the top 0.217% richest people in the world.
There are 5,986,950,449 people poorer than me

If you're really interested I am the 13,049,551
richest person in the world.

And I'm keeping the bloody lot.

So sue me.

http://www.globalrichlist.com/

Newsgroup ettiquette

1) Tell everyone the Trolls don't bother you.
2) Say you've killfiled them, yet continue to respond.
3) Tell other people off who repsond despite doing so yourself.
4) Continually talk about Trolls while maintaining
they're having no effect.
5) Publicly post killfile rules so the Trolls know
how to avoid them.
6) Make lame legal threats and other barrel scraping
manoeuvres when your abuse reports are ignored.
7) Eat vast quantities of pies.
8) Forget to brush your teeth for several decades.
9) Help a demon.local poster with their email while
secretly reading it.
10) Pretend you're a hard bastard when in fact you're
as bent as a roundabout.
11) Become the laughing stock of Usenet like Mabbet
12) Die of old age
13) Keep paying Dr Chartham his fees and hope one day you
will have a penis the girls can see.

From:	Rooney
Subject:	Re: Hunting is banned!
Date:	Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:24:51 +0000

On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:18:59 +0000, Steve Terry

wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 12:04:36 +0000, Rooney wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:41:32 -0000, "BAC"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Rooney" wrote in message
>>>news:fpgbq0d0ajte5kps7ee1lair5eu2j9dlis@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:23:11 -0000, "BAC"
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >Better fudge fudge fudge than grudge grudge grudge. Apologies to
>>>Churchill
>>>> >for the misquote.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Here I disagree fundamentally. I'm not a great fan of pursuing the
>>>> middle ground. It's woolly liberalism with a small l. (The sort with a
>>>> large L has now become something like fascism).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Then we should perhaps agree to disagree, if that's not too woolly for you.
>>>
>>
>>Is that a compromise?
>
>no middle way will be accepted.

In many cases I'd agree.

--

R
o
o
n
e
y