NationStates Jolt Archive

1. Democracy is government by the people. And by the people, we mean a numerically superior number of people. And these numerically superior people get to decide what is right and wrong, since the dumbass minority doesn’t know what's good for themselves and are just high on certain controlled substances.

2. Democracy protects the rights of minorities. This is done through officials. These officials are chosen by the majority. So in actual fact, the minority is just at the mercy of the majority. But the minority is, again, high on certain controlled substances, so they don’t know what’s good for themselves anyway. (Nazz inspired addendum for future democracy glorification: Or, if you have a direct democracy, you don't need to bother with officials because the majority protects the minority! Brilliant!)

3. Democracy encourages citizen participation in politics. I can be sure that my one lonely but informed vote will make all the difference against the sea of millions of other uninformed votes who vote for a candidate “because our last names start with the same letter.” And it doesn’t matter if my candidate or position loses, because I only voted that way because I’m high on certain controlled substances.

4. Democracy allows for alternative methods of political participation. Instead of casting one vote in a sea of millions, I can pay the political parties to push my agenda. Since these officials were chosen by the majority, it must mean that the majority really wants that 100,000 foot tall radio station in Nowhere, WY that my construction company has lobbied for. This way, people* can have a real influence on politics!

5. In democracy, every person’s opinion is valid. If the creationists are the majority, that means that creationism must be true and all those evolutionists, being a minority in this case, are just smack-addled nimrods. Every dumbass deserves to have his moronic opinion heard!**

6. Democracy is actually far-sighted. See, critics may think that because a politician is always going to be focused on getting elected next cycle, thiss makes the long-run of the country irrelevant to their actions. They deduce that this must mean that democratic government will inherently be myopic. But in actuality the politicians are looking out for their personal long term good by whoring themselves out to various interests in the short term. So democratic politicians are actually future-oriented… as long as it's concerning their own personal future.

7. Democracy makes sure that the people’s tax money is spent for the benefit of the people. Before democracy, tax money would be spent by some king (and kings, being one single individual, are almost always a minority and thus high on controlled substances and unaware of what’s good for themselves). If the king would spend said money on improving his country he would make sure that it would enhance the country’s capital value for his own benefit. But now that the people have the money, we can spend it on important things like fruit museums, Viagra for sex offenders, and sundry public works projects that serve no purpose whatsoever but to line lobbyists’ pockets. That’s progress!

8. Democracies have separations of power. Within the same government. That means that people’s rights are subject not to one master who is using the government’s monopoly of force for his own self-interest, but three or more masters who are using the government’s monopoly of force for their own self-interest! (Trust me, it works out in the end.)

9. Democracies are better than dictatorships. After all, dictatorships depend on a fictitious “will of the people” rather than patrimony as their claim to power, use sham elections that only strengthen the entrenchment of the existing power structure, and spend like a drunken sailor, while democracies… oh. Shit.

10. Winston Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” But I guess you could disagree. If you like Hitler, or something. Nazi.


*As long as they have money.
**Double points if they’re a dumbass with a moronic opinion and money.

'Democracy is the road to socialism' - Karl Marx.

Number 2 is incorrect. Democracies actually shit on the rights of minorities unless they're precluded from doing so by some sort of constitutional authority. The more direct the democracy, the more likely the minority will be shat on.

Democracies actually shit on the rights of minorities unless they're precluded from doing so by some sort of constitutional authority.

Since when?

The more direct the democracy, the more likely the minority will be shat on.

Maybe when combined with a centralized power structure, but decentralized direct democracy would most likely result in the minority controlling its own affairs.

Maybe when combined with a centralized power structure, but decentralized direct democracy would most likely result in the minority controlling its own affairs.

How would decentralised direct democracy work? How would abuse of power be controlled?

How would decentralised direct democracy work?

Um... how wouldn't it?

How would abuse of power be controlled?

The same way it is today, only better, with free association and direct public power.

Your ability to freely post this thread for millions to see immediately destroys much of your rhetoric...

