[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by wassupimviet

Right, but upon passage of the constitution, the people have self-imposed limits on their power. I think it's necessary that these limits be upheld even against the majority, or at least broached in a separate debate rather than ignored at will to maintain the illusion of constitutional limits.

Sure. But is the minaret ban unconstitutional? That's not an argument I hear that often. Either because it's not, or because nobody can be arsed to look it up.

Er, just as a matter of fact, I'm fairly sure the Swiss constitution includes some provisions for freedom of religion, at least implicitly. I'd venture there's a pretty strong argument on the minaret ban breaching that freedom.

Not that strong. Plenty of mosquees without minarets. In fact, the first ones didn't appear until 80 years after Mahomet's death. So, yeah, they can do without - especially since those minaret'd be silent anyway, because of noise pollution regulations.

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

Do tell. That's why one guy is in jail in the first place and the other isn't. Does that contradict anything I wrote?

But once the guy's served his term, one is still more dangerous than the other. But they're both out of jail.

You're simply equating direct legimacy with indirect legitimacy coming to conclusions that are misleading at best. "Government by the people".


"We should couple voting rights to a PhD." (or IQ or whatever) That is what you are "pretty much hearing"? Really? Obviously, the people you hear talking are not the same people I hear talking.

Maybe they are. But I do hear a lot of "This votation is rock solid evidence that direct democracy is wrong, because there's majority of ignorant people." As if representative democracy never made any unpopular or questionable choice. Didn't you guys legalize torture a few years ago?

People I hear talking against referenda are concerned with the scope of possible referenda (e.g. from civil rights as in this case to anything) not with who's eligible to vote.

I hear some of that too, but I don't really talk about it, because I don't disagree.

If you want to summarize that as "Joe (independent of education and drinking habits) is not good enough" to decide on minarets so be it.

I don't. I see those as separate issues.

There are legislative bodies I elect on four levels: local, state, national, and union level. Each come with a list of competences, shared or exclusive. They all are "good enough" as you put it to decide some issues but not others. So?

Indeed. So? Is there no salvation outside the American system? You'll find that different countries have different repartitions of competences. Does that mean that only the American one is right, and all others wrong?

If you don't like the way Switzerland does things... don't go live there. Or better yet, do. Go there and soapbox away. Tell the Swiss they're doing it wrong. Tell them to throw off the yoke of direct democracy and adopt the American constitution. And post it all on Youtube. The moment promises to be, if not historical, at least hysterical.

The people I hear talking pro referenda are often enough angry individuals are self-declared representatives of "the people",

Not me! I've never claimed to represent anyone but myself.

poorly informed and blindly raging against "the corrupt elite".

I'm not raging. I don't even think the elite is particularly corrupt. But I don't think they're particularly honest and altruistic, either. They're like everyone. But with more power. And if there are two things the internet taught us, the second one's that the world's full of thieves. (The first one would be that it's full of porn.)

They consider any suggestion that good governance is a result of a carefully crafted system as a personal insult.

I don't. But neither do I think there's only one good way to govern, one-size-fits-all.

Instead they want to monopolize decision making,

I don't. I quite like the idea of voting for things. I'm certainly not the one who wants to impose my idea of "good governance" to everyone whether they like it or not.

disdain compromises, and also concepts like fair trials (as long its not their own)

I quite approve of fair trials. Never said a word against them. But there, too, I think you'll find that different countries have different ideas of what constitutes a fair trial. I'm open to the idea that, while none of them are perfect, they all have some validity. And that it can be quite hard, and certainly beyond me, to say which, if any, is the best, and in what circumstances.

or civil rights (dito)

Ditto indeed.

and generally everything that might come in the way of their idea of "real" democracy.

Again, not me. I'm not the one who claims that a direct democracy, like Switzerland's, isn't a real democracy, on the basis of one decision that happens to be unpopular. Or politically incorrect. Or unwise. Or unfair. It's not like representative democracies avoid that pitfall, either. *cough*Gitmo*cough*second gulf war*cough* Are you sure you want to go there?

They're also incedibly irresponsible. They don't care for anything that isn't their fault,

Well, yes. I only care enough to post about it on the internet. What about you?

and nothing is ever their fault,

I'm not Swiss. I don't have the right to vote there. I don't live there. I've never even set foot there. The closest I've ever come to influencing their affairs was when I bought Swiss chocolate and thus infinitesimally stimulated their economy. How is the minaret ban or government system my fault?

its always the upper/lower/middle class they not consider themselves part of, or politicians, lobbies, foreign powers, ... .

When did I single out such a group? I did talk about a "ruling elite", but only to say they weren't any better than the rest of us.

If anything else fails, its the government's fault for not having them informed enough as if that wasn't their own obligation.

Again, not me.

(Tick of what applies to you, I see a few points.)

Then would you care to enlighten me?

And considering that they voice their opinions in more or less orthographically and gramatically correct sentences

Ah. You've got me there.

and in the comment sections of respectable newspapers (not tabloids)

No, just the internet. And I don't bother reading the tabloids, so I wouldn't know who posts what, there. My experience with newspaper websites' comments is that, on both sides of the fence, you'll find the whole range of literacy, from excellent to really bad. But then, I didn't actually count them.

I suppose there are more Joe PhDs than Joe Sixpacks among them. Still, I do not want to let those people "directly" legislate into my personal sphere.

Ideally, no one would legislate into my personal sphere in any way, shape or form. But since this is the real world, and I want to enjoy the fruits of society, I'm going to have to compromise a bit. Like everyone else. Including compromise on what constitutes personal sphere or not. We, the French, have our compromise. You guys have yours. The Swiss have theirs. Again, does one have to right and the others wrong? They've all served well enough so far. In the case of the Swiss, it's done so for more than a century. Despite your misgivings bordering on the fear-mongering about direct democracy, they're not embroiled in civil war. They're not particularly violent. Or oppressed.

I understand that you dislike the Swiss' emphasis on referunda. But that's what they've decided for themselves. No doubt you'd have some things to say about every system, whether the democracy's direct or not. I remember, in 2000, when Bush won the election despite losing the popular vote, many of us shook their heads. Have you changed your system because of that?

I don't know what the Swiss constitution says about re-votes. They can probably vote for and against as long as they like. But its not as if they bear the consequences of their mistakes in the first place.

I don't mind them revoting because the population as a whole has changed its mind, and they follow the procedures. I just find outcries from non-Swiss to revote just because they don't like the result to be... improper.

So referenda > rule of law? Make another tick above.

Rule of law? I must confess my ignorance. I didn't know the ECHR could decide what laws could pass or not. When did Switzerland give up its sovereignty?

I do not use ad hominem. I'm not saying your opinions are wrong because you voice them. I say your opinions are wrong, period.

OK, then. That's certainly your prerogative.

I think your naive and irresponsible.

And I'm starting to wonder if you aren't closed-minded.

You wouldn't if your history was different.

Yes, maybe I'd be an anarchist. Or a royalist. Or the kind of chauvinist who's unable to accept that different doesn't necessarily mean inferior. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Narona

For example, when a government starts doing what it wants without caring about the popular opinion. Or when they decide very important thing (like the lisbon treaty) without checking the popular opinion, nor explaining to them what it is in details.

The text of the treaty was freely available, if you were that interested.

I don't say it's better (of course not), but at least in a true dictatorship, you know how it is and they make their objectives and laws very clear to understand.

Not really. In fact, arbitrariness is one of the hallmarks of dictatorship.