Before I start, I think you got the intentions for my statements a lil mixed up. Some of them were referring to democracy, or direct democracy as you would say. So, where I see you've made that mistake, I'll simply ignore it and try to respond to the rest of your responses. Wish me luck.

>Not necessarily. Some folks just
>have other things to talk
>about that are more important
>to them. What is
>more pressing to me, paying
>the rent, or musings of
>a few cats at the
>Trilateral commission?

True, but the actions of government can affect your rent, and affect where you live, or if you live at all.

>>It
>>means our system is the
>>most successful in the history
>>of the world.

>What about the Romans? The Moors?
>The Chinese?

I doubt it. Can it be said that so much "riches" have been achieved by such a large number of people, and without constantly invading other countries? I doubt it. Not to mention that the US spurred technological advances quicker in one time period than in any other. I'd say that's superior progress.

>It depends on what you mean
>by work. Most folks
>in western european socialist/capitalist spots
>are taken care of.
>They don't really have the
>freedom to be rich or
>poor though.

Right. I feel freedom and government security are judged on a virtual scale. You can't have government security and expect total freedom. I think lack of progress that has been made in Europe is spurred from the control government has over the people ie big government policies, European Union, and such.

>>I do think they can govern
>>themselves, but not each other.

>Does that include their families?

Semantics. Of course a head of household has the authority in his/her own house, given he isnt breaking the law in doing so, ie assault, slavery, forcing them to engage in illegal activity, etc.

>Everyone realizes this. That's why
>we have something like majority
>rule. The main idea
>is that all our our
>competing interests will counteract each
>other, until we get to
>one thing that everyone can
>agree on.

Majority rule is not unaminous rule. Maybe that can be done in a group of 10, but not in a group of 270 million. Therefore not everyone is going to agree on it.

>But minimizing government does the same
>thing. Without the federal
>govt's bureaucracy a state government
>could do practically anything to
>it's unpopular members.

Right again. I believe in holding state governments accountable under the feds. However 2 things must be remembered.

1. Most US state governments are based on democracies anyway.
2. Who is going to hold the feds accountable of the same thing? That's why we have the system of checks and balances. Unfortuantely alot of state governments don't use the same intricate systems. I'm orginally from North Carolina, and Gov. Hunt is the only governor in the country that doesn't have the power of veto. George Bush doesn't have the power of pardon in Texas (Which makes it amusing how people blame him for executions there. That's another reason why we should not put national issues in the hands of an ill-informed public). Therefore, I think it is acceptable for the federal governments to investigate the accusations of unlawfulness at the hands of state governments.

>In our system you have 2
>competing interests. What if
>the majority members in a
>state want to persecute the
>minority members? The only
>thing that protects Black Georgians
>from White Georgians is the
>federal government.

That's one of the biggest reasons why I advocate a constitutional republic. Because we as black people are minorities ourselves! Democracy at its worst would have the tendency to eat our freedoms alive.

>Are you talking about the US
>constitution? Or Constitutions in
>general? You realize other
>govts have constitutions that are
>not at all effective.
>You should read the Soviet
>cons. They had all
>sorts of "freedoms" ignored by
>their ruling party.

Ours. But, even though those failed because they didn't allow freedom, the purpose of their constitution was to have a set of laws to give a solid foundation to their government. I'm sure they broke their own laws and principles just as the US did in the early days of this country, especially in the persecution of AA's and such, but that was the "representatives"' fault, not the law's. The people simply let them get away with it until they had enough, and in both cases (early US history, and the Soviet reigns) those systems broke down.

>What is a law other than
>the proclaiment of public opinion?
> The laws of man
>are not like the laws
>of physics.

If that was true, then the civil rights movement would have not been successful. I know there's not a specific way to find out now, but I believe if we had nationwide referendums on the Voting Rights Amendment and the Civil Rights Act, along with desegregation, we would have lost. Same with American slavery. I think more people were worried about keeping the nation together than freeing black people. The Slavery Amendment was just punishment to the South and to make sure this argument would never surface again. Democratic opinion I believe would have kept slavery established, especially since the South for the longest had the larger support, in both territory, population, and states. I forgot the name of the act, but it said that in order for a territory to become a slave or a free state, another one must be formed and become the opposite. I know it came from the "Bleeding Kansas" incident.