All governments are democratic if you count a lack of resistance as a vote.

1. Democracy is government by the people. And by the people, we mean a numerically superior number of people. And these numerically superior people get to decide what is right and wrong, since the dumbass minority doesn’t know what's good for themselves and are just high on certain controlled substances.
Ummm.... both are dangerous dumbasses. I cannot trust the minority nor can I trust the majority, at least with the latter I know where their loyalties lay though.
2. Democracy protects the rights of minorities. This is done through officials. These officials are chosen by the majority. So in actual fact, the minority is just at the mercy of the majority. But the minority is, again, high on certain controlled substances, so they don’t know what’s good for themselves anyway.
Constitutions can protect this. Besides, given the horrible things done by all governments to minorities really I would not argue that democracy is necessarily worse, just that democracies at least will protect the majority.
3. Democracy encourages citizen participation in politics. I can be sure that my one lonely but informed vote will make all the difference against the sea of millions of other uninformed votes who vote for a candidate “because our last names start with the same letter.” And it doesn’t matter if my candidate or position loses, because I only voted that way because I’m high on certain controlled substances.
Not really. Lots and lots of people don't vote. Thankfully the less educated are more likely to not vote. If we look at election statistics from the last election in the US we can see that 42% of all voters had at least a basic college education and 32% more had just had a level of education going somewhat beyond high school and only 4% of voters not being educated at all. Although this is not ideal the fact that a majority of voters have some college background seems to shed some doubt on the idea of the completely stupid voter.
5. In democracy, every person’s opinion is valid. If the creationists are the majority, that means that creationism must be true and all those evolutionists, being a minority in this case, are just smack-addled nimrods. Every dumbass deserves to have his moronic opinion heard!
All governments derive their power from the masses, for a governing agency to defy the people it serves would be wrong. In the market if the majority of people believe that deathy mcdeathburgers are health food then their opinions will be found to be valid. In this there is no difference between the democracy of the dollar and the democracy of the voter, it can be mentioned that governments do a comparatively bad job of dealing with information however, given the absence of objective governing truth and the need to organize people it is therefore necessary to set up a method of dealing with their interests and ideologies to see which ones become favored.

6. Democracy is actually far-sighted. See, critics may think that because a politician is always going to be focused on getting elected next cycle, thiss makes the long-run of the country irrelevant to their actions. They deduce that this must mean that democratic government will inherently be myopic. But in actuality the politicians are looking out for their personal long term good by whoring themselves out to various interests in the short term. So democratic politicians are actually future-oriented… as long as it's concerning their own personal future.

Governments are not far-sighted. There is always some uncertainty with control, power, longevity, and dangers of ideology either in the bureaucracy used by governments or in the rulers used. The ideal self-interested dictator is as much of a falsehood as homo economicus given the fact that such strips away all reality for the sake of belief. The dictator of our state can be just as totalitarian as any other unless you think that religion and ideology are simply forgotten matters in these instances or that deciding processes of this person will necessarily be ideal. The fact that voters have some interest in their future though means that measures to promote the long run good will be attempted more by governments than your models would indicate and the fact that rulers are not perfectly rational means that they can fail more than your models would necessarily indicate.

7. Democracy makes sure that the people’s tax money is spent for the benefit of the people. Before democracy, tax money would be spent by some king (and kings, being one single individual, are almost always a minority and thus high on controlled substances and unaware of what’s good for themselves). If the king would spend said money on improving his country he would make sure that it would enhance the country’s capital value for his own benefit. But now that the people have the money, we can spend it on important things like fruit museums, Viagra for sex offenders, and sundry public works projects that serve no purpose whatsoever but to line lobbyists’ pockets. That’s progress!

Kings like the absolute monarchs in Europe who spent much of their wealth on luxuries, wars, parties and all that in order to promote their own ego and create an image of lasting greatness? Kings fail to use tax dollars well and democracies do as well. Democracies at the very least are forced to attempt to justify efforts in most cases by looking at more utilitarian measures rather than being able to spend large amounts on short-sighted hedonism. You assume that kings and other rulers always have a time value favorable to that of those they rule over.

