Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The Conversation has published yet another green attack on liberal democracy. According to The Conversation, Liberal democracy is old fashioned – it’s antiquated institutions produce climate change “paralysis”, which the authors suggest can be resolved, by transferring democratic powers to unelected panels of national and trans-national bureaucrats.
According to The Conversation;
… Specifically, the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system…
… Successfully tackling climate change and other big policy challenges depends on making tangible the intangible crisis of liberal democracy.
It means understanding that liberal democracy’s governance machinery – and the static, siloed policy responses generated by such democracies – is no longer fit for purpose.
Naturally The Conversation has a solution for this crisis. My favourite from their list of suggestions, is their idea that democratic powers should be transferred to unelected bureaucrats, who would still somehow be “accountable” to parliament, despite having “staying power” beyond individual political cycles.
Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments (such as the Parliamentary Budget Office or Infrastructure Australia). This would increase the capacity of policy planning and decision processes to have staying power beyond individual political cycles.
The authors of this critique of democratic freedom, are Mark Triffitt (Lecturer, Public Policy at University of Melbourne), and Travers McLeod, Honorary Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at University of Melbourne.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Well, more and more, they show their teeth. These bozos think they are “guarding the flock” of poor, stupid, uninformed gets. Really, they are just wolves waiting to ravage the flock. They won’t go quietly into the night, folks, especially now that they are being challenged, both by men and by nature. The next election may be the second most important in American history (the third election – where Geo. Washington acceded power – was probably the most important, at least to date).
Just imagine the trouble we’d be in if these people weren’t so stupid as to let the cat out of the bag so often about their hatred of Democracy, or more precisely, representative republics.
James Ard commented: “Just imagine the trouble we’d be in if these people weren’t so stupid as to let the cat out of the bag so often about their hatred of Democracy, or more precisely, representative republics.”
You forgot to add Capitalism to the list. They are being more and more overt about “one world government”. The only thing that may be saving America is the immigrants that have come here to escape!
I read through their article. The patina of reasonableness does not hide the underlying tyrannical wet-dream. They forgot something that their fellow-travellers at the UN were smart enough not to overlook. Their non-elected fix-it agencies need to have immunity from prosecution. Although that won’t be enough if they do too much damage.
Because socialism doesn’t work, And fear mongering about climate change has been shown a lie, the answer is bigger and more powerful socialism… to force their failed agenda…
Politicians will do or say anything to keep power…
Why would we resolve this by??
I mean think of those health care costs.
when we could just cede all choice and resources to the Deity:
pic from The Conversation – don’t go there – nothing to see, move on
What they are proposing is already underway in most democratic countries only by stealth.
Yes, Chris. I’m afraid you are correct. It happened in Venezuela already.
See Freedom House, at http://www.freedomhouse.org/
The assertions that these poor people make is similar to United Nations Agenda 21 aims and actions. The un-elected Bureaucrats are the un-elected UN officials who, if all the current treaties are ratified by foolish national governments, will achieve exactly what these people are asserting.
Agenda 21 is gaining ground because people either do not know about it or are lulled by the reasonable sounding propaganda it exudes.
In my city, their tentacles are starting to show. My blog at http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com shows how the UN is already in our Government, Local Government and education an example http://thedemiseofchristchurch.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/exemplar-3-2008-exam.pdf
Climate change is simply a contrived crisis which is expected to make people think we need an un-elected global government that will save the world.
Like Hitler who took over the education of Germany for barely 10 years to train little Nazi fighters and administrators, (and succeeded), the UN is well into training our young.
Check your national, state and local governments for the same symptoms!
Cheers
Roger
Great in theory, like all far left ideology, but terrifying in practice. I know exactly what is good for me so I won’t be dictated to by anyone who I can’t get rid of at a forthcoming election. Democracy has its inefficiencies but nothing galvanizes a person’s attention like the prospect of being held accountable and run off. And once again, their philsophy is based on the presumption that there is a climate crisis.
