>conflict between the minority
>and the majority.
>

I don't understand your take on democracy/majority rule. What is better than majority rule (not saying it's ideal)?
The reason I proposed intensive and easy access to decision-making processes through voting, is that it would probably increase people's desire to participate and inform themselves, as they see their wishes more precisely and locally executed.

>5th? The hell have you
>guys been doing? We're
>still on our first. *L*
>

As I said, wars and coup d'états overthrew them, and forced new constitutions to be written.

>
>It's REALLY hard to add an
>Amendment to the Constitution here.
> If I'm not mistaken,
>it has to be approved
>by 75% of Congress, signed
>by the President (Slick Willie),
>and then approved by 75%
>of the state governments.
>If I'm not mistaking, the
>last amendment approved was the
>Compensation of Representatives Act in
>1992. Before that, 21
>yrs had passed since the
>last one, which gave 18
>yr olds the right to
>vote. There have only
>been 27 amendments passed in
>this country's 224 yr history.
> Other than that, all
>laws made must adhere to
>the Constitution.
>
>>>You see, the problem with democracy
>>>is that the majority wins,
>>>and do not take the
>>>minority's views into consideration, which
>>>can lead to oppression.
>>
>>It's funny how "power to the
>>people" leads to oppression.
>
>That's not power to the people.
> That's power to the
>majority.
>

Again, what would better represent the people? As Krewcial pointed out, a multi-party system no doubt represents the people better. It's funny how in the UK and US there are mainly two parties, but nowadays you wonder which one is more right-wing...


>Of course the referendum would eliminate
>the freedom of religious practice,
>but wouldn't it be nice
>to know what religion they
>would want practiced?
>

Not really, cos as Krewcial pointed out, this referendum could never get off the ground. Any country deserving the name of democracy isn't about removing rights, but establishing some basic ones and upholding them for all. How many democracies are there by that definition?

>Remind me never to live in
>Europe.

Actually, you should.

>I don't like
>the idea of one large
>governmental body that can override
>national soverignities. But once
>again, I'm sure the EU
>isn't a democratic government.
>How are representatives chosen anyways?
> Appointed?

Man, the EU structure is so un-democratic, it's ridiculous. Basic breakdown:
The European Commission: Commissioners appointed by national governments.
European Parliament: deputies elected at national level by the people.
Unfortunately:
a. the Parliament is much weaker than the Commission
b. nobody cares about either, and yet the Commission and the EU in general are immensely powerful, and make economic and legislative decisions that affect us all daily.
I really hope we can get a Pan-European democratic system going. That would be amazing.

>
>>I was talking about the sheep/wolf
>>part. The other part isn't
>>particularly entertaining.
>

After paying close attention to your sheep/wolf explanation, I find it wholly ridiculous. The majority is not a wolf to the minority. And what do you define as the minority and majority?
Depending on the issue, you will alternate camps, and in some cases there will be no clear majority. Thus if the people get to vote on all the issues, you'll "win" on some and "lose" on others. It's called compromise. So there's no case of oppression.
In a constitutional democracy, you can't just out laws, as everything has to go through a body to make sure new laws are, well, constitutional.
And the gun analogy is ridiculous, but I guess the US infatuation with weaponry runs deep. Upholding human rights will do a lot more for freedom and peace than guns ever will.

>Alright. Bush is proposing a
>tax cut that essentially is
>set up that for every
>$10 dollars that the higher
>income earners get, a dime
>will go to the middle
>income earners and a penny
>to the lower income earners.
> Gore is complaining about
>this, saying it isn't fair.
> However what Gore isn't
>telling people is that's how
>the tax bracket here is
>set up, in which for
>every $10 dollars the rich
>pays, the middle class pays
>a dime and the poor
>a penny. Hence, they
>should get back as much
>as they paid. Understand
>now?
>

Perhaps. However, what is the point of giving the rich back as much as they paid? This type of mentality is what leads to diplomats not paying tax on gas (which means 60-70% of the price gets dropped). I know Mercedes are big cars and consume a lot, but even diplomats see how ridiculous this is (the honest ones, at least).

