 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> 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.
OK, I'll re-word it:
In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its
majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first
(scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.
Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages
to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times, the
majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no perceived
cost to themselves, at the expense of another.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>
> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow
currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote? Why? Whose
rights would you protect?
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy.
And sometimes kingdoms are considered "new" when a new king takes over
that's not in the usual and expected line of succession, such as after
conquering the country. I've seen lots of folks date GB from the time of
Wilhelm the Conquerer.
--
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:
>>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>>
>> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
>
> Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow
> currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote?
Amendment to allow currently-owned slaves to go free.
> Why? Whose
> rights would you protect?
>
Because the entire point of the amendment process is to grant the
powerless freedom from the tyranny of the powerful, not to indenture one
person to another.
A question back: would you ignore this amendment for the benefit of the
majority?
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Shay wrote:
>>>> Without looking at a specific case, I can't say which way I would vote.
>>>
>>> IOW, *no* guaranteed protection?
>>
>> Amendment to allow individuals to hold slaves. Amendment to allow
>> currently-owned slaves to go free. Which way would you vote?
>
> Amendment to allow currently-owned slaves to go free.
What if the slaves are in the majority?
>> Why? Whose rights would you protect?
>
> Because the entire point of the amendment process is to grant the
> powerless freedom from the tyranny of the powerful,
So, doctors and insurance companies are powerless, and the little old lady
with cancer is powerful?
> A question back: would you ignore this amendment for the benefit of the
> majority?
I'm not arguing either way in general. I think a government having limited
powers is clearly beneficial over one having extraordinary powers. I don't
think you'll ever prevent an entity with a local monopoly on force from
eventually expanding to where those outside that monopoly are uncomfortable
with it, which was my attempted point earlier. No amount of rules will make
the enforcers of those rules obey the rules.
In any case, you seem to be alternating between "don't take my money to fund
this" and "it'll hurt people because it's uncompetitive", unless I'm
misremembering. I've been trying to get your take on a "public option"
that's neither required nor funded by those not taking advantage of it, but
I didn't actually get an answer.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 07:58:51 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>Stephen wrote:
>> The UK is not a democracy it is a constitutional monarchy.
>
>And sometimes kingdoms are considered "new" when a new king takes over
>that's not in the usual and expected line of succession, such as after
>conquering the country. I've seen lots of folks date GB from the time of
>Wilhelm the Conquerer.
Well they would be wrong. William the Conqueror (as we call him in these
"Sceptred Isles") was King of England. The first King of Great Britain was James
the VI of Scotland who became James I of England, Scotland and Ireland in 1603
(Wales was considered part of England then.) this was called the union of the
crowns.
It was only in 1707 when the Acts of Union were passed that the UK came into
being.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Shay wrote:
> OK, I'll re-word it:
> In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its
> majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first
> (scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.
I still don't see how you can assume that. Sure, it's likely, but it's
not guaranteed, and it's only an assumption.
> Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages
> to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times, the
> majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no perceived
> cost to themselves, at the expense of another.
You're assuming that the majority will always be comprised more of
narcissists than philanthropists. I'd be interested if anyone's ever
done a study on the popularity of either ideal, but you have to at least
admit that you're making an unsubstantiated assumption.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Cool, I didn't know all that. Thanks for the info :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 19:45:26 -0700, Chambers <Ben### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:
>Cool, I didn't know all that. Thanks for the info :)
>
I would say British history 101 but it is not even that. It is high school stuff
and much condensed. There is quite a bit of confusion about British history,
abroad. Because of England being the dominant country.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Shay wrote:
>> OK, I'll re-word it:
>> In a pure Democracy, The group doing the judging will act in its
>> majority's *perceived* best interest. Identical meaning to my first
>> (scratch that -- several) descriptions of the situation.
>
> I still don't see how you can assume that. Sure, it's likely, but it's
> not guaranteed, and it's only an assumption.
>
>> Admittedly, there are a *few* exceptions. Occasionally one hen manages
>> to cajole two foxes into sparing her life -- for a day. Other times,
>> the majority will help one minority, if this can be done with no
>> perceived cost to themselves, at the expense of another.
>
> You're assuming that the majority will always be comprised more of
> narcissists than philanthropists. I'd be interested if anyone's ever
> done a study on the popularity of either ideal, but you have to at least
> admit that you're making an unsubstantiated assumption.
>
> ...Chambers
Assumption, yes. Those are made when setting policy. Unsubstantiated,
no. I lock my front door because I make the assumption that my getting
robbed is more likely than some kind stranger entering my house and
leaving a bag of gold coins on my pillow.
-Shay
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
