|
 GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,773
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 months, 12 days
|
 Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy?  [Re: Evolving]
#1404668 - 03/24/03 12:19 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Correct me if im worng but werent the figures alot closer a few months back? The will of the people may be different if it wasnt moulded by the propaganda machine.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Evolving]
#1404681 - 03/24/03 12:39 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
9 vote to eat the 10th, and his children. what are ya gonna do?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1404816 - 03/24/03 03:05 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
alex, you totally missed the point.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: ]
#1404848 - 03/24/03 03:19 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
mushmaster writes:
alex, you totally missed the point.
The sad thing is, no he didn't. He got the point but has no effective counter, so he sidestepped into an irrelevancy in the belief we wouldn't notice. You've been here long enough now to recognize the pattern. When is the last time you ever saw him actually address the point in question?
pinky
--------------------
|
 Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Phred]
#1405098 - 03/24/03 05:42 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
LOL! 
I assume that means you have now learned that your idea about "the will of the majority" was for slavery is complete and utter shit.
Typical pink. When you can't win an argument move onto personal attacks, lay down a smokescreen and hope no-one notices. Twas ever thus 
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1405273 - 03/24/03 06:46 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
alex... chill out.
the argument here is that one of the flaws in pure democracy is that whatever the majority wants, it gets. not because it is right, but because it is strong. there have been times in the past (and there are situations now) that the will of the majority has been downright wrong on grounds of principle, yet its will has been made law under democracy.
slavery wouldn't have been legal if people hadn't elected officials who kept it legal. persecution of drug users exists because the majority supports it. in america, the majority supports the current war in iraq. in most states, the majority of the people do not wish to allow homosexuals to marry. in every state, the majority seems to support throwing marijuana users in jail.
in the south, in the 60's, people did not vote for integration. they did not vote for civil rights for black people. equality for blacks was established because it was right, not popular, and had to be enforced in many cases by the federal government.
the public may support laws against "obsenity", pornography, prostitution, drugs, and gambling. the public may support domineering zoning codes. the majority is in these cases doing nothing other than persecuting the minority. our government has been too lame to stand up for the principles which it was founded under and protect the right of peaceful citizens to live the lifestyle they choose, be it objectionable to the majority. the reason is because they have no choice. they are elected and must conform to the will of the majority.
in a democracy, the majority can do anything they want. like elect to burn jews.
i forget who it was that said, "democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner"...
we need a constitution that explicitly lays down what "liberty" really means and establishes a governmental system which will protect liberty, even when threatened by the majority. that's just what the founders of this nation were trying to build.
Edited by mushmaster (03/24/03 07:05 AM)
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 11 months
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: ]
#1405392 - 03/24/03 07:32 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
That was a great post mushmaster. I agree with every word of it. very well said!
--------------------
I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest
-----------
I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
pattern
multiplayer
Registered: 07/19/02
Posts: 2,185
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 4 years, 1 month
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Evolving]
#1405407 - 03/24/03 07:37 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
> Are you anti-war and pro-democracy?
Although this thread is aimed at Americans, I still answer yes. I live in a democracy that isn't at war: Canada.
Being pro-democracy doesn't mean one must believe what is being done in the name of democracy. As an analogy, it is consistent to be pro-law, pro-Constitution as well as anti-drug war, anti-Patriot Act.
> Do you know that over 70% of the American public supports George Bush's invasion of Iraq?
The majority of the world is anti-war. When it comes to world affairs, are you implying that only the opinions of Americans count? Obviously, the opinions of Iraqis were not a factor.
> What's wrong with letting democracy set the policy on this?
Some polls taken before the war, showed the majority of Americans wanted a UN-approved war or were antiwar. Polls don't run democracies, and this war was not put to a vote. It was the decision of President Bush.
--------------------
man = monkey + mushroom
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 34,247
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: pattern]
#1405652 - 03/24/03 09:05 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
As an analogy, it is consistent to be pro-law, pro-Constitution as well as anti-drug war, anti-Patriot Act.
Absolutely correct, and wise.
--------------------
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for that my dear friend is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. ~ Adrian Rogers
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: ]
#1405672 - 03/24/03 09:12 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
the argument here is that one of the flaws in pure democracy is that whatever the majority wants, it gets
Strange. The majority of the US didn't want a war without a second resolution. It got one. What went wrong?
slavery wouldn't have been legal if people hadn't elected officials who kept it legal
Unfortunately officials tend to listen to rich people. Otherwise they don't get very far up the power structure. Rich people were the ones who had slaves. See the problem?
persecution of drug users exists because the majority supports it.
100 years ago all drugs were legal. Do you really think the majority just woke up one morning and "changed"? Or do you think it took decades of scare stories and propaganda to influence them?
in a democracy, the majority can do anything they want. like elect to burn jews.
