>A democracy is a form of
>government in which people are
>allowed to vote on representatives,
>government officials, and often vote
>on certain government issues (referendums)
>with no regard to the
>laws made prior.

Of all democracies existing today, only a few have referendums (best known example is the Swiss canton system). So people don't have referendums very often in reality. For a couple of reasons : as you've said yourself a while ago, it's impossible to organise referenda every hour of every day for every imaginable subject.
Plus having a referendum doesn't automatically mean that a law will be changed. Sometimes it just confirms existing legislation, or handles how an existing law should be applied in actual life.

But my biggest problem is with you saying 'with no regard to the laws made prior'. Maybe I misinterpreted what you said, but do you actually see legislation as some static thing, that should never change ?
Law has always been dynamic. One of the functions of legislation is to structure society and the way people interact. Which automatically means it has to be based on reality to be effective (how else are you gonna fight today's crime with early 1930's laws ?).

>The
>system is quite simple; majority
>rules.

In a democracy, majority doesn't 'rule', but ALL people have an equal input.

In your ideal society, minority rules. Please explain how a minority ruling is more legitimate than a majority ruling ? Does Apartheid ring a bell ?

>A constitutional republic is a form
>of government in which representatives
>are elected democratically, but the
>laws that are made by
>the representatives cannot go above
>the chief law document of
>the land (the Constitution).
>All laws must be written
>in accordance to that document,
>or they are null and
>void. A republic puts
>the law above people.

What about Belgium (and lots of other countries, that are NOT republics) ? Things are far from a democracy here (representative at best), but all laws voted here have to be in accordance to the constitution, or they are automatically destroyed (we have a special court here checking this specific point).
As mke put it, 'republic' has nothing to do with democracy or dictatorships. You can have democratic republics and tirannic ones.

>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.

As I already said : in a democracy where all people have equal access to power, there's no such thing as a winning majority not taking the minority's views into consideration.

How exactly do you define 'majority' & 'minority' ? Everything higher than 50% is a majority ?
Never heard of a 2/3 majority ?

All you know is the US two-party system. Most European countries have at least 5-6 big parties. In reality there's not one big winner, but a number of small minorities who have to work together. And getting to that 66% majority (in both Parliament and Senate here in Belgium) means having to work together. Which means incorporating minorities' points of view.

You prefer a 12% minority which holds most of the resources, and represents only one narrow set of values to decide what's best for the other 88% ?

>For example, suppose this country
>was to go entirely democratic,
>and Christians get a national
>referendum on next year's ballot
>voting on whether or not
>to make the US a
>Christian state. Of course,
>the Constitution has already said
>no government will respect or
>honor a religion. However,
>in a democracy majority rules,
>and as long as they
>have 51% of the vote,
>this will be a Christian
>state. It's the same
>way with almost every issue.

You have a very twisted view on democracy. No reasonable person will accept the situation you just described. If your constitution says religion and government should be separated, a simple referendum can't change that. To make this possible, would mean changing that specific constitution article first (which is possible here, but takes several years of sustained efforts), which means it will be discussed and voted democratically, and people being informed properly of the pros and cons of that change.

What you just described is a farce, and has nothing to do with democracy.

>As for my quote, the logic
>is quite simple.....the majority of
>the people understand that they
>can use the elections to
>elect representatives that will give
>them "assistance" in the form
>of government programs, tax credits,
>tax writeoffs and such.
>But the problem is, that
>someone has to pay for
>it, which of course is
>a minority of the people
>(the rich). What will
>happen is that most of
>the taxes will be paid
>by a minority of the
>people, as it is today.
> Sooner or later, the
>rich are going to get
>tired of paying the majority's
>taxes and something has to
>give.

BS. So those few rich people pay for all other people's benefits or 'assistance' ?

Then how come income in the US has gone up the past 10 years, only for the rich, while middleclass and poor wages have remained at the same level (with higher prices this means their money is worth less now) ? The how come your country has so many billionaires and -at the very same time- so many poor ? Cos all those poor people are lazy bums, scared to work ?

The rich don't pay other people's taxes. Your despised 'majority' pays a lot more taxes, while that 'poor' rich minority has access to lawyers, financial constructions and investments to escape taxes.

>the
>House of Commons is straight
>democracy, in which the Prime
>Minister is appointed by the
>majority party from the House
>of Commons.

Calling that 'straight' democracy shows how far to the right you are.

>"A democracy cannot exist as a
>permanent form of government. It
>can only exist until the
>voters discover that they can
>vote themselves money from the
>public treasury. From that moment
>on the majority always votes
>for the candidates promising the
>most money from the public
>treasury, with the result that
>a democracy always collapses over
>loose fiscal policy followed by
>a dictatorship." - Alexander Tyler

I'm trying to find out more about this man now. Wouldn't be surprised if it's one of those revisionists justifying oppression and neocolonialism. His-story...
His quote expresses a deep mistrust and ridiculisation of people's capacity to think for themselves, and reduces people to money hungry egoists. Therefor I can't take this serious, especially since he doesn't substantiate anything he says. It's just an opinion, not scientifical evidence after decent research.

>"In general the art of government
>consists in taking as much
>money as possible from one
>class of citizens to give
>to the other." -Voltaire

Kinda strange to quote Voltaire when you have no notion whatsoever of France's current political system, nor its past ones.
Voltaire wrote this in a specific context (the Ancien Regime = privileges and power for a rich and religious oppressive upperclass minority, just before the French Revolution) . You use a very specific quote that applies to a situation from over 200 years ago to generalise about today's governments ?
I'm wondering if you've read more of Voltaire's work, and if you'd agree with the rest of what he says ...

>"The assumption that spending more of
>the taxpayer's money will make
>things better has survived all
>kinds of evidence that it
>has made things worse. The
>black family- which survived slavery,
>discrimination, poverty, wars and
>depressions- began to come apart
>as the federal government moved
>in with its well-financed programs
>to "help." - Thomas Sowell

HOW has taxpayer's money been used so far ? Mainly to benefit private corporate interests.
Not the spending of taxpayer's money is the problem, but the way it's being used.


krewcialist ;-)


OKAYPLAYER COMPILATION 2000 !!!
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/okpcompil2000.htm

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 2 :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okp2s.mp3

OKAYPLAYERSONG PT. 1 (the original baybee !!):
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/okplayer.mp3

HOME : http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators

I'm part of this too ... :
http://www.thejawn.com/okprod/

the instrumentals for my next album (in MP3-format) :
http://urgent.rug.ac.be/vinylators/audio/instrus.html


'We've got to change our own minds about each other. We have to see each other with new eyes. We have to see each other as brothers and sisters. We have to come together with warmth'