That's a dodge. What is "democracy itself"? The dictionary will tell me what a democracy is, and we've established that opposition can be bad for actual democracies. Neither the dictionary nor Google will tell me what you mean by "democracy itself". Perhaps you mean some Platonic form, but such forms (to the extent that we take them to exist at all) are unaffected by specific events. You obviously mean something other than actual democracies, but something which can be effected by real-world events. So again I ask: what is this thing you refer to as "democracy itself"? Because you certainly aren't using a dictionary definition.
Hmm, I'm sorry you're having difficulty getting your head round some basic concepts. Again, is this real ignorance or a...what's the word? Oh yes, a 'dodge', thanks. Try thinking of 'democracy itself' as the
meme of democracy. I think that works. Opposition, all opposition, is essential to the health and replication of the democratic meme. The concept of democracy is supported and spread by opposition. All opposition is axiomatically good for democracy, even while individual acts of opposition may be less than 'good' for an individual democracy. This really isn't difficult, but if you're still having trouble I'll try to simplify it even more.
I care about actual democracies (something you seem indifferent to). I have no idea what you even mean by "democracy itself", so logically I'm not capable of caring about whatever it is.
I am certainly indifferent to actual democracies in the context of this discussion of opposition being axiomatically good for democracy. That you attempt the slur that I am opposed to (or apathetic in regard of) democracy is laughable. Make and defend your points, without the ad homs. That you attempt it when it is clear that I am arguing for healthy democracies while you wish to stifle and silence opposition to government is ludicrous. It's becoming clear that engaging with you is a futile exercise.
Now then...your next point responds to this part of my post:
jiggeryqua said:
Is this real ignorance, or are you just trying to divert attention from the point which started this nonsense - that you woefully misunderstand the role of MPs.
You mean to propose and vote on legislation to help run the country, with a particular view to representing the interests of their constituents? Why, wherever did I get that idea?
Well, let's see the exchange that has led to this point...
why should George desire to govern?
Because that's the job he got elected to do.
No. Simply no, and you should be embarrased to have made that mistake. He got elected as a member of parliament to represent his constituents.
He did not get elected to government, he got elected to parliament. To represent his constituents. It is not a requirement of MPs that they desire to govern, and the opportunity to govern is outside their control. It requires their party to have formed a government and then to select that MP as part of that government.
You're still woefully wrong, however much you wriggle and squirm.
