Here is an update on the soldier who refused to go!

[alanschu]

By simply allowing the majority to exercise their will over the minority, duh.

 

 

Part of the law is to prevent tyranny of the majority. But you said tyranny of the majority is just "a lame excuse against democracy."

[Sand]

So the majority must cater to the whims of the minority? How is that right?

[alanschu]

So the needs of the minority are irrelevant since they're not the majority? How is that right?

 

 

If the majority of the people in the United States voted that homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, you'd be A-OK with that?

[Sand]

The needs of the man otweigh the needs of the few. That is how a democracy should work. Equal rights need to be assured for all, yes, and there needs to be laws in place that makes sure of it but the minority should not have more power than the majority simply because they just happen to be the minority. Do you rather that a few people have the power or have everyone with an equal share and work toward concensus?

 

If every vote mattered in a popular election for the presidency and the electorial college is eliminated I believe there would be a lot more people voting and a lot less apathy.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Sand

[alanschu]

I'd rather people in power not be selfish and take advantage of those not in power.

 

Besides, no one is saying the minority should have more power than the majority. Clearly you do not understand tyranny of the majority.

[Sand]

How would the tyranny of the majority effect the presidency when it doesn't seem to effect all the other federal and state level government offices?

[alanschu]

Because there are protections against tyranny of the majority.

 

Things like Equal Rights are pipedreams without protections against tyranny of the majority. Because without protections against tyranny of the majority, the majority can exert whatever influence it likes over the minority.

[Walsingham]

You write your constitution to guarantee certain righst and protections to all. Then you make sure the constitution can only be changed by such an overwhelming majority that democracy is the best chance the minority has. Certainly in any state where a huge majority, over a long period of time, wishes a minority harm sooner or later they will get their way. Bar outside intervention, of course.

[~Di]

Since I'm no longer able to edit the original message to contain this clarification, I'm adding this post to apologize to taks if he thought my comment ", I suspect taks will be here shortly to explain why the Electoral College is a gift from God, and should never, ever be repealed, amen", was meant as anything more serious than a teasing remark to a friend with whom I have had the same debate in the past.

 

taks, I hope you recognized the tease was a reference to the other discussions we've had on the topic. I respect you immensely, and would never deliberately say anything to offend or insult you.

[Sand]

You write your constitution to guarantee certain righst and protections to all. Then you make sure the constitution can only be changed by such an overwhelming majority that democracy is the best chance the minority has. Certainly in any state where a huge majority, over a long period of time, wishes a minority harm sooner or later they will get their way. Bar outside intervention, of course.

 

How would changing the election process for the executive branch effect the legislative branch, which is already majority ruled, in such a way that they would seek to radically alter the Constitution? No state has more than 2 senators and the House is already based on population of the state in question.

[Walsingham]

You write your constitution to guarantee certain righst and protections to all. Then you make sure the constitution can only be changed by such an overwhelming majority that democracy is the best chance the minority has. Certainly in any state where a huge majority, over a long period of time, wishes a minority harm sooner or later they will get their way. Bar outside intervention, of course.

 

How would changing the election process for the executive branch effect the legislative branch, which is already majority ruled, in such a way that they would seek to radically alter the Constitution? No state has more than 2 senators and the House is already based on population of the state in question.

 

I was talking about government as a whole, rather than the slightly odd (to a Brit) subdivisions you persist in.

[Sand]

I am talking about the specific United States Government. With the checks and balances that we already have in place due to our subdivisions the tyrrany of the majority is not an issue.

Edited February 16, 2007 by Sand

[Gorgon]

"because that would be more of a shooter than a RPG which is what K1 and 2 were. "

 

And there is a rule that says RPGs can't have more than simplified combat ?

[Sand]

[Dark_Raven]

Posting in the wrong thread?

[Xard]

[metadigital]

You write your constitution to guarantee certain righst and protections to all. Then you make sure the constitution can only be changed by such an overwhelming majority that democracy is the best chance the minority has. Certainly in any state where a huge majority, over a long period of time, wishes a minority harm sooner or later they will get their way. Bar outside intervention, of course.

