On Jul 12, 5:52=A0am, Benj <bjac...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 3:07 am, good...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>
> > It's true that in some states a majority can get an issue on the
> > ballot and pass a law in an election. =A0But most laws are passed by
an
> > elected minority. =A0So much touting Democracy as freedom, when we do
> > not even have a Democracy. =A0In any case, majority rule can be
tyranny
> > to the other 49% of the voters, and so the theory goes, that a wise
> > minority of rulers might be elected. =A0But rather as it turns out
they
> > are just dictatorial tyrants, it seems a broader bill of rights and a
> > broader interpretation of a bill of rights is a better solution.
>
> Absolutely correct. The owned media always beat the drum for America
> being a "democracy" but it's a lie. It's just a wish of those in power
> because they know that "democracy" is always tyranny. It's tyranny
> over 49% and it's tyranny based on the idea that the media can easily
> fool some of the people all of the time. So "majority rule" means the
> media can get a majority to agree to just about any measure no matter
> how extreme or oppressive.
>
> But America is a NEW idea. It's like nothing ever tried in the world
> before. It's a REPUBLIC. =A0It is an attempt to have rule by the people
> instead of rule by the strongest. =A0The differences are im****tant.
> First off, there is the assumption that just by being born you come
> into the world with rights from "the creator" which is NOT defined.
> You get to decide if that means "God", "Allah" "Nature" or "Chance",
> but the concept is STILL there that being born grants everybody
> certain rights. Things like Life and Liberty. Even animals are born
> with these. Sure you CAN get killed out there, but in the wild
> generally one is born free and self-defense is provided for your
> species.
This is actually just *your* philosophy. In practice you have only
the rights the government recognizes. Even if the 9th and 10th
Amendments suggest that all other rights are inherent in you, it
doesn't matter unless the Supreme Court recognizes them - or some
lesser court judge agrees with you, and even then the prosecutor can
appeal up to the Supreme Court.
> Let us pause for a minute and compare to the older more "traditional"
> rule of a king. That idea is that people are basically ignorant and
> worthless so they need somebody smart and strong to tell them what to
> do. The ruler is considered the representative of "the creator" on
> earth. Therefore the ruler has absolute power over subjects. That
> power includes ALL aspects of life including life and death. "Rights"
> are "collective" and exist only for the ruler. Rights for the people
> are all filtered through the ruler and they get ONLY those which the
> ruler decides (as God's representative) to "grant" to them.
>
> The "liberal" ( what it used to be called before politicians got
> playing with the meaning of words) ideas started by men in what was
> known in history as "the enlightenment" included: 1. That the people
> are born with rights, they are NOT 'granted" by rulers. 2. People if
> left to decide their own fates will in general choose reasonably
> wisely based on their own self-interests. They will do at least as
> well as a "smart" king. 3. People may be easily fooled by politicians
> and the media as to issues and votes, but generally are a pretty good
> judge of local people they know.
>
> The bottom line is that the power of government is severely limited.
> The government is run by people elected at the local level so the
> people can better judge them (this was the TRUE purpose of the
> electorial college...but now politicians want it a democratic
> "popular" election to make elections more easily manipulated) and
> choose more wisely. These locals then pick the national leader.
>
> And finally 4. The government structure is designed to so that some of
> the more im****tant aspects of it (such as distribution of power as set
> in the constitution) are NOT able to be changed by simple "majority
> rule". Two thirds or 3/4 of the people have to agree on the change.
> This eliminates the easy tyranny of majority rule. The people are
> granted the power to choose ANY form of government they wish INCLUDING
> a KING! =A0But the catch is that it takes much more agreement among the
> people to install a king than merely 51%. =A0This is why the run at a
> power grab known as the con-con and "NewStates Constitution" fell on
> it's face. They had MORE than a majority ready to install that fascist
> nightmare, but not the required super-majority.
>
> Obviously politicians all love power and will always be working to
> subvert the republic to install themselves with powers as close to a
> king as possible. It has to be expected. =A0But given the above
> provisions of super-majority requirement of fundamental change, so
> long as the rules of the republic (constitution) is followed, it is
> difficult to get away with the subversion. This is why the mass media
> pounds away on the idea that America is a 'democracy". They want to
> subvert the ideas of the republic so that the media can form the motor
> behind a power-grab.
>
> The bad news is that many people have actually bought the "democracy"
> thing. You actually can fool some of the people all of the time!
So you're saying that a Republic is good, and that a Democracy is
bad. I'm saying that neither matter, and that all that matters is a
Bill of Rights secured by an Independent Judiciary. I'm saying that a
Dictator or a King would be nearly even as good as a Republic or
Democracy if there was a secured Bill of Rights that he could not
violate, and that there is nearly no difference. You say:
> Let us pause for a minute and compare to the older more "traditional"
> rule of a king. That idea is that people are basically ignorant and
> worthless so they need somebody smart and strong to tell them what to
> do. The ruler is considered the representative of "the creator" on
> earth. Therefore the ruler has absolute power over subjects. That
> power includes ALL aspects of life including life and death. "Rights"
> are "collective" and exist only for the ruler. Rights for the people
> are all filtered through the ruler and they get ONLY those which the
> ruler decides (as God's representative) to "grant" to them.
But that is basically what exists except for the weak Bill of Rights.
The 1st Amendment recognizes the right to freedom of speech, freedom
of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of peaceful assembly, and
to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The 2nd
Amendment recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. The 3rd through
8th Amendments recognize the rights of the accused, and the 9th and
10th Amendments suggest the recognition of all other rights.
But the rights of the accused aren't broad enough, the accused can be
coerced into plea bargaining, and the 9th and 10th Amendments don't do
anything unless a right is recognized by the Supreme Court or a lesser
court judge. That leaves us with only the First and Second
amendments. Better than a Communist or Theocratic government, but not
enough to praise as "the land of the free."
The First and Second Amendments are all America has in addition to the
weak rights of the accused who are in serious peril, and a few
interpretations recognizing a few more weak rights of the accused
(Miranda warning for instance), and extending rights, for instance,
rights to abortion and privacy may have been recognized by the Supreme
Court.
How is America "the land of the free" compared to a dictator****p, our
elected dictators can apparently outlaw anything they want, not to
mention pass patently unconstitutional laws, forcing the common
citizen to suffer until someone has the money to sue or the laws are
appealed.
Communist Empires, Theocracies and Dictator****ps, countries without a
Bill of Rights secured by an Independent Judiciary, may respect
neither Freedom of Speech nor Freedom of Religion, nor the rights of
the accused - And Communist empires may not respect the right to
acquire property, and may even force people to work like slaves -
though I'm not sure how things work/worked in Communist countries.
America is a lesser evil, but today far from the country we're looking
for and far from the bastion of Freedom it pretends to be.
|