Isabel Paterson (she said her husband was too cheap to use two ‘t’s instead of one) was Ayn Rand’s mentor until they had a falling out over their disagreements. (Ayn Rand was a crusading atheist and Isabel was a deist: The religion of the Enlightenment and the Founding Fathers.)
Isabel Paterson’s most triumphant book was ‘The God of the Machine’, which she wrote in the 1940s.
In that book she wrote how political systems had evolved throughout history to accommodate the way human beings actually worked and existed. She compared the problem to that of engineering and government to a mechanism that had to be appropriate to its purpose. (You can’t run an IC engined car on water: the engine must be designed for combustible fuel.)
The part in her book that still bowls me over, 30 years after I read it, was where she described the Roman system. The city was divided into sectors in which the tribunals of the plebeians were organized. These tribunals could not initiate legislation but they had veto power over legislation originated in the Senate. For three years these tribunals stopped the works; vetoing every single piece of legislation until their grievances were heard.
Isabel Paterson noted this and, using it as an example, wrote that nothing was more essential for the welfare of a nation than a counter check on government by legitimate means.
And here is her analogy, “a mechanism without a brake, a motor without a cutoff, is built for self destruction.”
Words fail me in condemning what these people propose. And, in this day and age, after our continuing experiences of the horrors of aggressive government, these people persist in being so utterly stupid. They have no idea where true danger lies.
BTW: They need to meet my sister, my older sister, my vampiric older sister, to recognize demonic power run amok. (I had to put this in.)
thanks for the information – good
Hey, my sisters have a brother . . . but we would not want to get them together, unless the goal is implosion.
Sounds like the statism of 1930s Europe … wonder how that worked out for the people of Europe, once they solved the problem of institutional paralysis …
OK, I gotta ask the stupid question.
If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how, exactly, do they expect to get enough democratic support to create an un-elected authority to do something about climate change?
They don’t expect it. That’s why they have to lie about their motives, or hire Grubers to lie for them, to win over public opinion. They know the majority of the public doesn’t really want what they’re selling. But they also know that the public is easily deceived.
But they aren’t lying. They are saying it straight out:
It means understanding that liberal democracy’s governance machinery – and the static, siloed policy responses generated by such democracies – is no longer fit for purpose.
So, again; If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how are they going to get enough democratic support to suspend democracy in order to do something about climate change?
You’re right, David, but they are only brainstorming now. If they ever get around to proposing actual legislation, that’s when they will lie about it to get it passed. They don’t have to lie now because it’s just an idea they’re floating to see how much support they have and to plant the seeds for future action.
@ur momisugly davidmhoffer
no one is answering my question either, and of course they can’t be answered – but to yours – of course they won’t, they can only vote themselves raises and provide governmental health care coverage.
I will persist on my question:
What is the goal of the war on climate change?
David m, …. HA, …. they have been getting enough Democrat (and Republican) support to do something about climate change, …. haven’t they? Why else would this discussion be on-going.
and even stupider – what exactly are they going to do about climate change?
Just what is the objective of the war on climate change?
I think it is obvious and I ask that as often as I can of all alarmists.
Davidmhoffer and others
“So, again; If they can’t get enough democratic support to do something about climate change, how are they going to get enough democratic support to suspend democracy in order to do something about climate change?”
Please read my comment above.
Cheers
Roger
http;//www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
davidmhoffer:
They don’t need “democratic support.” They just need the creation of bureaucracies with the power to create enforceable regulations, which become de facto laws. We are already far down this road in the United States, with the EPA and other agencies that ride roughshod over individuals and even businesses, with no concern for or interest in the liberties they are trampling.
And where is the legislature? Asleep at the switch, obsessed with petty quarrels and campaign fund-raising, happy to let the bureaucratic Leviathan run rampant over the quaint idea of a Constitutional Republic. The Bureaucracies heed only the Executive, which they aid and abet in an orgy of self-aggrandizement and insidious tyranny.