8. Democracies have separations of power. Within the same government. That means that people’s rights are subject not to one master who is using the government’s monopoly of force for his own self-interest, but three or more masters who are using the government’s monopoly of force for their own self-interest!
And that is a virtue. Milton Friedman even mentioned that in his Free to Choose series. The different masters have different objectives which lead to conflicts in some cases thus weakening the stranglehold.

9. Democracies are better than dictatorships. After all, dictatorships depend on a fictitious “will of the people” rather than patrimony as their claim to power, use sham elections that only strengthen the entrenchment of the existing power structure, and spend like a drunken sailor, while democracies… oh. Shit. Considering that we see less maddened killers under democracies than under dictatorships the problems are less. In absolute terms one can argue that both suck, but for your claims you do not look at modern dictatorships which are worse than any democracy. I know that you may not view these as true dictatorships for whatever reason, however, that is pure sophistry, your views on dictatorship have been tested as have the views of the communists in your opinion. Dictatorships do not work, communism doesn't work. You can stutter along with buts until the earth crumbles to dust, but the 20th century tested these ideologies and has found that the ideal self-interested dictator is not a reality.

10. Winston Churchill once said “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” But I guess you could disagree. If you like Hitler, or something. Nazi. Few sane people could endorse democracy on all issues, as democracies do clash with rights, they clash with the perfect path and all of that stuff. However, most democracies seem to work better than non-democratic systems. Everything fails to act perfectly, even markets and I think that you should know that, the real question is whether or not these things do better than their competitors.

I really do not want to debate this though. Just voicing my opinion.

Since when?



Maybe when combined with a centralized power structure, but decentralized direct democracy would most likely result in the minority controlling its own affairs.

Since democracies originated in Greece. Plato was highly critical of the lunacy of the mob mentality of direct democracy; after all, his mentor Socrates was condemned by it. Direct democracy didn't stop slavery, or mistreatment of foreigners either.

Since when?It's inevitable. In a direct democracy where the majority can strip rights from the minority, the majority will not hesitate to do so. There's no reason they shouldn't, other than altruism, and altruism is not nearly as powerful a motivator as greed is. Look at some of the utterly stupid shit that California has passed via referendum in the past for examples.

People are retards that should not be catered to. They are self destructive and should be wiped off the planet. *nods*

People are retards that should not be catered to. They are self destructive and should be wiped off the planet. *nods*

Well, if they're self-destructive, then you shouldn't need to wipe them off the planet, they'll do it themselves.

Well, if they're self-destructive, then you shouldn't need to wipe them off the planet, they'll do it themselves.
I suspect it will be Ruffi's doing.

Direct democracy didn't stop slavery, or mistreatment of foreigners either.

Neither of which could vote, thus being more an indictment of incomplete democracy than direct democracy.

It's inevitable. In a direct democracy where the majority can strip rights from the minority, the majority will not hesitate to do so.

"The majority" is not a monolithic entity.

There's no reason they shouldn't,

Yes, there is. It needlessly alienates people who may be crucial to supporting the policies you want next time around, and sets a precedent for your rights to be possibly taken away later.

Because there is no constant majority and minority, political equality is very effective at preventing tyranny.

other than altruism, and altruism is not nearly as powerful a motivator as greed is.

In politics, it often is substantially more significant. People vote on principle all the time.

Look at some of the utterly stupid shit that California has passed via referendum in the past for examples.

Considering that representative democracies (not to mention non-democracies) have passed tons of "utterly stupid shit" too, I'm quite unconvinced.

I suspect it will be Ruffi's doing.

Or his many followers. *nods*

I can give you ten reasons why it is bad.

1. Tony Blair

2. G.W. Bush

3. Harold Wilson

4. Bill Clinton.

5. Ronald Reagan

6. Woodrow Wilson

7. James Callaghan

8. Anthony Eden

9. Margaret Thatcher

10. Herbert Asquith.

It's in no particular order, and is not all inclusive. Also, it is extremely anglocentric.

