Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From: amp@pobox.com Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:49:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws...
1. In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49%
Not in this democracy they don't. In every democracy currently extant there is a bill of rights. The government may not respect it, but that is a flaw of implimentation not theory.
2. In a democracy, you can't have property rights because 51% can capriciously decide to confiscate anyone's property.
See above.
3. A pure democracy is true mob rule - a mob has no concience, or bounds to it's tyranny. Look into the history of ancient Athens.
Since there are no true democracies extant your point is moot. ____________________________________________________________________ | | | The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there | | be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves. | | | | -Alan Greenspan- | | | | _____ The Armadillo Group | | ,::////;::-. Austin, Tx. USA | | /:'///// ``::>/|/ http:// www.ssz.com/ | | .', |||| `/( e\ | | -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- Jim Choate | | ravage@ssz.com | | 512-451-7087 | |____________________________________________________________________|
From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws...
1. In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49%
Not in this democracy they don't. In every democracy currently extant there is a bill of rights. The government may not respect it, but that is a flaw of implimentation not theory.
You miss the point entirely. This is =not= supposed to be a democracy. That is why we have a constitution (theoretically a set of restrictions upon the powers of government), and bill of rights.
2. In a democracy, you can't have property rights because 51% can capriciously decide to confiscate anyone's property.
See above.
3. A pure democracy is true mob rule - a mob has no concience, or bounds to it's tyranny. Look into the history of ancient Athens.
Since there are no true democracies extant your point is moot.
There have been, that is why the point is not moot. The point is, we are becoming one, with the advent of instant polling and politicians and citizens who obviously can't read as simple a document as the constitution. ------------------------ Name: amp E-mail: amp@pobox.com Date: 09/10/97 Time: 10:32:29 Visit me at http://www.pobox.com/~amp == -export-a-crypto-system-sig -RSA-3-lines-PERL #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1 lK[d2%Sa2/d0$^Ixp"|dc`;s/\W//g;$_=pack('H*',/((..)*)$/) == 'Drug Trafficking Offense' is the root passphrase to the Constitution. Have you seen http://www.public-action.com/SkyWriter/WacoMuseum ------------------------
On Wed, 10 Sep 1997, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
From: amp@pobox.com Date: Tue, 09 Sep 1997 22:49:25 -0500 Subject: Re: Removing Tyranny from Democracy (Part II), (fwd)
From: Jim Choate <ravage@ssz.com>
Please be so kind as to detail your top three flaws...
1. In a democracy, 51% of the people can vote to enslave the other 49%
Not in this democracy they don't. In every democracy currently extant there is a bill of rights. The government may not respect it, but that is a flaw of implimentation not theory.
You asked what are the top three flaws in democracy, not if they could be remediated, or what those remediations might be. If your aim is the best form, then it might be a mixture of different forms with separation of powers. But then you are defending the mix, not the component. When you say "Not in this democracy", are you defending the form because it has a democratic component and because it is limited (since I don't think you aren't argumenting that this component should be expanded), or because you are using the word "democracy" in the broader sense to describe the mixture?
2. In a democracy, you can't have property rights because 51% can capriciously decide to confiscate anyone's property.
See above.
The problem is that they do. Otherwise where does the support for "progressive" taxation come from? The 51% vote to tax (confiscate the property of) the 49%. The "middle class" majority votes itself entitlements at the expense of both the poor and the rich. Social Security taxes the working poor to subsidize the healthcare of elderly regardless of assets or income. These did not come from courts, or executive orders. This is not a mere implemetation problem. If you have any democratic component, it will eventually infect all levels - the legislature will withold funds, the executive will proclaim a crisis, elected judges will declare what they were elected to declare, and in most systems the elected branches appoint the nonelected branches - pack the presidency and the senate and you have packed the supreme court. Or consider the ammendment on Prohibition. When 51% of the people fear government and refuse on principle to vote it any more power, we are safe. When 51% of the people can be bribed with the wealth of even 1%, we are lost. So democracies require virtue from the people that will deny themselves the short term benefits of transferring power. Another implementation problem? If we were all saints, we would not need any government. The moment the people think the government is the servant it will become the master because they will slowly but eventually vote it totalitarian powers. Back at the 16th ammendment, the income tax was only going to be 2% on the superrich. Or look at what the "Four Horseman" are doing in today's democracies. "Concede the principle of limiting government - just in this one little area - and we will make everything better - all you have to do is vote". --- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---
participants (3)
-
amp＠pobox.com -
Jim Choate -
nospam-seesignature＠ceddec.com