>>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.

Well if that minority consists of a written document, then so be it.

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

Representation is still better than the fickle means of popular opinion. That way there can be some kind of constant rather than using the fickle means of mere societal thoughts.

>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.

That's a little better, but there is still no guarantee that people will be informed and know what is going on, nor will people act in an unbiased manner. That's why laws are written, to make sure there is some sort of standard that everyone must follow and not simply because they say they will do so. There is no promise that everyone will give things equal consideration and/or look out for their best interests.

>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 ?).

I never said I didn't believe in democratic elections. (representation) I said I had a problem with the issues and problems of society being decided by popular opinion. I am not fond of appointees.

Actually, I recall you having a problem with representation previously.

>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.

What about the time period of the 1960's? You think the population supported civil rights, the Vietnam War, abortions, desegregation, and the like? No. But because the law said they had to, they had no choice. If it wasn't for the law being over the people none of those things, along with others, would have come to pass.

>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 ?

Democratic election (representation). They are chosen by the people to handle the matters of government, instead of putting that job directly into the hands of the people, because they simply feel he is the best person for the job. That diploma you mentioned makes the public feel more comfortable with their decision.

>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.

I do, because what if I lived in that country and I am part of the minority that doesn't want that religion implemented into government? If the case you just mentioned happened 200 years ago, the US would no doubt be a Protestant state. A major reason immigrants came to this country was from religious and political persecution. You're telling me that okay to use government, the only group of any kind thats legally able to use force upon you, to be influenced by government. If they want to pray in their own homes, fine, but don't bring it to the capitol steps.

>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.

Why, when people have the freedom to practice a choice in the comfort of their own home or private organization, have to have government enforce it? When you do that, you take away freedoms from someone else. Tell me what gives a Muslim population majority to prevent a Christian minority from freedom of association?

>>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 ?

It's simple. I don't. I try to find out for myself. If I don't find out, it wasn't meant for me to find out. I think that is better than pretending you can accurately inform people of things they either will never learn or desire to learn.
>Could this be becos that top
>1% has 33% of the
>nations income ?

Nope. Only 17%. So therefore they are paying double the taxes than what they are responsible for based on income.

>>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.

Who cares? They can complain all they want, but I doubt if they are going around hungry, especially ones with recording contracts and albums out. It's funny how celebrities complain about the "plight of the world" when they are part of the group that is taking advantage of the system that they are against.

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

Great hyperbole. Where's the charity organization in which I can contribute to?? Save the Musicians? Yes save these musicians from the evil music industry that has made alot of them 6 figure and 7 figure salaries. Yes, my heart truly bleeds for them. Shame on Bad Boy Entertainment and Cash Money Records!

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

What you mean few? Everyone does have an opportunity. But of course, it isn't going to be just handed to them on a silver platter. They have to look for it, and then earn it.

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

Oh give me a break. You need to get a clue, man. Not everyone kisses ass to get to the top of their profession, not everyone has to compromise on their beliefs in order to achieve prosperity. Your assumption that everyone with money are nothing but asskissers and exploiters is becoming tired.

>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.

I never said that. I said glass ceilings are made lower through socialism, and discrimination, whether by gender or race, is made stronger though that ideal. I also said that glass ceilings, racism, and sexism can be overcame however. It's all about the desire you want to overcome them.

>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.

And that's a lie. Once again your assertion of the evil filty rich is tired. I guess the new industries and technologies that are being made every day comes off the backs of the poor too? I guess you can't get an education because the "man" won't let you get one? Your passionate reasoning is quite touching, but the facts say it's illogical. More and more people are owning their own businesses. More and more people are becoming financially independent. More and more people are self-employed, and more and more people are making fortunes than ever. That's why the economy is the best it's ever been in the history of the world. It's those opportunities and technologies that you're so much against, calling it exploitation.

>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 ?

Yes, because you forgot one simple idea....cost of living. If all the poorer people were to get richer, say, by raising up minimum wage, in order for businesses to recieve a profit so they can live they would have to up revenue, which means that prices would have to go up. Therefore, all narrowing the gap is going to do is cause poor people to come up with more dollars in order to live. They call it minimum wage/standard of living for a reason; because it's the lowest job standard you can get.

So, even if they do get a better education, and even if you try to universally raise up the poor's income, all you're doing it making it harder for them and everyone else; them because they are still going to be poor, meaning they will have to gain more money in order to live under the comfort level you'd like to see them at, and everyone else because you are taking their money away from them, which means they will lose financial security and status, making it harder for them to get by. You're not helping out the economy, you're stifiling it.

>>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".

You can get AIDS at government hospitals the same way. However, chances are that you'll be more likely to get it though public funded hospitals than private ones. Simply put, there is no business government can succeed at better than the private sector.

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

The thing is that with desire and ambition you can overcome all those things. Human will is one of the most strongest forces in this world. However, if you don't believe in yourself, then you aren't going to get much done.

>What about Softenon victims ?

never heard of it

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

General Motors should be held responsible for putting out unsafe cars. Once again, fraud.

>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.

Please. It is not the job of the public to control private businesses. They have a choice on if they want to do business with a company, but noone other than the owners/shareholders have a right to decide on the direction of the company. Plus, what you are proposing is that the government control these private companies through democratic consent. That's truly satanic, not to mention authoritarian.

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

Some win, some lose. Some are going to have it harder than others. That's life. Everyone may be created equal, but they don't live equally. The ones that are hurt by an auto accident have it no harder than someone that was attacked by an animal with those same injuries, or someone that was born with the same defects they acquired. That's not saying that General Motors shouldn't be held responsible, but if one with those defects can participate, then that means that everyone that has those same problems can also. Now them having to will to/and actually doing so, now that's a different story.

>>*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 ?

Who says they are paying more taxes? If you are talking about groups, yeah, but individually, no. You don't really think that a multimillionaire is actually paying less on taxes than someone that is making only $30 grand a year, do you?

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

They do. The only difference is whether or not they can afford them.

>>>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.

Ha. You haven't been able to explain to me what is your "ideal" democracy. You just tell me what democracy should do, but don't have any kind of plan in order to implement this idea. You haven't given me any models of this democracy you're in favor of, nor have you given me any kind of structure of this government you're in favor of. All you have done is thrown out some far-fetched ideas, but have yet to show me how this can be done. So, until you tell me what a democracy is, or at least your version of one, then what do I have to go by?

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

All you guys do is sit and complain, sit and complain. Now it's put up or shut up time: come up with a fair, but realistic, way of giving the most power to the people? And just don't say democracy either, tell me how you plan to execute this idea of democracy. Until you can do that, you and the other Okayplayer liberals are doing nothing but blowing hot air.

I suggest you read this column

http://herald.com/content/today/opinion/columnists/pitts/digdocs/073792.htm

I think his opinion of all you "activists" are right on the money. You have no coherent plan, no kind of direction, no nothing. All you do is want to complain complain complain, without actually trying to come up with a logical solution to get things done.

I'm out.


"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