Originally posted by Melvin Menezes:
Well if that is what the majority wants, then that is the right thing to do. Isnt' that one of the wonderful things about democracy? Now would 'enough' people ever let it happen is a different thing.
i know your next post will be something about fUSSR and Germany
[ February 26, 2003: Message edited by: Melvin Menezes ]
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
So are you saying democracy is only good if it comes out with a verdict that you agree with? If it is the will of the people that we grant supreme executive power based on strange women lying in ponds distributing swords then so be it!
Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
Sometime I feel that democracy is nothing but a number game.
Majority does not itself prove to be right and correct.
Majority might be wrong.
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Our culture needs to support its democratic traditions lest it imperil them.
Hmmm...
Should the basketball player have been more like John McCain, Senator from Arizona, who was a fighter pilot in VietNam and become a rebellious POW after being shot down? OR like Tom Hayden, Senator from California and one of the rebellious 1968 Chicago 7 defendants, who then went to North VietNam POW camps to protest the war?
Herb wrote:
Its ludicrous to suggest that assaults on democracy and its philosophical underpinings somehow causes America to "thrive".
Originally posted by Eugene Kononov:
"Democracy" is not the same as "absolute paradise", -- it's just the best form that we have found so far. I would assault the democracy without mercy if I come up with a better model. Of course, there is a risk that majority of people may assault the democracy and vote for fascism, but then, as Abraham Lincoln said, "the people deserve the government that they vote for". If we try to protect the democracy from the "assaults" of the voters, it's not democracy anymore, is it?
Eugene.
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by John Dunn:
The "protection" should come primarily from an educated citizenry that would be less likely to be duped by the politicians who would infringe on our rights or desire to establish fascist forms of government.
You mean like how the Southerners kept slavery legal at the start of this country, while prevent slaves from being educated; and then voted in the Jim Crow laws, while preventing our newly freed African Americans a fair chance at education?
Originally posted by Herb:
The "protection" should come primarily from an educated citizenry that would be less likely to be duped by the politicians who would infringe on our rights or desire to establish fascist forms of government.
Originally posted by Herb:
I guess you're saying the oppressors were fascists, that they were racists, that they were ignorant since they were racists, and finally proving my point again that ignorance is a threat to democracy. Is that what you meant?
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Yo! If a nation expects to be ignorant and free
it expects what never was and never will be.
Thomas Jefferson
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Actually what I'm saying is that these slave owners ~were~ the "educated citizenry" you were talking about and they used their education to keep others down and to enslave people. I don't see how these folks "protected" democracy. Seems like you've got a hole in your agrument...
--------
After reading a number of your posts, I must admit, I don't even think you believe in what you've posted. I feel rather that you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Thomas Jefferson also owned some of his children as property.
One of the Fathers of our Country
He was a great man for the times, but he wasn't perfect either...
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
from Absolutes - page 2
Equality : The implementation of this concept in US society means an equal standing before the law as I mentioned earlier. At the time they are born, all US citizens are all equal to each other in respect to all the laws. Even Jeb Bush's daughter was punished under State law even though her daddy is the Governor. In world history such an event as that would be considered astounding.
The real question is why treat everyone equally?
We could say that its a matter of convenience - that societies that do that tend to be more peaceful, stable, and prosperous because of the reduced disputes and strife regarding legal inequality.
Or more importantly we could say that all men are equal in an almost metaphyscial way because they all belong to the same species. All men are men, none is a god, therefore by virtue of belonging to the same class they inherit identical rights.
I believe this is the strongest argument. Since all men belong to the same class, in what way would you justify treating them unequally at the moment of birth? Jason also pointed out the difficulties of adopting a postion opposite to equality.
I believe Ayn Rand (born in USSR by the way) makes the strongest case for the existence of moral absolutes and rights. The way I remember her argument is that the right to life is the fundamental right. There is equality in the right to life, and from that right all other rights proceed, such as the right to liberty and to act, and from that to own property (since to negate this right would infringe on the other rights previously mentioned).
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Right or wrong, the above made me think that you wouldn't want an itellectual elite.
