 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
> The rights of the few cannot be protected from the majority in practice,
> except by having the few in a different sovereign organization with its
> own military force. You have to look at each attempted infringement and
> decide if it's sufficiently worthwhile to make people pay for it.
I don't know how many more ways I can say it. In a democracy, the "you"
that judges each attempted infringement is the group doing the
infringing. Do you not see a problem with that?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1-9-2009 8:45, Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>>> I'm not arguing for an ideal here, I'm looking at what should be done
>>> in this specific instance.
>>
>> If this were allowed, *every* specific instance would lead to majority
>> benefit at the cost of minority rights.
>
> You should always avoid absolutes.
>
> ;)
>
>> """
>> A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
>> only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves
>> largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority
>> always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the
>> public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over
>> loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average
>> age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
>> -Alexander Tytler (unverified)
>
> I guess the US is ripe for destruction then. Good luck in the new world
> order.
>
> Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?
According to wikipedia: 80 years
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Do you not see a problem with that?
Of course I do. I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common sense.
Surely you don't think protecting the rights of individuals at the expense
of the majority is *always* a good thing?
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> Do you not see a problem with that?
>
> Of course I do.
Then that answers the question of why we can't "have to look at each
attempted infringement and decide if it's sufficiently worthwhile to
make people pay for it" or, as Chambers put it, "just say that, in some
instances, the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the few."
> I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common
> sense.
The best solution is to have a Constitution and an entire branch of
government whose purpose is to ensure that he power of the majority
stays within the bounds of that Constitution. ==> Check!
That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow
(encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents. The
ultimate solution is that those too often in the minority take up arms
or vote with their feet. ==> Not yet, I hope!
The intermediate solution is to educate the electorate on why (besides
being a bunch of meanies who don't want us to have stuff) the founding
fathers chose to limit the power of the majority. ==> Fail!
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>> Do you not see a problem with that?
>>
>> Of course I do.
>
> Then that answers the question of why we can't
I wasn't trying to.
>> I don't see a *solution* with that, other than common sense.
>
> The best solution is to have a Constitution and an entire branch of
> government whose purpose is to ensure that he power of the majority
> stays within the bounds of that Constitution. ==> Check!
Which we have, in theory.
> That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow
> (encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents.
Or, as seen in California, vote for amendments anyway. You really can't get
around it.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What
> protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)"
> that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you
> protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?
Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
You haven't really formed any arguments concerning the topic at hand
(Obama's healthcare plan), except to say that you don't want to be taxed
to pay for it. Without looking at specific figures, I can't say whether
or not I agree with that.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> I don't know how many more ways I can say it. In a democracy, the "you"
> that judges each attempted infringement is the group doing the
> infringing. Do you not see a problem with that?
That's slightly disingenuous. The group doing the infringing overlaps
the group that judges each attempt, but they're not necessarily the same
(nor are they necessarily distinct).
The group doing the judging, of course, would be the active voters, who
may or may not be the same as the group that benefits from any specific
legislation.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:45:53 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmail com>
wrote:
>I guess the US is ripe for destruction then. Good luck in the new world
>order.
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Akoukq5DvAE
Or the origional video with Barry McGuire.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8SfiCnwF28
>Oh, by the way... what's the age of the United Kingdom?
The Kingdom of Great Britain was created in 1707 and in 1801 it became the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1927 it was called United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when the Irish Free State got full
independence.
The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy. But I know what you
mean. Again the answer is complicated by "suffrage". By 1918 all citizens over
21 had the right to vote (Northern Ireland is a special case as some citizens
had two or more votes). The first English parliament was created in 1295 but
that was hardly democratic as the parliamentarians were all Lords of the Realm.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
>
>> That solution is imperfect, however, because the public will allow
>> (encourage) our government to ignore its founding documents.
>
> Or, as seen in California, vote for amendments anyway. You really can't
> get around it.
I think it's a swinging pendulum. At the moment, the prevailing mindset
is "tear down our entire system of government if you have to in order to
pass this (then this, then this, then this, then this) piece of
legislation" or "government excess, growth, and debt only matter if the
controlling party have the wrong letter beside their names."
This is why discussion of what the majority might do with some newly
granted authority is of less importance than discussion of whether the
authority should be granted at all. No matter how well intentioned a
piece of legislation, due to the lawlessness you have mentioned, there
is no control over what the majority, having been granted additional
dominion over the minority, will do with that dominion. Isn't this the
argument against the Patriot Act? The Cybersecurity Act?
Given the popularity ratings of both major parties, I think the
pendulum's arc towards lawlessness may be slowing. Sorry, guys.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> I'm more interested what position you would take on *my* words. What
>> protection would you give to the few when the many are "just say(ing)"
>> that their own rights rights outweigh those of the few? How would you
>> protect those protections against the next occurrence of "just say(ing)"?
>
> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
