Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Calax Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. not really, Democracy will always be hampered by the fact that you can either cater to the majority or minority, hardly ever to both. I mean look at the current presidential campaign. Everything is segmented and targeted, nobody runs on the ideal of "well this'll be good for the nation, but unpopular until later" they all run on the idea that "they'll like me even if this will cripple us in the future". sorry didn't mean to rant on that. Tyrrany of the majority means that the majority can EASILY overwrite the minorities ability to protect itself. And while there are blocks on the federal level from this happening, California currently is the easiest state to cause a majority to just utterly decapitate the minorities ability to have a say, with how they amend their constitution. A perfect democracy works only if everyone is totally selfless and pays attention to the whole. If even ONE person becomes selfish about this they can easily manipulate everyone in the system to giving them power. *pulls out popcorn* Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Deadly_Nightshade Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 ...lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. If the will of the people is going to oppress the rights of others, yes, their will should be overruled. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Except that you're always going to have to give up some amount of rights to live in a society. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Deadly_Nightshade Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Except that you're always going to have to give up some amount of rights to live in a society. Except that we are talking about a right that is already being given to some but deigned to others - or are you saying that people should be discriminated against? If so, what about slavery? I am sure your logic would also allow that without any problems. "Geez. It's like we lost some sort of bet and ended up saddled with a bunch of terrible new posters on this forum." -Hurlshot
Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I was talking about referendums in general. Fundamental rights are protected by the Bill of Rights, which can not be changed easily, as I already said. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Aristes Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 The thing is, the people are free and do control the government. We don't disagree with democracy. We disagree that ballot initiatives are necessary to complete a democratic government. I contend that the people may easily assert control. The only difference is that it takes a cycle for changes to take effect. That's how the republic has run as a whole since the ratification of the Constitution. In fact, California has not had Referendums, Ballot Propositions, and Recalls until... ealy 20th century? These measures were introduced to usher progressive principles into the Californian political climate. Great idea, huh? Some folks probably think I'm a bastard because of my seeming lack of care about the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry. It's not that I don't care at all. It's that I care far more about the process. ...And I do agree that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds. We don't disagree on that issue, Wrath. Where we fail to agree is the idea that the way to deal with the problem is to have a constitution that is susceptible to change by a simple majority vote. Balance of power has been the hallmark and savior of American politics from the very beginning. When we have strayed from it, and we have strayed from time to time from the start, we have almost always suffered for it.
Killian Kalthorne Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Except that you're always going to have to give up some amount of rights to live in a society. So, you are saying that the majority has the right to treat a minority like a bunch of second class citizens and deny them equality. Gee, Dagon, you must enjoy wearing white sheets with a pointy white hat. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
Arkan Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Except that you're always going to have to give up some amount of rights to live in a society. So, you are saying that the majority has the right to treat a minority like a bunch of second class citizens and deny them equality. Gee, Dagon, you must enjoy wearing white sheets with a pointy white hat. I'm not sure what rights I'm giving up "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
alanschu Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. Because people aren't corrupt? Politicians and law-giving judges are people to you know. But hey, if 50%+1 people like something that disadvantages the other 50%-1, then that's cool right?
Killian Kalthorne Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I guess its alright for Dagon. Personally, I rather have everyone be treated equally and have the same rights and liberties. Maybe that's just me. "Your Job is not to die for your country, but set a man on fire, and take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe."
taks Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. do you even understand why the US is a republic with democratically elected leaders, not a democracy? this statement is an absolute crock. i honestly thought you were smarter than this. ^alanschu: it doesn't even take that many, just a majority of those that actually turn out to vote. taks Edited April 9, 2009 by taks comrade taks... just because.
alanschu Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. do you even understand why the US is a republic with democratically elected leaders, not a democracy? this statement is an absolute crock. i honestly thought you were smarter than this. ^alanschu: it doesn't even take that many, just a majority of those that actually turn out to vote. taks Touche.
taks Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 sad victory, i think. wouldn't you say? i tend to vote no on just about everything, btw. fortunately, in CO, there are no either/or propositions allowed. if an amendment is proposed, it either passes and gets implemented, or nothing changes. it's never "do you want us to buy the green car, or the red car." i don't know, however, how many people need to turn out for a measure to pass. i would have thought in CA enough people would have turned out to vote something down, but i guess even progressives are lazy voters sometimes. taks comrade taks... just because.
Cycloneman Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 krezack is a troll Look, I know we all like to call eachother trolls here on the internet, but Krezack is not a troll. I have trolled this fine internet many a time, and while it can be hard to determine the difference, Krezack is not a troll. In fact... many trolls attempt to deflect suspicion by calling others trolls. Hmmmm.... I don't post if I don't have anything to say, which I guess makes me better than the rest of your so-called "community."
