>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.

By saying that today's system is OK with you, you are defending a system where a minority controls a majority.

>>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.

What if they don't get to vote at all ?
What if they loose every time, without any input ?

>>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%?

You missed my point. You gave an example where a 51% majority would be able to change something as fundamental as a country's constitution.
For such essential/important issues that affect a constitution, people can agree on a 75% or even higher percentage majority needed to make a change.

>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.

How can you make sure they know the district they are representing ? How have they been chosen or picked to represent their district ? What is the 'good' of the area ?

You either have these people elected (which you don't like, cos it's a majority who will decide), or either picked (by who, based on what ?).

How high is the risk of people being bribed to give the job to somebody in that last scenario ?

>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.

I never said law should fluctuate every single week, based on some superficial poll. I take democracy very serious.
What you don't seem to or recognize is that a country's law should also be supported by it's population.

Are you relying solely on the judgement of technocrats ? So only judges or lawyers are entitled to make up laws and decide what's good for a country ? What gives them that right ? The fact that they had access to the money needed to get a diploma ?

>>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.

My remark was a general one. It didn't apply just to religion. I was referring to your suggestion that a 51% majority can change a country's constitution.

Now, about your remark : if a majority of the people want a religion based state/government, that's their decision. I wouldn't want to live there, since I'm not religious, but I don't have a problem with people choosing to have religion all over their country.
What's wrong with that if it's people's choice ? It may be different from what you want, but that doesn't make it bad or inferior.

>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?

No, but I think what you propose is only taking us further away from that. How do you expect companies to give you unbiased information, when they're constantly concerned about the profit they make, and they'll adapt their info and the way it's marketed to serve that purpose ?

>>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.

Could this be becos that top 1% has 33% of the nations income ?

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

Haha.

>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.

Bwaahahahaha. I don't know if any of the okayartists check this board regularly, but I'd looooooooove to hear what they think about this.

The music industry (and especially the majors) is the prime example of exploitation and modern day slavery.

>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.

I'm proposing a system where everyone has an opportunity, not just a few.

And the opportunity you talk about simply doesn't exist, unless you're willing to sell yourself and compromise.

You've said you don't believe in the existence of glassceilings, sexism or racism as barriers to those opportunities, so I won't waste any time in telling you again.

Just make sure you wear a helmet for when you hit it.

>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.

Yep. And since you don't give a eff about the world outside your comfortable surroundings, you don't notice that it is only possible through and because of the exploitation of other people, both inside the US and even more so outside, from Central and South America, to Africa and Asia.

>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.

BS. If the poorer people have more and better access to education, jobs, etcetera, that means more people making more money. Which also happens to narrow the gap. Or is that option blasphemy to you ?

>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.

That's just how it is.

Interesting.

You got infected with AIDS at a PRIVATE hospital, cos they don't care about checking the blood from donors (controlling that cuts profits, see) ?
Too bad man, "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.

Oh, it's that simple ? Sorry, forgot you don't acknowledge the existence of racism, sexism, unfair world trade (understatement of the year)

What about Softenon victims ?
What about people who lost a leg when their unsafe General Motors car exploded ?

Has little to do with your satanic government, but everything with private companies who got away with criminal activities becos of lack of democratic control.

But they have less 'possibilities' to participate 100% in your capitalist economy, cos of medical reasons (and this is just one example).

Too bad, "that's just how it is" I guess ?

>*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.

So it's okay for people who can't afford financial consultants to pay more taxes ?

I thought you were pro equal opportunities ? Shouldn't everyone have access to financial consultants then ?

>>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?

All your posts so far have shown your inability to even try to understand what democracy means.

The House Of Commons is far from democracy, ask any UK okayplayer.

>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.

Both are correlated. If someone is being paid to say something specific, or rewarded in other ways (job, status, prestige) that is important information. A message is never 'just the message'. Follow any communication course for starters and that's the first thing you'll learn.

If the Made Men get 5 mics in a Source magazine, where the editor is their manager, that is relevant information (which is part of the message) and it changes one's perception of it.

>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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it's not. It is to you, and you believe it to be true for everyone (cos that makes the world an easy-to-understand place where you have winners and losers, aka people who work and lazy bastards who deserve to be poor since they don't work hard enough).

The world is larger than the US. That may be hard to accept for you, but I presume you've at least seen a map ONCE in your life, where there's more continents and countries than yours.

You don't have to care about people outside your cosy little cocoon, but then be consequent and don't try to talk like as if you know them and or their lives and experiences.

>>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.

"Women are underdeveloped dogs". Who cares who said it and when (probably some Neanderthaler), cos it's a quote and speaks true even today ?

Ever considered stand up comedy ?

And people say Eminem is shocking ...

>>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 point is that you randomly use quotes to legitimate your fascism, but neglect that quotes are a part of a paper/book/philosophy and can not be seen apart from that. Every thing these same people you quote may have said that contradicts with your view, is simply ignored.

Easy.

>So? Those private corporate interests
>is why you're living the
>life you are now, whining
>and complaining on a computer.

Oh, so we all should settle, and be grateful and accept the exploitation and oppression just cos we got a comp ? Bwahahaha. Never heard of Robin Hood ?

>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.

If that's the case, my government here needs to be elected properly, cut off all unofficial ties with corporations who promise them privileges in exchange for changing legislation in their advantage, and get way more money to be able to control companies (which is the enacting and enforcing of laws you talk about).

>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.

Maybe the government wasn't helping at all. Your conclusion is that all help and welfare should consequently be stopped, instead of being organised properly, with input of the people themselves.

If you're greedy, just say so, don't use other people's random quotes to mask it.


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'

krewcial
www.krewcial.com
www.myspace.com/krewcial
www.okayplayer.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi?az=show_thread&om=23051&forum=lesson

http://www.23hq.com/krewcial/photo/1085564?album_id=1085556

Nashville recording sessions : www.krewcial.com/nashville