More from the above link:
Thoreau begins his essay with the well-known motto - "That government is best which governs least." This carried to its natural conclusion is no government at all, which he says will happen when people are prepared. He objects particularly to a standing army and the current "Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool." Yet Thoreau realizes that the immediate need is not for no government but for better government. "Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it." Majorities usually rule because they are the strongest physically, and their policies are based upon expediency. Thoreau asks whether it is not better to decide right and wrong by conscience which everyone has. "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right." But a corporation has no conscience, although conscientious people may be a corporation with a conscience. Undue respect for law leads to soldiers marching to the wars against their wills, common sense, and consciences. Such men have let themselves become machines, serving the state with their bodies. Others, like lawyers and politicians, serve the state with their heads. A few, reformers and martyrs, serve the state with their consciences also, but they are usually treated as enemies.
"The law will never make men free;
it is men who have got to make the law free.
They are the lovers of law and order,
who observe the law when the government breaks it. "
Henry David Thoreau
"If a thousand men were not to pay their tax-bills this year,
that would not be a violent and bloody measure,
as it would be to pay them, and enable the State
to commit violence and shed innocent blood.
This is, in fact, the definition of a peaceable revolution,
if any such is possible."
Henry David Thoreau
Originally posted by Herb Slocomb:
Do you see what I'm getting at? What looks like a good thing and sounds like it would be great for the country may lead to things that culmatively, incrementally, change if not the structure of our government, at least how it operates. Without an education of how/why our govt operates, any thinkering with it is just as likely to produce unpleasnt results. In the end, we end up with something quite different than we started. In the end we end up with something that will make the next Mussolini quite happy after he is voted in by the ignorant people who "know" what they want.
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
1. Generally, ignorant people are more easily mislead by politicians.
2. Being mislead can lead to people voting for, or tacitly approving, things damaging to our traditional form of government and rights.
3. I value our Republic and its traditional form of government and the rights guaranteed under it.
4. Therefore I, like many other thoughtful people, perceive a potential threat from an ignorant citizenry.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You really think ignorant people are easily misled by politicians? Then why did so many college graduates vote for Bill Clinton?
Personally, I doubt that ignorant people are any worse in the voting booth than smart people. In fact, I would be willing to bet that smart people are more dangerous to democracy than "ignorant" (whatever that means) people .
Trying to change the constitution isn't that easy. If there were enough ignorant people to make a difference then the country would have lots of problems that would make a vote on separation of powers look trivial.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
Again, would not someone familiar with the reasons for our government having a separation of powers be less likely to imprudently change that feature?
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
LOL, I knew that was coming. Careful Mapra, remember your last thread got shut down also because of the name calling.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Herb, when I called you "communist", it was a compliment, not an insult.
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[HS : Regarding the ignorance debate]
Originally posted by John Dunn:
Yes, to a degree. But a successful democracy is very complex.
I think a bigger fear is not that we can have ignorant folks elect an bad leader because they just don't know any better, but that our society can become so desparate that the 'non-ignorant' folks WANT a bad leader person and are ignorant that he/she is bad. I think this is what happened in Germany in the '30s. The German people were literally starving and had been stripped of their self-worth. So they welcomed the Nazis.
I think that the whole ignorance thing, you mention, is actually a manifestation of much bigger problems, and those problems can vary.
Suppose we had a few cities get hit by serious biological weapons, would we end up voting in an impulsive, revengeful, sadistic war-monger?? I think it is very important for the US to aggressively attack the problem of terrorism, so that we don't end up with some serious catastrophe.
If the case is that the most educated people are the best to make decisions about who should be elected then maybe we should only allow Phd's to vote. But in any case, I have a feeling that preparing people to vote isn't the only purpose of our education system.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
If you can't support the obvious proposition that educated people make better decisions than ignorant people, then let's shut down the entire public school system. Not that I'm admitting that they actually educate people, but to be consistent you would have to admit that their attempted purpose is a waste.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
"Pro-ignorance"? How about pro-democracy, which appears to be something you don't like very much. But if you don't want to talk about it, that's OK.Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I can't believe this pro-ignorance argument has gone on so long. This is my last post on this issue.
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
"No one appreciates the very special genius of your conversation as the dog does."
Always remember, half of Americans are below average!Originally posted by Shura Balaganov:
However, as in any "democracy", majority of the population is always under-educated, and therefore a small percentage of educated decisions doesn't make a slightest difference
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
Always remember, half of Americans are below average!
Any posted remarks that may or may not seem offensive, intrusive or politically incorrect are not truly so.
RusUSA.com - Russian America today - Guide To Russia
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Originally posted by herb slocomb:
OK, well thanks, I appreciate the sentiment, but I must respectfully decline. As stated earlier, attempted communism and fascism have always lead to the same result, totalitariansim. The rights of the individual are entirely subordinated to the rights of the State.
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet