Limited government

Originally posted by FMF
They are currently "servants". You've said so yourself ad nauseam.

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.

So if these 'public servants" are actually servants, then why not ban together to pass legislation that protects them from corporate influences? They are either stupid, or they are servants/slaves to corporate America itself. Either way, they appear to be powerless and mere task masters.

Originally posted by Wajoma
all I'm saying is that the way democracy works is by trampling minority rights.

No "rights" have been "trampled". If minorities' "rights" were being "trampled" then it would not be a democracy. You are pretending to not know what democracy is or how it works. Perhaps to buff your purported Maverick Audacity Factor.

Originally posted by whodey
they are servants/slaves to corporate America itself.

You have trodden in poo in the woods. It's a bear's. Well done.

Originally posted by whodey
So if these 'public servants" are actually servants, then why not ban together to pass legislation that protects them from corporate influences? They are either stupid, or they are servants/slaves to corporate America itself. Either way, they appear to be powerless and mere task masters.

Apparently, the American populace does not realize the importance of getting the corporations out of politics, so there is little electoral pressure to get rid of this practise.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
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"?

Or does every single system "trample on minority rights"? If so, then what is your point?

I'd like to see a system that tramples on the majorities sovereignty to force their whim on anyone that disagrees with them.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I'd like to see a system that tramples on the majorities sovereignty to force their whim on anyone that disagrees with them.

So suppose we have a WajomaWorld government and 90% of the people want some form of welfare state. You say their wishes should be ignored because 10% disagree?

"Well, if the 90% of people want a welfare state they can join up and..."

No, because then the 10% can benefit from the welfare state too, without paying for it.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
So suppose we have a WajomaWorld government and 90% of the people want some form of welfare state. You say their wishes should be ignored because 10% disagree?

"Well, if the 90% of people want a welfare state they can join up and..."

No, because then the 10% can benefit from the welfare state too, without paying for it.

Now we're getting somewhere, if 90% want a welfare state they can create one, contribute to it, draw on it, play with it and leave the 10% out, how does that feel you've experienced an insight. good for you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Now we're getting somewhere, if 90% want a welfare state they can create one, contribute to it, draw on it, play with it and leave the 10% out, how does that feel you've experienced an insight. good for you.

No, because then the 10% can benefit from the welfare state too, without paying for it.

Originally posted by FMF
No "rights" have been "trampled". If minorities' "rights" were being "trampled" then it would not be a democracy. You are pretending to not know what democracy is or how it works. Perhaps to buff your purported Maverick Audacity Factor.

it seems like you have a problem understanding "democracy" yourself.

democracy reflects the will of the majority, this is a fact, regardless of whether minorities' rights are being trampled.

Democracy isn't = justice, or = rule of law.

Originally posted by generalissimo
it seems like you have a problem understanding "democracy" yourself.

democracy reflects the will of the majority, this is a fact, regardless of whether minorities' rights are being trampled.

Democracy isn't = justice, or = rule of law.

No, it's overly simplistic to say that democracy reflects the will of the majority. If that is true, how do you, for example, explain why Europe has agricultural subsidies even though only about 5% of the population are farmers and the remaining 95% don't get any advantage from the subsidies (on the contrary, they have to pay more for their food AND pay a lot of extra tax for it).

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
No, it's overly simplistic to say that democracy reflects the will of the majority. If that is true, how do you, for example, explain why Europe has agricultural subsidies even though only about 5% of the population are farmers and the remaining 95% don't get any advantage from the subsidies (on the contrary, they have to pay more for their food AND pay a lot of extra tax for it).

If that is true, how do you, for example, explain why Europe has agricultural subsidies even though only about 5% of the population are farmers and the remaining 95% don't get any advantage from the subsidies (on the contrary, they have to pay more for their food AND pay a lot of extra tax for it).

This doesn't contradict the fact that democracy reflects the will of the majority.
The people of europe didn't have a vote on agricultural subsidies, but they did vote for their elected representatives who wish to continue this policy.

I bet most people don't even know they have to pay more for their food because of this.

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]If that is true, how do you, for example, explain why Europe has agricultural subsidies even though only about 5% of the population are farmers and the remaining 95% don't get any advantage from the subsidies (on the contrary, they have to pay more for their food AND pay a lot of extra tax for it).

This doesn't contradict the fact that democr ...[text shortened]... .

I bet most people don't even know they have to pay more for their food because of this.[/b]

Yes, so apparently the 95% doesn't really care (well I do, but I'm one of the very few), either because of indifference or ignorance. And then the case which I argued earlier applies here.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes, so apparently the 95% doesn't really care (well I do, but I'm one of the very few), either because of indifference or ignorance. And then the case which I argued earlier applies here.

what case?

and does it somehow prove democracy doesn't reflect the will of the majority?

Originally posted by generalissimo
what case?

and does it somehow prove democracy doesn't reflect the will of the majority?

The case that democracy serves the interests of minorities as long as these interests don't conflict with the (perceived) interests of a majority.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The case that democracy serves the interests of minorities as long as these interests don't conflict with the (perceived) interests of a majority.

I see.

In that case we're in agreement.