The hour is late, but we still can stop them. Read Mark Levin, The Liberty Amendments.
/Mr Lynn
But isn’t this the idea of Agenda 21, to bypass legislatures by going through regional and local council entities?
You mean these people want to be able to tell everyone else what to do without the burden of having to first convince them it’s for their good? No wonder these people adore Stalin, Mao, and Castro. They, too, would like to rule with an iron fist. White House Communications Director Anita Dunn told high school students in May 2009 that one of her favorite political philosophers was Mao Tse Tung, the Communist dictator responsible for the death of millions of people. What’s not to like?
“I should be honest. As president of the United States, there are times where I wish information didn’t flow so freely, because then I wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing me all the time.”
— President Obama in Shanghai, China, Nov 16, 2009
he’s listening? Not.
Maybe if that rat eared, radio voiced, bloviating, narcissist stopped doing things all the time that are so worthy of criticism he wouldn’t have to listen to people criticizing him all the time.
You are going to love this. “Indian ex-climate chief denied permission to attend water summit after harassment complaint”. Democracy does work….http://www.trust.org/item/20150423160146-ax20s/?source=jt
Jello Biafra had the measure of such people when he mocked
He was singing about killing the poor with neutron bombs, but the analogy transfers very well to the despotic Malthusian global warmers.
Yes. Democracy — or a representative republic, as you prefer — saves us from our unelected “betters” deciding what should be done “in our best interests.”
That’s the plan.
Next question.
Now we are getting down to the crux of it, aren’t we?
Democracy is the real problem.
We need a dictator to save us from this (fake) catastrophe.
It has always worked out so well in the past, why would we not go that route?
So democratic government is stopping us from controlling the climate?
That means all those dictatorships must be working hard on climate mitigation, unhampered by pesky voters.
Hmm…
Yes, Margaret.
The dictators are hard at work reducing the opposition populations in their countries and their neighboring territories.
They fight climate change by destroying some of the changers. On the other hand, they jet across the world to conspire.
The “Expert and citizen panels” will be called “Soviets” while the leading burocrats will have the title “Gauleiter”.
“… Specifically, the failure to tackle climate change speaks to an overall failure of our liberal democratic system…”
Having failed to convince the people that what they want to do is the right thing to do, the right to choose must be taken from the people. They failed, so the people must be punished.
‘Granting more decision-making power to institutions independent of the government of the day, but still accountable to parliaments’
Independent of government or not?
First of all, the STATISTs stole the word “liberal”.. The term “liberal” means a free and open society, where individual natural rights of: life, liberty and property (both tangible and intellectual property) are strictly protected.
Moreover, the US is NOT a “democracy” (US Founding Fathers called it mobocracy), which is simply the tyranny of the majority over the minority.
Under the Constitution, the federal government has NO authority or power to regulate environmental policy. Environmental policies reside SOLEY with the individual states under the rights granted under the 9th and 10th Amendments.
If California wishes to implement unnecessary, expensive and ineffective CO2 sequestration policies, they’re perfectly within their rights to do so. Accordingly, companies and individuals that don’t wish to pay the high taxes and utilities, or suffer the devastating economic consequences of such unwarranted acts, are perfectly free to move to another state that has not gone insane….
Constitutional Republics are designed to minimize the damage and tyranny governments can inflict on its citizens. What little of our Constitution that does still does exist has prevented some of the worst aspects of Gloooobal Waaaarming initiatives from being enacted, but still too much has slipped through.
Since Republicans have majorities in both the House and Senate, they have the ability to pass laws and withhold funding to the EPA that could derail much of the CO2 legislation that exists, even with Presidential veto powers. However, since the current Republican leadership are wimps, not all that CAN be done IS being done to end the Global Warming madness, despite 83% of Republicans believe Gloooobal Waaaarming is not a problem..
