I have always thought the Swiss system of uber-democracy is a good thing, but every now and then I am thinking that there *surely* are times when this is infringing on the rights or freedom of others.

This morning this came up, which will surely affect companies like Pilatus to a massive degree. I do not want to start a debate on arms exports specifically, rather want to hear opinions about the concept of "democracy run amok".

Democracy run amok ? Absolutely not, a valid question and I'm glad we get to decide such essential things for our country. And yes, of course, every law or ban of course does infringe the freedom of others. But as with anything in life it's a trade off.
Some "democracies" can go to war without the slightest consultation or support of their population, that is something I find extremely disturbing.

Well please first give an example of democracy run amok. The one you mention isn't. A nation deciding whether they want to build and export arms that contribute to war and misery seems to me a very good example of people deciding democratically what kind of country they want to be. Seems to be an example of democracy working, rather than letting corrupt politicians decide.

So you're happy for the Democratic process as long as it doesn't interfere with shareholder value? I think you have just started a debate on Arms sales...

It is a symbolic gesture. Nothing will really change. So, if the people of the land want to take one, so be it.

It is not the nation building arms. It is either a private or public company.

Replace "doesn't interfere with shareholder value" with "doesn't interfere with private enterprise". Maybe now it will make more sense.

The nation contributes with massive tax subsidies... not in my name, thanks.

Simon, read my post. Nowhere do I doubt the validity of democracy in the issues you mention. I am specifically referring to issues which *may* affect the right of free enterprise to choose their product, manufacture it and sell it. I am referring to a clash of rights, or the political concept versus a principle of capitalism.

In the case of Pilatus, government subsidies will increase if their activities are restricted.

For some people there's an ethical angle. Turning swords into ploughs deserves subsidy IMO.

Show me any political system that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. The closest you can get to that is to go and live by yourself on a desert island.

The basis of the Swiss democratic system is that no idea or topic cannot be too absurd to be voted on. So they can vote on abolishing the army or banning minarets or legalising drugs or abolishing all tram fares. However, to be accepted and become law, such proposals require the majority of valid votes to say yes. The basic assumption at the heart of such a democracy is that although there may be mavericks and fools and provocateurs and people who will blurt any nonsense for five minutes of fame, and sadly the tabloids will stop at nothing to distort and spread lies, the majority of voters do think before going to the polls and can distinguish the reasonable from the unreasonable.

As for the proposal at hand, I really don't see what rights are being infringed upon? The right to make a profit? There are other ways of making profits.

Please explain where the private enterprise is when a company recieves generous state subsidies.

If a company thinks its okay to accept money from the state, it shouldn't whine when the state tells it what to do.

???

Many products are restricted for production/manufacture and sale.

If the British people were given the vote tomorrow, we would unilaterally pull out of Afghanistan/Iraq, withdraw from the EU, lower income tax, 4 day week and bring back hanging. Welcome to democracy

So you actually do not mind subsidies, as long as you decide which industries / products qualify.

I think you understand democracy now.

Which planet are you on?

I agree, I do not like subsidies either, but as said, in the case of Pilatus, subsidies will have to increase if their activities are restricted.

Most of Pilatus' business is related to warfare - even their non-armed trainers qualify under this category. The danger of course is if Pilatus simply pulled up roots and relocate to a country where their business is welcomed.

Hash Brown, I was pointing out that the poster's original post seemed to indicate that he was against subsidies. Later on, it emerged he was ok with subsidies, as long as he can decide which companies / parties can benefit.
Getit?