Democracy
#1
Posted 2008-February-01, 01:10
"True democracy should be the WILL OF THE PEOPLE applied before any other principle. If the majority of the people wants to nuke Greenland (where the definition of majority may be up to debate), we should nuke Greenland."
Opinions?
(sorry for insulting Roland, Helene and the other Danes for my disgusting illustration)
George Carlin
#2
Posted 2008-February-01, 01:27
gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 02:10 AM, said:
"True democracy should be the WILL OF THE PEOPLE applied before any other principle. If the majority of the people wants to nuke Greenland (where the definition of majority may be up to debate), we should nuke Greenland."
Opinions?
(sorry for insulting Roland, Helene and the other Danes for my disgusting illustration)
It is called the tyranny of democracy. Well known for thousands of years, that is why republics were invented, thousands of years ago.
#3
Posted 2008-February-01, 03:18
Quote
#4
Posted 2008-February-01, 03:42
#5
Posted 2008-February-01, 03:48
hotShot, on Feb 1 2008, 11:18 AM, said:
Quote
I think it's the latter - the objective, deep desire of the people, independent of "the spur of the moment" (to revive an expression from the Venice Cup thread). How that can be determined is up to debate, but is irrelevant for the purposes of this thread.
George Carlin
#6
Posted 2008-February-01, 06:24
What you can do is to democratically decide to put certain "breaks" on the democracy, for example by requiring a qualified majority for changes to the constitution and all those kind of things. For example, if we once decided democratically on a constitution that says we are not going to use nukes against a country that has not threatened to use nukes against us (or some such) then we would not nuke Greenland unless a qualified majority wanted to change the constitution.
#7
Posted 2008-February-01, 06:28
helene_t, on Feb 1 2008, 02:24 PM, said:
What you can do is to democratically decide to put certain "breaks" on the democracy, for example by requiring a qualified majority for changes to the constitution and all those kind of things. For example, if we once decided democratically on a constitution that says we are not going to use nukes against a country that has not threatened to use nukes against us (or some such) then we would not nuke Greenland unless a qualified majority wanted to change the constitution.
so you weren't that offended?
George Carlin
#8
Posted 2008-February-01, 06:34
#9
Posted 2008-February-01, 09:22
gwnn, on Feb 1 2008, 02:10 AM, said:
Absolutely not. One reason we have a constitution and laws is to guard against taking drastic actions based on the whims of the times.
In fact, it's mind-boggling to think that voters in the US can elect leaders who can disrupt (or end) the lives of people in other countries, people who have no vote in the matter whatsoever. And they can do so on a mere hunch, as Bush did in Iraq.
The infliction of cruelty with a good conscience is a delight to moralists — that is why they invented hell. — Bertrand Russell
#10
Posted 2008-February-01, 09:37
As we all know (intrinsically) the IQ of a group is the average IQ of all of the participants divided by the number involved.
Democracy starts out as mob rule and the constitutions and laws and legislative structures condition it so that it gets refined and sanitized. Eventually we get something that most people can endure. Now that's progress!
#11
Posted 2008-February-01, 09:44
Al_U_Card, on Feb 1 2008, 05:37 PM, said:
As we all know (intrinsically) the IQ of a group is the average IQ of all of the participants divided by the number involved.
Democracy starts out as mob rule and the constitutions and laws and legislative structures condition it so that it gets refined and sanitized. Eventually we get something that most people can endure. Now that's progress!
Yes but as the group of "the people who have changed something in the constitution" gets larger and larger, won't the IQ of said group also decrease?
George Carlin
#12
Posted 2008-February-01, 09:49
Almost everyone believes there should be restraints on the popular will. So I suppose you could say that the popular will is that the popular will should be restrained, and so this restraint is True Democracy. Such semantics just tie us in knots.
I guess a resolution is that he can talk of True Democracy, using this to mean what he wishes, and the rest of us will just talk of, and prefer, democracy.
#13
Posted 2008-February-01, 11:11
Of course now most restrictions on voting have been removed except for age. However we delegate 99.9% of the actual decision making to elected officials. In many ways this is very far from the spirit of democracy (whatever it is ).
#14
Posted 2008-February-01, 11:12
grrigg, on Feb 1 2008, 12:11 PM, said:
Of course now most restrictions on voting have been removed except for age. However we delegate 99.9% of the actual decision making to elected officials. In many ways this is very far from the spirit of democracy (whatever it is ).
As I said this is why they invented republics thousands of years ago, to work around this problem.
The whole tyranny of democracy was well known thousands of years ago.
#15
Posted 2008-February-01, 17:07
#16
Posted 2008-February-01, 17:25
#17
Posted 2008-February-01, 22:41
The proliferation of the idea that there are inviolables, certain truths and rights that must not be encroached upon regardless of what the people, even unanimously, might will, is the perhaps the most important function the Bill of Rights, or any US document, ever served.
Aaron
#18
Posted 2008-February-01, 23:58
finally17, on Feb 1 2008, 11:41 PM, said:
This goes completely against the spirit of the Constitution lol. If something is desired unanimously, the Constitution is amended. Nothing is set in stone.
#19
Posted 2008-February-02, 06:18
#20
Posted 2008-February-02, 06:27
grrigg, on Feb 2 2008, 12:58 AM, said:
No. It perhaps goes against the letter of the Constitution, but it certainly doesn't go against the spirit. That is the very essence of the first 10 amendments, known as the Bill of Rights: that there are truths that shall not be violated.
Aaron