 

How would changing the election process for the executive branch effect the legislative branch, which is already majority ruled, in such a way that they would seek to radically alter the Constitution? No state has more than 2 senators and the House is already based on population of the state in question.

Looking back to Mill, his concern was social conformity. He foresaw that a popular government could not but enact public prejudice into law; further, employees might find themselves sacked when employers who disliked their views (and noted that individuals had a difficult time in court when judges and juries discounted evidence not given under an oath sworn on the Bible and discriminated against by legislation prohibiting the public expression of anti-religious views, for example, in his Victorian England). You could substitute sexual, racial or ethnic prejudice for more contemporary examples, too.

Like other tyrannies, the tyranny of the majority was at first, and is still vulgarly, held in dread, chiefly as operating through the acts of the public authorities. But reflective persons perceived that when society itself is the tyrant

[Calax]

Since when is Tyrrany of the Majority a factor in determining who's president? Last I heard the majority had little or no power over said person until next election year so he can do what he wills within the confines of the law.

[Walsingham]

What was the question, again?

[Sand]

The question is here, why should the majority cater to the needs of the minority when the minority wants to put lives in jeopardy for no good reason than to achieve a nonsensical goal that has no real merit?

[Walsingham]

The question is here, why should the majority cater to the needs of the minority when the minority wants to put lives in jeopardy for no good reason than to achieve a nonsensical goal that has no real merit?

 

Leadership is about precisely the process of getting the apathetic majority to do make sacrifices for a goal they don't yet understand or care about. Your question revolves solely around the issue of whether the objective is worthwhile.

 

However, I seem to recall this being about a man who volunteered to be a soldier then defied the very processes of discipline he must have known were there.

[metadigital]

The question is here, why should the majority cater to the needs of the minority when the minority wants to put lives in jeopardy for no good reason than to achieve a nonsensical goal that has no real merit?

I am less and less amazed at your single-minded determination to turn EVERY topic into a diatribe about the same subject.

 

I sometimes pause to consider whether it is even worth the effort to write a response (that can take tens of minutes and requires a lot of research) when you just reply with such insipid, trite and empty filibustering.

 

We get it. EVERYONE GETS IT. You don't like the war in Iraq. Talking about it endlessly, like some demented child reading the same Grimm fairytale OVER AND OVER AGAIN, doesn't make for a discussion.

[Sand]

Since this thread was originally about a man refusing to go to Iraq because he believes that the invasion was based off on false data, thusly illegal, I thought to steer it back to it, Meta. Sorry for being on topic. Next time I will do my best to derail every thread I participate in about subjects that pertain nothing to the topic of the thread.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Sand

[metadigital]

If you are suggesting that the discussion has no more to be said, without going off-topic, then I will be pleased to close it. (I see you didn't add anything to the original discussion, either.)

 

The person enlisted as a soldier AFTER the war had been declared. He then decided that he would NOT follow orders.

 

When one enlists in the armed forces, certain civilian "rights" are suspended. It's in the contract that everyone signs when they enlist. The armed forces have their own rules and ways of keeping discipline. (Also in the contract.) For example, the British had thousands of soldiers attempting to desert in WW1,and chose to execute hundreds of them (mainly those who had deserted multiple times, up to about ten).

 

So this person wasn't within any "right" to desert his tour of duty. He is merely trying to make a political statement, and using an inappropriate mechanism to do it. Soldiers don't have the same rights as citizens. He would be better picketing Capitol Hill.

[Sand]

Should soliders be accountable for the orders they follow, meta? Yes or no.

 

Yes, he joined the Army after Iraq, but at the time the truth about the falsified intelligence reports were not known. If he knew the reports were false do you think he would have still joined? I don't think so. He joined on false pretenses set by the Bush administration.

Edited February 17, 2007 by Sand