>There are specific laws for specific
>people. Our military, those
>who protect our laws, live
>by a different set of
>laws.

Yes but that's because the military is considered an autonomy, which I think is necessary to do in order to keep one focus and direction.

>Then you get into a contest
>of measuring causation. Maybe
>what you do doesn't hurt
>others directly, but it could
>be that you damage others
>down the line.

But should I necessarily be held accountable for my indirect actions?

>So when wishes collide, whom does
>the law protect? If
>the national public wants to
>protect endangered animals but you
>like to kill bald eagles,
>who should be right?

I think you miss the point. The law should not be made because the national public approves of it, it should be because the protection of the environment is necessary for the success of the nation. Let's say that national opinion was the opposite. Does that mean we should repeal protection of bald eagles? I don't think so.

>It's not should, but a question
>of do they have the
>power. You realize lots
>of non-political entities have lots
>of power over your life.
> 3 credit bureaus for
>instance can control where you
>live and how you move
>around this country. These
>guys aren't subject to direct
>political control.

It just so happens that I don't like credit bureaus being able to give information about me to others either. *LOL* But still as long as it isn't fraudulent, then that doesn't mean they shouldn't be free too. You also have to remember that it's indirectly, in which the loaner makes the final decision, and it isn't based solely on your credit history (salary, length of employment, etc.) I wanted to ask you tho, if you know, what gives credit bureaus the right to hold closed credit accounts for 7 years? I know you can have it taken off legally, but I wonder who gave them the power to even take control of the account. That's something that I wonder about often, since I now have my credit report checked.

>> Why must
>>you force other people to
>>give it up?

>Are you talking about taxes?
>If rich folks are scared
>of a communist takeover in
>Vietnam, why should the sons
>and daughters of poor people
>have to go fight for
>cats in Washington. There
>is no reason other than
>force. Our government is
>really only restrained violence.

I agree, and I believe government should not be putting our military in any life threatening situation unless it directly threatens American security and interests. Our military is not an humanitarian organization, as Slick Willie has tried to make it.

>But we exchange our freedom for
>security.

You have never lied in makin that statement.

> There
>>are no options when it
>>comes to government; everything they
>>do is through force, because
>>they are the law.
>
>Because we are the law, we
>are the government. Why
>are you separating the politicians
>from the polity?

Okay, lemme retract just a LIL bit. The laws and regulations must have some kind of support among the people (well, not really, byt let's consider we are talking about the US and not governments in general) However, one thing that I liked in Gore's nomination speech is when he said, "The presidency should not be popularity contest. Sometimes the president has to do things that the people don't like for the benefit of the whole country. (I'm paraphrasing) Sometimes you got to choose the hard right over the easy wrong." I agree.

>In a perfect world sure.
>In our world if you
>have the right opportunities you
>can ignore many of our
>ideals.

True. But that's not the fault of the law, it's the people themselves. The law cannot enforce itself.

>But even though we come from
>different backgrounds and have different
>interests there are a few
>things that we agree on.
> And I might not
>want you to get a
>military base in your city,
>and you might not want
>to put a supercollider in
>mine, we can both agree
>to build a highway or
>a hospital.

I'm not saying that laws should constatnly go against the wishes of the people. That would cause chaos. I'm saying that the wishes of the people are not the most important factor; the state and direction of the nation is.

>You already agreed to be apart
>of the society, so you
>must abide by their rules.
> If you don't agree
>you can leave.

That's authoritarian. Why should people not be free to live their own lives free of societal opinion of themselves and societal view of the direction of their lives? Should black people have left the country in post-Reconstruction because they were being discriminated against, because society in effect said, "Get used to it?" No. If that was the case, then discrimination of that magnatude would will be happening today. The individual, which is the smallest minority, should have some kind of direction of their lives, free from societal wishes along as it doesn't negatively affect others.

>>If you want people to be
>>involved/interested in daily affairs, you
>>can't just simply invite them
>>to. You have to
>>educate them, and show them
>>why they should.
>
>In essence force them to.

That's not force. Force is when you physically make people do something they don't want to do. Persuasion is much different.

Anyways, good post. Probably the most logical responses I've ever had in OKP.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
"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