Pop Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) Story: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/03...constitutional/ The law banning same sex marriage in Iowa was passed by the legislature in 2005 as I understand it. Today the Iowa SC struck it down. The vote was unanimous so that is a pretty clear message. You all know ny opinion on this, any law that limits personal liberty is a bad thing. I find it ironic that same sex marriage is legal in Iowa but illegal in California. The battle does not end here in all probability however. Ususally after a juducial defeat a movement gets going for a constitutional amendment. But maybe not. The Iowa state constitution is relatively difficult to change, as I understand it. There has to be a majority vote in the state congress for two consecutive terms, which seems unlikely at this point. Even if the court's decision gets circumnavigated at the first available opportunity, that's a few years off. A few years is enough time for people on the fence to get used to gay marriage and realize that it's not a big deal. that sort of model feels a lot more solid than the quicksilver model of California. By definition I think constitutions ought to be at least a little bit more immutable than other sorts of legal codes. The LDS shouldn't be able to blitz in a gay panic, and a terrorist attack shouldn't open the possibility of curtailing basic rights (but then, as the entirety of the Bush Administration showed, you don't have to strike down the bill of rights to get around it). Gay marriage and gay rights in general are and continue to be an ethical non-issue. Conflicts regarding them tend to be beyond the scope of reason. Edited April 9, 2009 by Pop Join me, and we shall make Production Beards a reality!
Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) Some folks probably think I'm a bastard because of my seeming lack of care about the rights of Gays and Lesbians to marry. It's not that I don't care at all. It's that I care far more about the process. ...And I do agree that the judiciary has overstepped its bounds. We don't disagree on that issue, Wrath. Where we fail to agree is the idea that the way to deal with the problem is to have a constitution that is susceptible to change by a simple majority vote. Balance of power has been the hallmark and savior of American politics from the very beginning. When we have strayed from it, and we have strayed from time to time from the start, we have almost always suffered for it. As I said several times now, we already have a constitution that's very difficult to change, thus most states don't consider it necessary to treat the state constitution the same way. I'm not sure what rights I'm giving up You have to pay taxes for one. Don't you normally have the right to keep the money you earn? Lots of undemocratic sympathies in this thread, lets put the will of corrupt politicians and law-giving judges above the will of the people. do you even understand why the US is a republic with democratically elected leaders, not a democracy? this statement is an absolute crock. i honestly thought you were smarter than this. taks A republic is still a democracy, just not a direct democracy. And the republican government is only prescribed at the federal level, states and local can have whatever form of government they want so long as it's compatible with the US constitution. Edited April 9, 2009 by Wrath of Dagon "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Pidesco Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 A republic is still a democracy. "My hovercraft is full of eels!" - Hungarian touristI am Dan Quayle of the Romans.I want to tattoo a map of the Netherlands on my nether lands.Heja Sverige!!Everyone should cuffawkle more.The wrench is your friend.
taks Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 A republic is still a democracy, just not a direct democracy. no, it is a democratically elected leadership, not a democracy. And the republican government is only prescribed at the federal level, states and local can have whatever form of government they want so long as it's compatible with the US constitution. every state in the US has a republic leadership. some allow the tyranny of democratic decision making, however. none of this matters to the point: nothing any of us has said is "undemocratic." you simply don't understand what a tyranny is, and thus are incapable of offering an intelligent discourse on the whole complaint offered up by JE. taks comrade taks... just because.
Arkan Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 A republic is still a democracy, just not a direct democracy. no, it is a democratically elected leadership, not a democracy. Some would call it a "Representative Democracy," but is that even a democracy? "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta
Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 From dictionary.com democracy - "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Calax Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 From dictionary.com democracy - Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
alanschu Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 From thefreedictionary.com tyrannyNoun pl -nies 1. a. government by a tyrant b. oppressive and unjust government by more than one person 2. the condition or state of being dominated or controlled by something that makes unpleasant or harsh demands: the tyranny of fashion drives many women to diet although they are not overweight
Wrath of Dagon Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 uh... supreme power does not rest with the people. Supreme power rests with nobody in our government, if it rested solely with the people (or their elected representatives) then our judicial system would be SCREWED! Supreme power does rest with the people, since in theory they can change any law or constitutional provision. In practice to change a lot of things it would take more than 60 or 70 percent consensus, which almost never happens. "Moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the idiot with dignity." Marshall McLuhan
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now