I can give you ten reasons why it is bad.

1. Tony Blair

2. G.W. Bush

3. Harold Wilson

4. Bill Clinton.

5. Ronald Reagan

6. Woodrow Wilson

7. James Callaghan

8. Anthony Eden

9. Margaret Thatcher

10. Herbert Asquith.

It's in no particular order, and is not all inclusive. Also, it is extremely anglocentric.Clinton was awesome. He banged his secretary. Best. President. Ever.

"The majority" is not a monolithic entity.
It doesn't have to be--it only has to be a majority the first time, when it disenfranchises those who disagree, or who are in the wrong ethnic group or wrong religious group. The latter two are the most likely, by the way. Then they don't have to worry about the disenfranchised, other than to abuse them and keep them from rebelling. Then they turn on each other over matters of ideological purity, until they get so small and isolated that they're overthrown by the people who disenfranchised. Maybe.

Yes, there is. It needlessly alienates people who may be crucial to supporting the policies you want next time around, and sets a precedent for your rights to be possibly taken away later. Because there is no constant majority and minority, political equality is very effective at preventing tyranny.

In politics, it often is substantially more significant. People vote on principle all the time.

Considering that representative democracies (not to mention non-democracies) have passed tons of "utterly stupid shit" too, I'm quite unconvinced.
See above. If you've disenfranchised the minority, they don't have a say in what happens to them. Your mistake in this discussion is that you're assuming everyone will retain the right to vote. That'll be the first thing to go in a direct democracy where the rights of the minority are not respected.

Edit: By the way, I didn't say altruism wasn't a motivator--I just said it wasn't as great a motivator as greed is. You can add power to that as well.

Clinton was awesome. He banged his secretary. Best. President. Ever.

No he was crap. Why do you think I didn't put JFK on the list.

Clinton was awesome. He banged his secretary. Best. President. Ever.

QFT.
Only reason he ended up going was because the neocons thought he was the embodiment of 'liberal decadence' and ran a spin campaign against him, making up such lies as 'Whitewater'.

Your mistake in this discussion is that you're assuming everyone will retain the right to vote.

That is the implicit assumption of calling the system "direct democracy." A society in which a substantial portion of adults are disenfranchised is not democratic. A society in which the right to political participation is up to majority vote is not democratic, either.

I also fail to see how direct democracy is any more prone to these problems than representative democracy.

That is the implicit assumption of calling the system "direct democracy." A society in which a substantial portion of adults are disenfranchised is not democratic. A society in which the right to political participation is up to majority vote is not democratic, either.

I also fail to see how direct democracy is any more prone to these problems than representative democracy.

Societies with a substatial portion of disenfranchised adults have always been considered democracies. Athens, the prime example of direct democracy, was rife disenfrachised adults. Are you saying Athens was never a democracy?

Number 2 is incorrect. Democracies actually shit on the rights of minorities unless they're precluded from doing so by some sort of constitutional authority. The more direct the democracy, the more likely the minority will be shat on.

Why do you say I'm incorrect, then repeat what it's (sarcastically) saying? You're agreeing with it in actuality.

How is it that you forgot the most brilliant of them all? Hitler. :) Of course, it didn't stay a democracy much longer after he took power, but he was still elected fair and square. Well, sort of...

Neither fair nor square if you ask me.

That is the implicit assumption of calling the system "direct democracy." A society in which a substantial portion of adults are disenfranchised is not democratic. A society in which the right to political participation is up to majority vote is not democratic, either.

I also fail to see how direct democracy is any more prone to these problems than representative democracy.

Go back to my original post and look at the qualifier I put in there--I said, from the very beginning, that democracy will shit on the rights of minorities unless those rights are protected by some sort of constitutional authority. That's a huge qualifier, because without that protection in place, you're right, it doesn't matter if you're talking about direct or representative democracy, because both will degenerate into what I've described here.

