Jim Choate (ravage@ssz.com) wrote:

No, it doesn't - your definition of democracy is a simplistic if not childish view intended to cast democracy in the worst possible light imaginable.

I don't need to cast dumbocracy in a bad light; one look at the news does far more than I ever could to show the evils of government.

Obviously there is nothing in the definition of a democracy that prevents those founding the democracy from stating: "Congress shall make no law respecting ..."

Indeed. And such statements are almost totally worthless; the US Constitution includes such statements, yet it is rapidly becoming the world leader in repression and spreading that to other countries as fast as it can. The best such limits can do is slow the spread of government, not stop it. Perhaps you should try a few games of Hofstadter's 'Nomic', which is based around this problem?

Grow up.

I have grown up; I come from a strongly socialist family, yet I soon learnt that my and my family's political beliefs were wrong. Most people just continue to parrot the same beliefs all their lives. I could live with a libertarian minarchy, or even the US Constitution if it were upheld, but neither society would be as stable as anarchy.

You've proved nothing except your a priori dislike for democracy because you want to convince others you are an angel.

Sorry? I have no desire to govern others, so I don't have to be an angel. Indeed, the fact that there are no angels is another strong argument for anarchy over government. If power corrupts, then eliminate the power. If self-rule is good, then government is bad. If you believe in both self-rule and government, you've proven nothing but that your beliefs are contradictory. Mark