Hitler never held a vote on burning the jews. He did it in secret. After kristallnacht he realised the majority of the german population were against his jewish policy and he couldn't be as open about it. The will of the majority was sound.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Cracka_X
Spiritual Dirt Worshipper
Registered: 01/25/03
Posts: 8,808
Loc: Swamp
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Evolving]
#1405686 - 03/24/03 09:16 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Wasn't Hitler democratically elected?
Wait, I thought Hitler got in the same way Saddam got in.
By killing those against him.
--------------------
The best way to live
is to be like water
For water benefits all things
and goes against none of them
It provides for all people
and even cleanses those places
a man is loath to go
In this way it is just like Tao ~Daodejing
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1405813 - 03/24/03 10:06 AM (21 years, 29 days ago) |
|
|
as much as i detest entertaining your nitpicking:
Strange. The majority of the US didn't want a war without a second resolution. It got one. What went wrong?
we are not a pure democracy. we are a representative democracy. the majority elected bush to represent them, and he decided to go to war. currently, the majority of the population DOES support the war. and do you have a source for your "majority of the US didn't want a war without a second resolution." claim?
Unfortunately officials tend to listen to rich people. Otherwise they don't get very far up the power structure.
no, they listen to the majority. a rich man's vote is worth the same as a poor man's.
100 years ago all drugs were legal. Do you really think the majority just woke up one morning and "changed"? Or do you think it took decades of scare stories and propaganda to influence them?
the public was corrupted to the point that the majority voted into law a policy that persecuted a minority. an example of the problem of democracy.
Hitler never held a vote on burning the jews. He did it in secret. After kristallnacht he realised the majority of the german population were against his jewish policy and he couldn't be as open about it. The will of the majority was sound.
what makes you think i'm talking about hitler? in any democracy, if the majority supported burning jews, without a constitution protecting them, it would happen.
alex, if the members of this board were on a desert island and we set up a pure democracy, we'd probably vote to kill you, out of sheer annoyance. if we had a constitution though, that wouldn't happen. you'd be protected.
you can nitpick my examples all day al, but the argument still stands: the inherent flaw in democracy is that the will of the majority, whether just or injust, is law. and that the solution to the problem is an extensive constitution, guaranteeing liberty, and a mechanism for protecting and enforcing it.
instead of nitpicking my examples, perhaps you could make an arugment actually countering my beliefs about democracy.
hint: that would involve the argument, "the will of the majority IS just".
|
EchoVortex
(hard) member
Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 859
Last seen: 15 years, 6 months
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Phred]
#1406453 - 03/24/03 02:12 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
"Strictly speaking, Bush wasn't democratically elected.
Irrelevant to the concept being examined."
What Evolving brought up was not a concept so much as a specific case. And this fact is perfectly relevant to the case at hand because there is no evidence to show that the American people would have independently PROPOSED invading Iraq on their own if that particular idea hadn't been marketed, and marketed hard, by their own leadership. There is also no evidence that any of the other candidates would have proposed this course of action either. Hell, even Bush himself didn't make invading Iraq part of his platform at the time of the election, even though Saddam's UN compliance and weapons status were no different then than they were two years later. It's pretty clear to me that if he HAD made that a part of his platform at the time, he would have lost the election, and lost it badly.
"The populations of all of America's allies, with the possible exception of Israel, oppose this war by overwhelming margins.
Irrelevant. That is a reason for those allies to withdraw, it is not a reason for the US to withdraw. The most that can be said is that the leaders of those allies are defying the will of the majority in their respective countries. Clearly Bush is not."
Only irrelevant if you believe that the United States has no answerability whatsoever to the international community. If the United States has no answerability to the international community, then why should anybody else? And if nobody has any answerability to the international community, how can Bush argue that Saddam's flouting of UN resolutions is a legitimate casus belli? Try again, pinky.
"Approval ratings for presidents always go up during times of crisis. It's just a psychological/patriotic kind of thing.
Irrelevant. The poll was not about Bush, it was about Bush's action -- a "single issue" poll. In every poll I have seen, the percentage of those in favor of military action against Iraq has been higher than the percentage of those who approved of Bush."
The approval ratings go up not only for presidents but also for their actions and policies. The psychologal principle goes something like "in a time of crisis we need to work together; therefore, whatever we're doing, I support it." Does this logically make sense? No. Neither does much else of human psychology, but that's just the way it is.
"The success or failure of democracies is directly proportional to the intelligence and wisdom of its citizenry. In addition to providing an incentive to everyone to become as well informed and politically active as possible, democracy gives people their just desserts.