Statist tyrants (not “liberals”) don’t like individual freedom. As this article suggests, Statists want a tiny minority of elites to enslave the masses as they see fit, regardless of what the citizens actually feel or think…
Hopefully, the 2016 elections will give the GOP (terribly flawed though they be) control of both Houses and the Executive branch. If either Cruz or Paul are elected, there is even the chance the EPA could be rescinded entirely. How cool would that be?
It would be worth the price of admission just to see Statists’ heads collectively explode over THAT one! I know I’m dreaming a bit, but, as they say in New Orleans, “Ya neva know.”
Hate to get pedantic, but the ninth and tenth amendments don’t grant any kind of rights to the States or to anybody else. Nothing in the Constitution does that.
Have you already forgotten that in the Declaration of Independence it is asserted that everybody already has all of their rights granted if you wish by “god”, or maybe just by the fact of being born.
What the Constitution does is to tell the federal government what they can and what they must do, and in the case of article 9 and 10 of the Bill of Rights, what they cannot do, because those are the State’s or the people’s rights already endowed under the declaration of independence.
The Ninth amendment (the most important one) says that the people retain ALL of their rights UNLESS in the Constitution it is curtailed by powers granted to the government (in order to form a more perfect union).
So if your favorite “right” is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, then the ninth amendment says it is yours to keep.
That would include a right to privacy, although would be supreme justice Robert Bork asserted that there was no such right. Ninth amendment says there is.
A right to privacy is absolutely essential to freedom. You ain’t free if you don’t have privacy.
George– Under the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8 enumerates a very short list of just 16 powers the federal government has the power and authority to control (man an army, build ports/roads, deliver the mail, pass laws pursuant to authorized powers, protect the border, coin money, collect taxes, make international treaties, issue patents, etc.).
Any task not specifically listed in Article 1 Section 8 cannot be done by the federal government and is left to the individual states or individual citizens to control… 75% of the federal bureaucracy is unconstitutional: Commerce, Agriculture, HUD, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Labor, VA (should be part of Defense Dept) etc, and should all these tasks should be handled by the individual states as granted in Amendments 9 & 10.
Neither the Constitution nor the government grant ANY rights… Individual rights exist naturally in situ and a priori. We The People agreed to give up SOME of our natural rights (namely SOME property rights), and granted some power to elected officials to act on our behalf to protect our natural rights. We The People are not obligated in anyway to adhere to ANY federal laws that are NOT expressly granted to the Federal government in Article 1 Section 8.
Unfortunately, most Americans are not aware of these facts of Constitutional law…
Samurai – you should probably spend a little more time studying the history of Art.1, Sec. 8, Clause 1.
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”
While there was some disagreement among the founders, providing for “…general Welfare” is currently used and supported by the SCOTUS to justify broad legislative powers. While you may personally disagree with that position, it doesn’t make it wrong.
And you believe in the accuracy and tamper-free inviolability of your corporate-designed electronic voting systems?
Good luck with that.
In this times of computer hacking, every electronic vote counting should be audited.
And then there’s this:
Tim
April 24, 2015 at 8:24 am
“And then there’s this:”
Ahem, Current TV? I mean , Al Jazeera? Hmm.
Include the DOE along with the EPA in that “rescinded entirely” thingy
Brian– During the Constitution’s ratification process, the “General Welfare” clause inane Article 1, Section 8 PREAMBLE, terrified state legislatures as they feared it WOULD be used by the Federal government to impose any kind tyrannous law they felt was for the “general welfare”.
The state legislators were always assured that the “general welfare” clause would NEVER be misinterpreted in that manner because just after this PREAMBLE, the specific 16 tasks that constituted “general welfare” were specifically enumerated…
Of course the state legislatures were all lied to and federal statists soon used the “general welfare” clause to shred the enumerated powers and pretty much do whatever they wanted.