And democracies disenfranchise people all the time and still call themselves democracies. The US, until relatively recently, disenfranchised more than half its citizens based on nothing more than race and/or gender, but was still considered a representative democracy. We still disenfranchise a significant number of citizens--they're called felons, and in some states, they never get those rights back. I mean, the way you're talking about it, there's never been a democracy in the world, so far as I can tell.

*snip*
How is it that you forgot the most brilliant of them all? Hitler. :) Of course, it didn't stay a democracy much longer after he took power, but he was still elected fair and square. Well, sort of...

Societies with a substatial portion of disenfranchised adults have always been considered democracies.

Perhaps, but then, to keep the example relevant, you would have to argue that the oppressed minority was not disenfranchised - because universal suffrage is a hallmark of democracy today.

Are you saying Athens was never a democracy?

The case could be made, yes.

If "democracy" refers to "rule by the people", it follows that disenfranchising some of "the people" is on its face undemocratic.

I can give you ten reasons why it is bad.

1. Tony Blair

2. G.W. Bush

3. Harold Wilson

4. Bill Clinton.

5. Ronald Reagan

6. Woodrow Wilson

7. James Callaghan

8. Anthony Eden

9. Margaret Thatcher

10. Herbert Asquith.

It's in no particular order, and is not all inclusive. Also, it is extremely anglocentric.
Hamas? :D

How is it that you forgot the most brilliant of them all? Hitler. :) Of course, it didn't stay a democracy much longer after he took power, but he was still elected fair and square. Well, sort of...

He was brilliant at democracy, that's true.

But I did point out that it was an anglo list.

Hamas? :D

Cookie for you. I'd include the idiots who put shari'a law in the Iraqi constitution too. And Hizbollah in Lebanon. And...

How is it that you forgot the most brilliant of them all? Hitler. :) Of course, it didn't stay a democracy much longer after he took power, but he was still elected fair and square. Well, sort of...
Fooling the people and playing them with fear by burning the reichstag was a legitimate tactic. Just ask Bush.

Cookie for you. I'd include the idiots who put shari'a law in the Iraqi constitution too. And Hizbollah in Lebanon. And...
Eats cookie. How have you been handling the people who have been 'refuting' your OP?

He was brilliant at democracy, that's true.

But I did point out that it was an anglo list.
Fair enough. :)

Eats cookie. How have you been handling the people who have been 'refuting' your OP?

With a happy grin on my face. ;)

Perhaps, but then, to keep the example relevant, you would have to argue that the oppressed minority was not disenfranchised - because universal suffrage is a hallmark of democracy today.

A minority need not be our modern definition of it, i.e. someone of a different race or ethnic group. It need only be a group of people in the minority of dissenting view. There were plenty of examples, particularly during the Peloponesian War, where the electorate performed great acts of cruelty without proper evidence or redress, simply by having a majority. Citizens could find themselves executed based on majority vote. The Constitutions of modern statehood are paramount in helping to address these sorts of issues.


The case could be made, yes.

If "democracy" refers to "rule by the people", it follows that disenfranchising some of "the people" is on its face undemocratic.

You could argue that there has never been a philosophically pure understanding of direct democracy... if you're thinking of everyone in the 'state' or community as being a possible elector. But in the sense that citizens directly voted on all possible legislation without electing representatives, Athens was most definitely a direct democracy, and the model for all future democratic endeavours.

With a happy grin on my face. ;)
Quite a clever trick actually. I'll take note for future threads. :p

Go back to my original post and look at the qualifier I put in there--I said, from the very beginning, that democracy will shit on the rights of minorities unless those rights are protected by some sort of constitutional authority. That's a huge qualifier, because without that protection in place, you're right, it doesn't matter if you're talking about direct or representative democracy, because both will degenerate into what I've described here.

The more direct the democracy, the more likely the minority will be shat on.

:confused:

And democracies disenfranchise people all the time and still call themselves democracies.

So? The The Democratic People's Republic of Korea calls itself a democracy, too.