Correct. Hopefully this attempt at "democracy" that we call the United States of America will escape the historical fate of all preceding Democracies."
No, it will not escape the historical fate of all preceding Democracies. Neither will it escape the historical fate of every single nation and civilization that has ever existed--rise, flourishing, and then decline and fall. This is simply a law of nature. As Lord Acton suggested, power corrupts. This applies not only to politicians and individuals in general, but to entire societies as well. Once a nation enjoys a certain level of peace and prosperity for a certain period, complacency, arrogance, moral degeneracy, and a host of other ills sooner or later sets in. The society in question slowly begins to lose its primacy and a leaner, hungrier upstart comes in to take its place. There's no reason to believe the same won't happen to the United States--we're seeing signs of it already. And America's primacy hasn't even been that long-lived, as far as these things go.
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1406731 - 03/24/03 04:35 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Alex123 writes:
The majority of the US didn't want a war without a second resolution.
Incorrect. The numbers were always higher with a second resolution, but still never below 50% at any time even without one. I'll ask you for a source knowing it will do no good whatsoever, but I at least made the attempt.
100 years ago all drugs were legal. Do you really think the majority just woke up one morning and "changed"? Or do you think it took decades of scare stories and propaganda to influence them?
And they remain illegal to this day. Public opinion polls show that the majority want to keep them illegal, as have the recent referenda in various states. That's the whole point of the thread, Alex. The will of the majority concept of decision making is flawed.
You can whine and moan that the majority have been "brainwashed" all you want. The whole point is that in a democracy it doesn't matter why the majority holds irrational views, all that matters is how many people vote one way or the other.
pinky
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
 Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Phred]
#1406776 - 03/24/03 05:07 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
I suppose the good thing about arguing with certain people is that they make a great tool for pointing out things like irrelevancies, factual errors, and other logical faux pas.
Interesting topics of late but I don't think I'll be participating in them very much.
As odd as it may seem my loyalty to mycology is above the interests of any country, ideological leanings excepted of course. 
Carry on.
|
Phluck
Carpal Tunnel
Registered: 04/10/99
Posts: 11,394
Loc: Canada
Last seen: 5 months, 22 days
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Evolving]
#1406779 - 03/24/03 05:09 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Are you anti-drug-war and pro-democracy?
--------------------
"I have no valid complaint against hustlers. No rational bitch. But the act of selling is repulsive to me. I harbor a secret urge to whack a salesman in the face, crack his teeth and put red bumps around his eyes." -Hunter S Thompson
http://phluck.is-after.us
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Phred]
#1406816 - 03/24/03 05:31 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
The numbers were always higher with a second resolution, but still never below 50% at any time even without one
I'll take your word for it. Incidentally, they never were in the UK and we still got the war. What went wrong?
And they remain illegal to this day
Not everywhere. Portugal and other countries are relaxing their laws, Holland has legalised several drugs. The will of the majority is clearly working even in the face of massive propaganda by the minority. Don't underestimate the power of propaganda. With a media completly subservient to the rich elite you can push through some pretty extreme policies. Certainly doesn't mean the majority are for keeping drugs illegal.
Incidentally, can you explain why drugs were made illegal in the first place? Was this by the will of the majority?
The will of the majority concept of decision making is flawed.
How many people voted for George Bush? Was it a majority of the population of the US? Just curious.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
Edited by Alex123 (03/24/03 05:47 PM)
|
z@z.com
Libertarian
Registered: 10/13/02
Posts: 2,876
Loc: ATL
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1406822 - 03/24/03 05:34 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
How many people voted for George Bush? Was it a majority of the population of the US? Just curious.
No it was not a majority. This country (USA) is not a democracy thank God. (despite what you may have been told).
--------------------
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." - C.S. Lewis
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniencies attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: ]
#1406825 - 03/24/03 05:36 PM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
The best thing for me is seeing some people who make endless posts about how enlightened they are and yet hold childish grudges for months on end. That really is deeply amusing.
--------------------
Don't worry, B. Caapi
|
Anonymous
|
Re: Are you anti-war and pro-democracy? [Re: Xlea321]
#1407736 - 03/25/03 04:54 AM (21 years, 28 days ago) |
|
|
alex, i repeat:
you can nitpick my examples all day al, but the argument still stands: the inherent flaw in democracy is that the will of the majority, whether just or injust, is law. and that the solution to the problem is an extensive constitution, guaranteeing liberty, and a mechanism for protecting and enforcing it.
instead of nitpicking my examples, perhaps you could make an arugment actually countering my beliefs about democracy.
hint: that would involve the argument, "the will of the majority IS just".
|
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 all )
Angry Mycologist
PGF
pattern
Anonymous
jimsuzo
Learyfan