>As for the rich/poor theory, the
>whole point is that every
>year the tax rolls put
>more financial responsibility on the
>rich, and less on the
>poor.

Are you suggesting the reverse? Should the rich pay as much as the poor? Should everyone get out only what they put in?
I don't have stats, but I would like to know how much of wealth each 10-percentile owns. With those stats, one would probably see that there is no point in taxing the poor very much.
Plus, as Krewcial mentioned, the rich spend a lot of time finding out how to avoid paying their taxes. Plus, the US government loves handing out corporate welfare. Poor rich people.

>The poor virtually
>do not pay hardly any
>taxes,

I love the grammar of this sentence.:-)

>while most people that
>make over $80, pending on
>how many are in the
>household, pay up to 40%
>of their annual income on
>taxes.

It's a lot, I agree. And everyone knows that a lot of that money goes to waste.

>Sooner or later,
>somethings gotta give, whether it's
>from cutting taxes or giving
>out tax credits.

There seems to be a wide wave of tax-cutting going on right now (UK, US, France). Do you feel more motivated to do anything save consume more? Let's tax our environment a little bit more (woops, going off topic).

>The average
>American, if they had to
>pay taxes first before they
>could get their full income,
>would be working for the
>government until sometime in mid
>May.

And if workers recieved the full value of their labour, when would they stop working?

>When you allow the majority
>to control the government, as
>in democracy, that is making
>the government overtly powerful.
>Why? Because the majority
>is going to use the
>government to impose their will.
>

So who exactly should control government?

>
>>However, neither do I want
>>the private sector (or rather,
>>individual companies) to be controlling
>>my life (you however, seem
>>to want this).
>
>I don't allow businesses to control
>my life. Alot of
>people seem to forget that
>you control who you do
>business with, not the other
>way around.

Do you? if that is the case, why does Unilever market several different brands of soap, cosmetics, etc.? Why is the agri-business so reticent about accurate food labelling? You think businesses are just like "I'm good, but do business with whom you please"? Why do stores put so much thought into how they lay out their products?

Now if
>there are one or two
>businesses in that market, that's
>different, but competition spurs businesses
>to give the people the
>best products. Sure I
>believe in government interaction with
>businesses, but only to the
>point where they eliminate fraud
>and cutthroat competition. That's
>it, that's all.
>

Why should cutthroat competition be eliminated? A competitive atmosphere is good. And what about regulating working relations and conditions, environmental protection, product safety, etc.?

>Well then less government power is
>better, along with the power
>to make individual decisions about
>your life. You shouldn't
>be advocating majority (mob) decisions
>on issues concerning the state
>of the nation.

I advocate participative democracy, where people can readily take decisions and participate in processes that will affect them.

>See that's what was meant by
>the Tyler quote. That
>means the government would be
>controlled by a majority of
>the people, including the government
>treasury.

As I said, if people can vote on all the issues individually, then everyone will be in the minority on some, in the majority on others. Does the majority of people control the government treasury? I didn't realise that was the case.

To do so
>will stifle the economy, because
>lets face it, not everyone
>is a professional economist or
>knows what is actually going
>in in the economy.

And you think economists know what is really going on with the economy? BWAHAHA... Recent example: no one (as in not one single person of note) saw the Asian crisis of a few years back coming, and yet that was based on many deep structural flaws. In short, economists are full of bs.

>>That's what constitutional monarchy means.
>
>Yeah but big deal. When
>you add the word monarchy
>it makes it sound as
>if they have equal or
>even some power, which they
>dont. Hence the term
>is moot.

It's not my term, it just means that the (figure)head of state is a monarch, but that you have parliament, democracy and all that.

>
>Yeah well what do you expect,
>they're Brits....
>

See, these are the types of comments you need to avoid (at least in writing).

>Too many
>people had the idea that
>I was a black Republican
>Party member.

Well, at least you're not all bad.

AIM: mke1978

"L'actualité régionale: c'est vous qui la vivez, c'est nous qui en vivons"
In English:
"Local news: you live it, we live off it"
- Jules-Edouard Moustic, 20H20

"There's no blood in my body/It's liquid soul in my veins"
- Roots Manuva (check the fantastic album "Brand New Second Hand")