>Of all democracies existing today,
>only a few have referendums
>(best known example is the
>Swiss canton system).

Actually the US does, but only at the state and local levels.

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.

That doesn't make sense. If a referendum is only going to be used as a survey poll, then why even have it? How does it confirm existing legislation? Are the representatives trying to find out if the law is popular with the people? If so, that shouldn't have much concern. The concern should be does it give everyone equal protection under the law and stops fraud and corruption.

>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 ?

Of course not. That's why the constitution has amendments. However it shouldn't be changed because of mere popular opinion either.

>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 ?).

Of course the technicalities of law enforcement should change along with modern times, but the ideals and principles of law shouldn't. Here, the principles are based from day one, in which the people should be protected from criminal activity and government.Times change, but that doesn't mean standards should.

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

Ha. Right. They might have input, as in casting a vote, but that doesn't mean that it individually makes a difference.

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

I never said minority should rule over a majority. I said that no person or group of people should be over the law of the land. When you have democracy, you have a group of people in control of the direction of the government. Therefore, their will is the law.

>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).

We do too. It's called the Supreme Court.

>As mke put it, 'republic' has
>nothing to do with democracy
>or dictatorships. You can
>have democratic republics and tirannic
>ones.

You're right. In any government if you have corrupt people in it the country can go under the tubes. That's why there were so many atrocities under the US government in it's earlier history because they did what they wanted, and the people didn't care. Now it's a different story, and we hold government officials accountable more than ever through our "checks and balances" system. That way, one branch of government can be more powerful than the other.
I think it was Benjamin Franklin said rebellion was necessary every once in a while to make sure the government didn't become too powerful and to keep it in it's place. Now like I mentioned to mke, there has only been 27 amendments. However, the majority of those amendments not only changed the look of this country, but the whole world. It's also those amendments that has kept the United States from going into total chaos (although it has twice already. Once in the 1860's and again in the 1960's)

>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.

But how do they have equal access to power? If they vote, and they lose the vote, then that means they lose on that issue.

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

*LOL* A 2/3rds majority is 66%. Isn't 66% > 50%?

>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.

Doesn't matter. They still come to a majority conclusion. And that still means there is a minority. All that means is that they compromised on their differing issues, that doesn't mean that gives equal coverage.

>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% ?

I never said anything like that at all. I prefer laws to be made by representatives, that actually know the district they are representing and can actually make decisions based on the good of the area. But, those laws have to be in accordance to the previous laws and principles set, and not go merely on popular opinion, but intellectual reasoning.

>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.

Oh they don't? Obviously you haven't heard of Iran, Egypt, Israel, The Vatican, Syria, or any of the other countries that founded and based their governments on religious principles. But then again, I guess they aren't reasonable.

> 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.

You said something key right there....people being informed properly of the pros and cons. Let's be realistic, not everyone has an unbiased opinion on things, even government officials. It's just like an election campaign, people are going to lie and stretch the truth about certain things to put themselves and their causes under a different light. So how, pretell, do you expect this "proper" information to come to pass, and do you actually think because the information is there everyone will believe it or even read/watch/listen to it?

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

You're right about one thing. It is a farce. It has everything to do with democracy.

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

Not all, but a majority. Top 1% pays 33% of the nations taxes.

>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 ?

This "wage gap" is common sense reasoning that you leftists blow out of proportion to scare the public.

The gap is quite simple. When you have two things, in which one is stalemated and one is rising, the distance between the two is going to going to get bigger and bigger. Therefore, the rich, as they are in the business of making money and improving their lifestyle, are going to get richer, and the poor, in which they can't go no lower because they are at the bottom, are going to stay where they are.

You see, this would be a problem if there wasn't any opportunity. Just because one person is rich this year, and another person is poor this year, doesn't mean that will be the case next year. It switches back and forth all the time. Hell, just look at the music industry. Most vocal artists are not rich when they first start off, but they gain money through their music and selling of their albums, and make tons of money. Plenty of people in this country were born poor but worked their asses off to get to the top of the economic food chain. Despite what you believe, it wasn't because they won life's lottery, it was because they were given an opportunity, and they took it to the moon.

So, going back to the economic levels, if people are given opportunities to succeed, and opportunity to succeed is out there more than it ever has in the history of this world, and they achieve, then that means they will get richer. That doesn't mean that someone else will get poorer, it just means they went down a notch in the economic percentiles. There are more millionaires and financially independent people than there has ever been in this world at any time in history. Therefore, if people are making money, and are getting richer, then that means the average amount of wealth the rich has is going to increase, while the ones that are poor are going to stay where they always been.

It doesn't matter if your capitalist, socialist, communist, or whatever, the world's economy is based on the highest achievers. Therefore, if the wage gap is getting bigger, and more people are making fortunes, then that is a GOOD thing, because they are going to bring the standard of living up with them. On the contrary, if less people are making money, and the gap narrows, then that's a bad thing. If the high achievers are struggling to make it, then what you think the lower ones are doing? Absolutely nothing.

Remember this, in this world no matter what form of government or whatever, there are always going to be ones that have and there are always going to be ones that don't have. That's just how it is. However, that doesn't mean that the ones that don't have now, can't have later. It's about desire, determination, and ability. If you don't have those, you aren't going to do much.

>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.

*sighs* Just think about it for a minute. If the rich didn't have the lawyers or financial consultants (I think that's what you were trying to say) to help them find tax writeoffs and the like, then they would be paying even more than what they are already paying. Like I said, alot of people pay almost 40% of their income in taxes already.

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

How? The House of Commons isn't considered as a prototype of a democratic government? Then what is?

>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...

The truth is no less of a truth even if it comes out of the mouth of a liar. Don't dispute his life, dispute his words.

>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.

DUH a quote is an opinion! It's not supposed to be scientific research!
As for mistrust, that's what the US was founded on, mistrust for government's ability to control the lives of people. The government is ran by people, therefore actions must be taken to ensure people in power have no way to abuse that power without retribution. You can call it mistrust, I call it protection. If you think everyone that has authority is or will be a straight arrow, then you're living in a dream world. It's human nature to look after yourself before others.

>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 ?

Who cares where Voltaire is from or what he did or whatever? It's a quote and it speaks true even today, whether governments make the rich richer or whether they give the money to the poor. That's why I advocate less government.

>I'm wondering if you've read more
>of Voltaire's work, and if
>you'd agree with the rest
>of what he says ...

Probably. Probably not. What's the point?

>>"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.

So? Those private corporate interests is why you're living the life you are now, whining and complaining on a computer. What, you actually think government did it? Ha!

>Not the spending of taxpayer's money
>is the problem, but the
>way it's being used.

Half right and half wrong. Taxpayer's money should only be used to provide government enough finanically to perform the basic functions it's supposed to, as in fixing roads and public buildings, enacting and enforcing laws, and compensation of representatives and government officials. The rest of that stuff is wasting taxpayer's money along with being the problem.

Besides you missed the whole point of Sowell's quote. The point is that the black community never needed governemnt to come in with its welfare programs and "help" us. If anything, they actually hurt and stifiled it.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
"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