|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 20:36:28 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 14, 2005 20:36:28 GMT -5
Question to you: go something BETTER that has proven its worth? What kind of track record did the democratic republic have during the late 1700s when the founding fathers of the United States decided to use it? More or less none. What kind of track record did the communist dictatorship have before the October Revolution? More or less none. Of course change is not always improvement. You don't know until you try. Sometimes you have to try an untried system when the old one has proven inadequate.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 20:39:47 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 14, 2005 20:39:47 GMT -5
Sorry, gotta modify: Direct democracy was first experimented with in the ancient Athenian democracy of ancient Greece (beginning circa 508 BCE (Finley, 1973)), which was governed for two centuries by a general assembly of all male citizens, by randomly selected officials, and one elected representative charged to command the army of the city (strategos). The restrictive conditions for citizenship in Athenian democracy (only male citizens could participate) and the small size (about 300,000) of the Athens city-state minimized the logistical difficulties inherent to this form of government. So democracy has been around for.....2500 years! Earliest communist country in history: USSR:1917 And Communism failed and democracy is flourishing....
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 20:57:52 GMT -5
Post by khyron1144 on Feb 14, 2005 20:57:52 GMT -5
Your TOTALLY CORRECT! And Communism failed and democracy is flourishing.... Democracy is certainly widespread, but flourishing implies health. Communism failed because it got into the hands of poor leaders who used the right terminology but distorted the meaning behind it. I'd almost say the same thing is happening to democracy these days. I think there's a lot of "it's not fascism when we do it" sentiment in the current Bush administration. People held without trial. The government looking for people reading suspicious books and spreaing subversive messages. Those sorts of things. Sorry, gotta modify: Direct democracy was first experimented with in the ancient Athenian democracy of ancient Greece (beginning circa 508 BCE (Finley, 1973)), which was governed for two centuries by a general assembly of all male citizens, by randomly selected officials, and one elected representative charged to command the army of the city (strategos). The restrictive conditions for citizenship in Athenian democracy (only male citizens could participate) and the small size (about 300,000) of the Athens city-state minimized the logistical difficulties inherent to this form of government. So democracy has been around for.....2500 years! I said democratic republic. It is differnet from Athenian style direct democracy.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 14, 2005 21:49:22 GMT -5
Post by Hussar on Feb 14, 2005 21:49:22 GMT -5
However there are two very important points you are missing with regards to majority rule.
First off, democracy assumes that the majority will change over time. That the people who make up the majority in one issue will not be the same people in all issues, nor will they be the same people in the same issue a second time around. If you have 51% of people who always vote the same way, then you wind up with what's called the tyranny of the majority. Yes, you have satisfied the conditions of majority, but, since the same 51% of people are always voting the same way (or whatever the majority percentage is), then you have a disenfranchised minority who never gets any political power. This is counter to the idea of democracy where all people should be empowered. Not all people will be empowered in every issue, but, some people will win in some issues and other people will win in others.
When you use simple majority to determine issues, you can wind up with a minority who never gains a voice. This is the situation with regards to gay rights. Openly declaring yourself gay in America up until the last decade or so had very serious repercussions including loss of job and status and even being put in jail. This would be a very good reason to not be open about being gay.
A second point is that social rights are never determined by majority rules. As was the case with miscengenation laws for one. The people in those states with miscengenation laws voted to keep those laws. The majority wished those laws to remain in effect. However, the majority was overruled by the Supreme Court as it the SC's right in Constitutional issues. The same can be said for pretty much every rights issue. Whether it be black and minority rights, emancipation, universal sufferage for women and minorities and a number of other issues. Despite the majority's feelings on these issues, they were still forced to accept equal standing. The majority did not decide to give women the vote. The majority in the south certainly did not decide to emancipate blacks. Social rights are a Constitutional issue and, as such, are not subject to majority rules.
On the subject of my beliefs of gays, well, Khyron said it right. I'm not not gay because I believe homosexuality is wrong. I'm not gay because I don't find men attractive. For the same reason, I'm not Christian because I don't agree with Christian teachings. Does that mean that I think Christians are immoral? No. It just means that I don't choose to be part of that group. Another way of looking at it is, I don't chase 95 year old women. Not because I think chasing 95 year old women is immoral, but because I don't particularly find 95 year old women attractive. Others might, that's their choice. I'm not going to stop them, nor am I going to really care.
That's the bottom line right there. Why do people care what other people choose to do? Why is there this obsessive need to control other people's private lives? Gay marriage impacts in no way upon anyone else's life. It makes not one iota of difference to anyone else. So, why oppose it?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 10:07:34 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 10:07:34 GMT -5
Im glad you asked that Hussar!! Why you ask now? Because they push in your face saying "Accept my way of life no matter what!" Of corse not to that exact wording but you get my point.
So, why should I have to be forced to accept something I and the MAJORITY of this country believe wrong listen to them?
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 10:10:25 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 15, 2005 10:10:25 GMT -5
ok while I see your point there how else we're they going to get the law changed?
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 11:33:40 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 11:33:40 GMT -5
Easy, the lawmakers draft up a resalution, its debated in the congress, then voted on. If the MAJORITY of the congress pass it, it becomes law.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 12:40:35 GMT -5
Post by Galadon on Feb 15, 2005 12:40:35 GMT -5
Personally I think the black hole is eatting my posts. Or maybe I should make sure I hit post.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 13:50:24 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 13:50:24 GMT -5
How about something relevent to the thread? WOW!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 15:24:58 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 15, 2005 15:24:58 GMT -5
Easy, the lawmakers draft up a resalution, its debated in the congress, then voted on. If the MAJORITY of the congress pass it, it becomes law. which wouldn't happen if they kept quiet surely Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 15:30:37 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 15:30:37 GMT -5
Well....someones got to do it!!
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 15:40:26 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 15, 2005 15:40:26 GMT -5
sorry please explain
"if noone talks about it it will still get done?"
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 18:38:40 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 18:38:40 GMT -5
Simple. We have what is called a Constitution-based federal republic; with strong democratic tradition. Just like you have a constitutional monarchy.
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 18:41:03 GMT -5
Post by Challenger on Feb 15, 2005 18:41:03 GMT -5
nothing gets done in this country without atleast one group of people making a song and dance about it.
Challenger
|
|
|
Debate
Feb 15, 2005 18:51:58 GMT -5
Post by ElrosTarMinitarsus on Feb 15, 2005 18:51:58 GMT -5
My point exactly.....(song and dance----- )
|
|