The US, until relatively recently, disenfranchised more than half its citizens based on nothing more than race and/or gender, but was still considered a representative democracy.

And relative to most of the rest of the world, it was. It still fell short of genuine democracy, however - and certainly those measures would rightly be called undemocratic.

It is hardly an argument against democracy, even democracy that doesn't protect the rights of minorities, that most democracies, due to the fact that they fell short of complete democracy, oppressed disenfranchised minorities.

We still disenfranchise a significant number of citizens--they're called felons

The fact that we deny prisoners full rights of assembly does not mean that our society doesn't respect the right of assembly. Punishment dealt to criminals is in a seperate category entirely (even if unjustified, as it is in this case.)

I mean, the way you're talking about it, there's never been a democracy in the world, so far as I can tell.

There has never been a full democracy on the nation-state level, no.

Regardless of all of this, the point is simple - insofar as an argument is being advanced against democracy (or even democracy without protections for minorities), it makes little sense to cite undemocratic actions by partial democracies as evidence against it.

A minority need not be our modern definition of it, i.e. someone of a different race or ethnic group. It need only be a group of people in the minority of dissenting view.

Of course.

There were plenty of examples, particularly during the Peloponesian War, where the electorate performed great acts of cruelty without proper evidence or redress, simply by having a majority. Citizens could find themselves executed based on majority vote.

Wartime generally weakens the justness of any system.

The Constitutions of modern statehood are paramount in helping to address these sorts of issues.

Actually, I agree - I just think that the case for democracy leading to "tyranny of the majority" is very much overstated.

After all, constitutions tend to be a pretty flimsy protection when push comes to shove, and certainly incomplete when it comes to protecting minority rights - yet we don't see grievous oppression nevertheless.

But in the sense that citizens directly voted on all possible legislation without electing representatives, Athens was most definitely a direct democracy, and the model for all future democratic endeavours.

But then we could extend this logic, and come to the conclusion that an absolute dictatorship is a "direct democracy", too - as long as the dictator is the only citizen.

:confused:

Democracies actually shit on the rights of minorities unless they're precluded from doing so by some sort of constitutional authority.
Good grief, man--you quoted it yourself. What are you confused about? Minority rights are protected by constitution and respect for said constitution--democracy doesn't have anything to do with it. You can have respected minority rights under a monarchy if the monarch is limited by a constitution.

What are you confused about?

In your original post, you clearly stated that direct democracies were more prone to oppression of minorities than representative democracies. I just quoted that.

When I said:

I also fail to see how direct democracy is any more prone to these problems than representative democracy.

I was referring to that comment.

Yet in your reply to me you suggested that, in fact, there was no difference.

Good grief, man--you quoted it yourself. What are you confused about? Minority rights are protected by constitution and respect for said constitution--democracy doesn't have anything to do with it. You can have respected minority rights under a monarchy if the monarch is limited by a constitution.

Though there is the school of thought that indicates that any democracy which requires these arbitrary barriers to prevent human rights abuses is a failed state anyway.

Of course.



Wartime generally weakens the justness of any system.



Actually, I agree - I just think that the case for democracy leading to "tyranny of the majority" is very much overstated.



But then we could extend this logic, and come to the conclusion that an absolute dictatorship is a "direct democracy", too - as long as the dictator is the only citizen.

Well, I don't think you and I are going to disagree on much, except perhaps the utility of genuine direct democracy. I happen to think the Swiss version of it is brilliant.

That last comment is just plain silly though. That's quite the extension of logic... At any rate, the Athenian system evolved as an egalitarian ideal, and was stuctured around the idea of polis, where pride in the city and the extended community was paramount. That all the citizens were males qualified for the draft was a sign of the culture, rather than a problem with the ideal. The problem with the ideal was, that this lent itself to xenophobia and the acquisition of empire. No longer did only the aristocratic serve to benefit through the conquest of their neigbhours. Now the common man could take his pound of flesh too.

