>I don't understand your take on
>democracy/majority rule. What is better
>than majority rule (not saying
>it's ideal)?

The rule of law. In which the popular opinion of the people at the time cannot override the laws set by the constitution.

>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.

Locally, maybe, but nationally? No way no how. Too many different interests at a tug of war, at least here in the States anyways.
In my opinion, easy access is what has lowered the voting population anyways. People feel, and rightfully so, that their vote doesn't individually count because so many people are already voting, especially if they know their views aren't going to pass. The problem is that people don't respect what they have been given, and they think that politics is a boring and dreadful subject. Quite frankly, it's their problem. If the issues and future of our distinguished Congress along with the Supreme Court and the presidency in the greatest country in this history of mankind doesn't interest, then whose problem is that?

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

Yeah. Napoleon ran a muck, you got your asses kicked by Hitler, etc....

>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...

Actually I ask which is more left wing. The Republicans are trying to outspend the Democrats at ever step of the way. Believe me that is not right-wing. IMO, I think the Libertarian Party is the only right-wing party out here, because we want government out of both our social and financial lives. Democrats just want social, Republican just wants financial. I say both.

>>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?

But see, you and Krewcial are only basing your thoughts on assumption, as if you already know that everyone wants the same thing out of life the same way. There are alot of media, alot is still When you establish laws, you are restricting the freedom of something else, unless that law is to eliminate a previous law or act.

>>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.

Amazing to watch crash and burn. With this whole European Union thing, can the countries of Europe even be called countries? They are more like states in comparison to our federal government.

>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.

it depends on whether or not you make the majority level a mere 51%, or make it a higher level, say 75% or so. Even then, you still have a majority, and there is still a minority. I doubt if there have been elections or referendums in which an issue had 100% support.

>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.

But it's still possible to out a provision of the constitution through democratic public opinion. That should be left to lawmakers, not the unimformed public.

>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.

Actually if it wasn't for guns, we probably would have more human rights abuses than we have today. Alot of the enforcement of civil rights came from a dispute or conflict of some kind.

>Perhaps. However, what is the point
>of giving the rich back
>as much as they paid?

Because it's their money! Duh.

>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).

I don't get your point. I dunno what diplomats you're talking about, but in the States, everyone pays taxes, no matter who ya are.

>Are you suggesting the reverse? Should
>the rich pay as much
>as the poor? Should everyone
>get out only what they
>put in?

Well lets see......everyone uses the emergency dept, fire dept, police dept, public roads, public buildings, public offices, etc......well, hell, from a logical standpoint, I don't see why not.

Now agreeably, this isn't realistic, and the rich should pay a lil more than the poor. However, when that does happen, and you're under some of the best economic times in which government is running around yelling about "surpluses", then something is wrong with that picture. The money should go back to the people that paid it, and the taxes should be lowered.

>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.

You talk about corporate welfare as if it is going straight into their pockets. It does into the business account. And let me reiterate that in most cases if it wasn't for corporate welfare, then people would lose their jobs. Why? Because the business isn't bringing in enough revenue, and they will have to cut back.....whether it's labor, or equipment or raising costs.

You guys been complaining about corporate welfare, without even thinking about what would happen if there wasn't any. Alot of the companies today got their start from that money, and now they make enough money that they can help fuel the economy and keep people employed with good jobs. The idea of corporate welfare doesn't stifle the economy, nor is a waste of taxpayers' money. If anything, it's in the taxpayers' best interest to make sure that all business, whether big or small, survive, seeing that the economy, whether nationally or globally, is fueled by the private sector and the number of business that are in a market means more competition, which means better products, along with more of a choice for the consumer, and more of a change to get a job for the employee.

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

Exactly. So instead of allowing government to continue spending that money, why not give it back, or letting them keep it? After all, it is THEIR money.

>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).

Not as much as it should, at least here anyways. Here, Slick Willie just vetoed the elimination of two taxes. The first one was actually a "penalty" in which a married couple would pay more taxes than if they were single. Yeah, that sure helps out families. Then the second one was an inheritance tax that Congress (mainly the Reps) was trying to eliminate for good. Clinton struck both of these down as a tax for the rich. What a basturd. Who the hell he thinks pays most of the taxes? Not to mention that tax eliminations like those help everyone. All he wants to do is keep the government budget high so he can implement his new spending programs in order to prostitute the poor vote, which is the basis of leftist politics to begin with.

>>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?

I don't think you understood the statement. Let's say government at the beginning of the year came to you and said you couldn't make any money for yourself until you pay off your annual taxes and what not. Most people would be working until Mid May to pay off what they owe government.

So who exactly should control government?

>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?

Well of course businesses are going to attempt to expand their influence and coverage of consumers. That's natural. But there are still plenty of other companies, whether big or small, that are alternatives for getting brand name items. You just have to look for them.

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

What do you mean why should it be eliminated? Because their are businesses out there who try to purposely sabotage their competition for their benefit. As for regulations, it depends on how much the government, along with employees, care to oversee these operations. The reason labor reform is/became popular was not because they were simply terrible working conditions, but because the conflict between labor and management, so government had no choice but to step in.

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

Bull. That still doesn't mean you individually make decisions over your own life, that just means you're allowing the majority of the people to make those decisions for you. The problem is when you let government and popular opinion affect your life. Less government, not more.

>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.

But to have people coming to the ballot box on every issue is totally unrealistic. People would have to go to the ballot box virtually every day. And if you have democratic opinion on how taxpayers' money is spent, then yes a majority does have control over the government treasury.

>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.

They know more than regular people do. That doesn't mean they are going to always forecast future direction of the economies. They can change unpredictably like the weather, but does that mean that meteorologists are a waste of time too? They are economists, not psychics.

>>Yeah well what do you expect,
>>they're Brits....
>>
>
>See, these are the types of
>comments you need to avoid
>(at least in writing).

Blah. I love my sarcastic-filled comments. Nothing wrong with them. If people don't like them they'll get over it.

>>Too many
>>people had the idea that
>>I was a black Republican
>>Party member.
>
>Well, at least you're not all
>bad.

Actually most would consider us to be worse than the Republicans, especially in the area of economic growth and size of government. However we are better in the areas of societal issues, because we believe government shouldn't be concerned in the individual lives of people.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
"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

"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

"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

"Life is insensitive, and the truth can be highly offensive. To hide from either is to hide from the reality of life. Take pride in the fact that I am an equal opportunity offender. You today, someone else tomorrow. You have no constitutional right not to be offended." - Neal Boortz

Some of you still think America's a
democracy. Lemme break it down for
ya...

* Democracy:  Three wolves and a sheep
vote on the dinner menu.
* Democratically Elected Republic: Three
wolves and 2 sheep vote on which sheep's
for dinner. 
* Constitutional Republic: The eating of
mutton is forbidden by law, and the
sheep are armed.

The United States is a CONSTITUTIONAL
REPUBLIC. Not a democracy.

Yes....I am a PROUD Black Libertarian Conservative.

_________________________
http://expertise.blogdrive.com
http://twitter.com/KMBReferee
http://www.ask.fm/KMBReferee