The “interstate commerce clause” was perhaps the most abused innumerate power, especially after the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn SCOTUS ruling…
Thomas Jefferson defined the Constitution as a CAGE designed to confine the state leviathan from imposing tyranny. The door of that cage has long since been kicked in and explains why the U.S. federal government now wastes $4 TRILLION/yr, has $18 TRILLION in national debt, has about $100 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities and why none of our Bill of Rights are being protected.
The Constitution is now just a meaningless relic that only exists in some hermetically sealed case in the Library of Congress.
I have always believed that the most efficient form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. Just one problem: the only person I would trust as dictator is me.
You? No way.
I might let you be an adviser or some such but no way will I give up my control and put you in charge.
Like The Federal Reserve and other Central Banks. Like the CIA and other intelligence agencies. Yes we know how well these guys serve society. Only natural to hand over Energy planning and Environmental control to similar people of good character!
These couple of ‘Conversational’ clowns have their heads where the sun don’t shine.
The reason democracy has some problems responding to certain issues rationally is not because of the elected representatives, it is because of the cadre of self important, politically or commercially biased ‘experts’ and ‘administrators’ as well as barely elected and self appointed representatives of ‘lobby groups’ of all persuations.
In conjunction with the media they turn blowtorches on democratically elected representatives, they waterboard them with adverse media exposure, bully, threaten and abuse them into submission and if still non compliant, just cut their political toes off.
It is not the democratic structures that are at fault it is the undemocratic ones and the intellectual jackboot culture that infest them like some vile STD due to their cadres all being so far up each other so often.
Just for non Austtalians, ‘The Conversation’ is a government funded medium whereby the intolerant, narcissiitic leftard maniacs of monokultural ‘academia’ (‘academoniacs’) can spout their self righteous drivel in what amounts o an on line cadre course to a eco-politically correct einzatzgruppen ( look that one up). It is just a parasitic subsection of Australia’s intellectual life where the unit of currency is the LPU, the “Least Publishable Unit”, pal reviewed of course.
I read something a while ago about the “tyranny of mustard.” The basic premise was that if we keep giving ourselves so many small choices to make, say 30 different brands of mustard, that we start to become worn out when we are forced to make major decisions… “decision fatigue.” This sounds like the same thing… only instead of intellectuals telling you which condiments you should be allowed to use, they are telling you not to worry your pretty little head about that global warming… since you are making the “wrong” choice anyway they want to take away any options they don’t like.
No, Michelle is telling everybody which condiments they can use.
Tim W.
April 24, 2015 at 12:13 am
“I read something a while ago about the “tyranny of mustard.” The basic premise was that if we keep giving ourselves so many small choices to make, say 30 different brands of mustard, that we start to become worn out when we are forced to make major decisions… “decision fatigue.””
Heard the same in one of the worst TED talks from a sociologist called Silbermann or Silberstein or the likes, only using jeans as example. He explained how it’s so hard for him to make up his mind and all the champaigne socialists paying top Dollares to sit in the audience rattled their jewels in agreement. It was despicable and one of the last TED talks I watched.
DirkH says, “Heard the same in one of the worst TED talks from a sociologist called Silbermann or Silberstein or the likes, only using jeans as example. He explained how it’s so hard for him to make up his mind and all the champaigne socialists paying top Dollares to sit in the audience rattled their jewels in agreement. It was despicable and one of the last TED talks I watched.”
Great catch, DirkH. If the organic ag trends continue, slave labor will be required for many many hours in the field, weeding with hoes and protecting cotton. Yields will decrease, and prices will increase.
This will cause cotton to become a luxury item, perhaps even forbidden for some to wear, as it was in some ancient cultures. I think this is the goal.
I had my kids look at their jeans and t-shirts under a microscope recently. I said, “You should be thankful you don’t have to wait for your mom to weave flax or knit socks!” And they are very thankful for that 🙂