24 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyDenying these politicians access to corporate money diminishes the distorting influence of corporations and therefore empowers politicians to be more like what ordinary people want them to be?
So denying these politicians access to power and wealth does not diminish their own power?
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by FMFIndeed, but do these politicians really want to be empowered as "servants"? It seems to me that the choice is servant verses task master.
Denying these politicians access to corporate money diminishes the distorting influence of corporations and therefore empowers politicians to be more like what ordinary people want them to be?
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyThey are currently "servants". You've said so yourself ad nauseam.
Indeed, but do these politicians really want to be empowered as "servants"? It seems to me that the choice is servant verses task master.
It seems to me that you always want to say that 'it seems to [you]' that things seem to you be seemingly in a certain way so that you can say 'it seems to [you]' and then say whatever it is you want to say, despite, or in the face, of whatever evidence or idea you have just been offered.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyYes, yes (zero) and yes.
So not being able to afford a university equates government telling you what you can and can't do? It is then the repsonsibility of government to tell the university how much they should charge......but at the same time.....should not be telling us how to run our lives?
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by whodeyIt wasn't me who had little reverence for the Constitution. It was Jefferson who said it.
Ok, so you have little reverence for the Constitution. Therefore, the rule of law should come down to the whims of our elected represetatives?
Almost all democracies have some form of constitutional framework that prevents abuses of power, so the United States is not unique in this respect. But Jefferson himself obviously believed that that constitutional framework should itself be flexible and would evolve in response to changing situations and changing problems. He was right. The Constitution has obviously been amended plenty of times, after all, without destroying the United States.
Our elected representatives are elected and therefore can be removed by the electorate. This kind of gives them a motive to act and make laws which are in the interests of the citizens of the country. That's how democracy works.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeDemocracy works by mowing over the rights of minorities.
It wasn't me who had little reverence for the Constitution. It was Jefferson who said it.
Almost all democracies have some form of constitutional framework that prevents abuses of power, so the United States is not unique in this respect. But Jefferson himself obviously believed that that constitutional framework should itself be flexible and would evol ...[text shortened]... ke laws which are in the interests of the citizens of the country. That's how democracy works.
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaMinorities have flourished under social democracies all around the world. I can think of no one on this forum less qualified to pontificate on 'how democracy works' than you, wajoma. And it's quite clear you have few takers for your alternative to democracy, which offers a grotesque vision of endemic cholera, share price linked e-coli, barbed wire everywhere and coathanger abortions at the going market rate.
Democracy works by mowing over the rights of minorities.
24 Mar 10
Milton Friedman argued against democracy by saying that if 51% of people like red shoes and 49% like blue shoes, the 51% can make it so that only red shoes are available in shops.
Of course, what Friedman ignored is that there is no real reason why the 51% would want to get rid of blue shoes. In the case of minorities it works the same, particularly in a multi-party democracy. If a small group is severely disadvantaged, it pays to alleviate these issues if the larger group is indifferent about the issue because you can win the votes of the small group while not affecting the support of the large group.
If the large group really does want to screw over a minority group, then you have a serious problem in any political system.
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraRegarding the recent healthcare bill, if in fact a majority of Americans do want it, then it's tough luck for the minority who don't. So your red shoe blue shoe analogy is fail.
Milton Friedman argued against democracy by saying that if 51% of people like red shoes and 49% like blue shoes, the 51% can make it so that only red shoes are available in shops.
Of course, what Friedman ignored is that there is no real reason why the 51% would want to get rid of blue shoes. In the case of minorities it works the same, particularly ...[text shortened]... es want to screw over a minority group, then you have a serious problem in any political system.
Edit: correction: Your criticism of the red shoe blue shoe analogy is fail.
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's because Obama feels that the amount of people and/or the importance of the health care bill is greater than the amount of people who will - eventually, at the next election - oppose it. Whether or not he is correct will be shown at the next election. And it's not my analogy, it's Friedman's (though he did word it differently).
Regarding the recent healthcare bill, if in fact a majority of Americans do want it, then it's tough luck for the minority who don't. So your red shoe blue shoe analogy is fail.
"People opposing a health care bill" is not a "minority", by the way. In any political system you will have people opposing the current government policies so to use that as a criterion is, once again, self-contradictory.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou're chasing your own tail, there's no two ways around it, if a minority oppose the healthcare their wishes get stomped on. No big deal, it's there for all to see, just calling it what it is.
That's because Obama feels that the amount of people and/or the importance of the health care bill is greater than the amount of people who will - eventually, at the next election - oppose it. Whether or not he is correct will be shown at the next election. And it's not my analogy, it's Friedman's (though he did word it differently).
"People opposing a health care bill" is not a "minority", by the way.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by WajomaSo in a political system, there never should be anyone disagreeing with government policies? Because if there are, they are a "minority" whose rights are "stomped on". Don't you realize how ridiculous this is?
You're chasing your own tail, there's no two ways around it, if a minority oppose the healthcare their wishes get stomped on. No big deal, it's there for all to see, just calling it what it is.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraKN, take it easy guy, all I'm saying is that the way democracy works is by trampling minority rights. I can see, you can see it, why get all het up.
So in a political system, there never should be anyone disagreeing with government policies? Because if there are, they are a "minority" whose rights are "stomped on". Don't you realize how ridiculous this is?
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by WajomaSo in a political system, there never should be anyone disagreeing with government policies? Because if there are, they are a "minority" whose rights are "stomped on"?
KN, take it easy guy, all I'm saying is that the way democracy works is by trampling minority rights. I can see, you can see it, why get all het up.
Or does every single system "trample on minority rights"? If so, then what is your point?