Athens, with the highest degree of democracy in Greece, was also the most imperialistic, and had the highest concentration of slave ownership. Some argue that slave ownership was essential to their democratic system; slaves left more time for one to pursue civic duty. How could you possibly have the time to vote on every bill, if you're too busy farming?

'Democracy is the road to socialism' - Karl Marx.

Eww. Back to the fascist board, boys!

In your original post, you clearly stated that direct democracies were more prone to oppression of minorities than representative democracies. I just quoted that.

When I said:



I was referring to that comment.

Yet in your reply to me you suggested that, in fact, there was no difference.
Ah, I see what I did. Here's what I meant and sorry for the confusion. I was saying that the closer you get to direct democracy, the closer you get to the potential for mob rule. That's less of a threat--though it certainly still exists--with representative democracy, but neither is inherently safe from abusing minorities without some other protections in place.

Good grief, man--you quoted it yourself. What are you confused about? Minority rights are protected by constitution and respect for said constitution--democracy doesn't have anything to do with it. You can have respected minority rights under a monarchy if the monarch is limited by a constitution.
And as a reminder, even constitutions are by no means perfect - they depend on being interpreted properly and, of course, the will to adhere to them. In some cases it might be very difficult to alter a Constitution, as it usually is, but it is hardly some form of immutable, divine law.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

Henry Thoreau
"Civil Disobedience"/"Resistence to Civil Government"

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.

This is absolutely true.

However, it would be absurd to extend this doctrine to, say, allow Christian fundamentalists to stone gays and atheists, so at some level there must be some enforced community standards of right and wrong.

And as a reminder, even constitutions are by no means perfect - they depend on being interpreted properly and, of course, the will to adhere to them. In some cases it might be very difficult to alter a Constitution, as it usually is, but it is hardly some form of immutable, divine law.

And if you can convince the people that some part of the constitution is not a protective measure but actually some kind of inhibitor, then the constitution becomes nothing more than a rolling paper waiting to be smoked by the political class.

After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.

Henry Thoreau
"Civil Disobedience"/"Resistence to Civil Government"

Ah, I love Thoreau... :)

This is absolutely true.

However, it would be absurd to extend this doctrine to, say, allow Christian fundamentalists to stone gays and atheists, so at some level there must be some enforced community standards of right and wrong.

The point is that it should not be that Christians do not stone sinners because the law says not to, it is that Christians should not stone sinners because they recognize the rights in people.

While Thoreau was an anarchist at heart he also stated: "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government."

So I would say that laws in the situation you speak of would truly be an example of two wrongs making a right, or at least a better.

The point is that it should not be that Christians do not stone sinners because the law says not to, it is that Christians should not stone sinners because they recognize the rights in people.

But at the same time the guidance of conscience cannot be held to be inviolable - especially when it is twisted by religion.

And what, if not majority rule, is to determine what should be prohibited and what not?

But at the same time the guidance of conscience cannot be held to be inviolable - especially when it is twisted by religion.

And what, if not majority rule, is to determine what should be prohibited and what not?Thus the need for a secular government, where the rights of all are respected and protected, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof. But also, the need for codified protections that extend beyond that to protect the rights of the minority, and checks and balances to ensure that no branch of government gains too much control. The Founding Fathers were looking to strike a balance--they knew from the Articles of Confederacy that there had to be a stronger central government, but they also wanted to make sure that individuals didn't get trampled by a strong executive. So they came up with a system that didn't work particularly efficiently, but was efficient enough to keep everything from dissolving into chaos.

I think people are screwed with any type of government or lack there of. However we're screwed over more in some than others. I think democracy is relatively good because democracies are more likely than other forms of government to have a peaceful and somewhat equitable distribution of goods, power and rights. Its doesn't mean its good, but it tends to be better than others, in my opinion. Democracy is just a means to various ends.

I think people are screwed with any type of government or lack there of.
Feeling a tad nihilistic? :)

Feeling a tad nihilistic? :)

That or just realistic. ;)

That or just realistic. ;)

The latter.