Subject:
|
Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 16:11:50 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
c576653@cclabs.missouri.(antispam)edu
|
Viewed:
|
1253 times
|
| |
|
|
Scott Edward Sanburn wrote:
>
> > again. And democracy is flawed. The whole deal with democracy is that
> > the majority gets to push the minorities around and I think that's a bad
> > system. (It beats minorities pushing majorities around - which is what
> > it replaced - but ideally no one would be pushed around.)
>
> I would disagree with your definition of democracy in terms of minorities being
> pushed around, but I think that everyone should be treated the same in terms of
> law, etc. I don't think anyone deserves special treatment for anything. OK, I'll
> bite. What do you suggest in terms of a replacement for democracy?
In what way do you disagree with my take on democracy? It's the rule of
the people - by vote - so as long as 51% of the people who vote think
it's OK to kill me, then politically (if not morally) it is. Right? Wrong?
Libertopia would be an improvement. I prefer a system in which entities
(people, generally) contract with one another to provide services
(roads, protection, insurance, gardening, education, groceries,
whatever). I like the idea of PPL (privately produced Law) societies
where everyone is free and no amount of voting gives others the right to
destroy me and my property.
> > Out of curiosity, which ones?
>
> There was something about experimenting with fetal tissue, I just can't agree
> with. That was the biggest one, but I don't think it is an issue that is that
> critical to the country, it is more of a moral objection because of my religious
I would prefer that those who don't approve of a behavior vote with
their dollars. If pharmaceutical company X does fetal tissue testing,
then you should write a letter to them and refuse to use their drugs.
Of course you can turn that back on me and replace the concept of fetal
tissue testing with murder and I can't really defend that murder should
only be financially avoided. I agree with Larry that no system will be
perfect, I just think I can make it better.
> beliefs more than anything. I am not thrilled with abortion either, but I don't
I'm not either. I think people should be more responsible.
> > No. I don't. I don't think that we (as a group) need to forcibly
> > extract payment for _any_ certain things from citizens.
>
> I don't see too much of a choice on things right now, I understand your feelings
> on not getting taxed, but how would things work? Realistically, how would
> anything work, as for roads, defense, etc. Is there a philosophy you believe in,
> or are you thinking in anarchy terms? (I am confused on your position, so I need
> some clarification.)
Well, I can just pick any of those services and describe a scenario by
which the service can be privatized. Let's go with defense (I don't
differentiate nation and personal, so I'll roll them into one): I
contract with one of the local security providers in my area. In turn,
they contract with one another to provide backup if something really big
happens and they all need to band together. They also (individually, or
collaboratively) contract with larger security providers like the
privatized state police, the privatized navy, etc. Clearly enumerated
duties and payments exist up and down the chain of contracts so that
everyone knows who their customers are and what is owed to whom. Read
the short story, The Ungoverned, by Vernor Vinge. It can be found in
_Across Realtime_ or _True Names and Other Dangers_ for a good fictional
account of such a system.
> I do not believe in
> anything the Democratic Party believes in,
Really? What about equal rights based on sex, race, creed, etc? That
was a change championed by the left and resisted by the right. There
are a lot of traditionally 'left' issues that I favor. Many of them are
now adopted as generally accepted but to my mind still count as
democratic issues.
--
Sincerely,
Christopher L. Weeks
central Missouri, USA
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| An unlimited democracy with no bounds as to what the majority can decide is indeed flawed. Further, it's unworkable beyond a certain size, and leads to factionalism. A constitutionally limited representative or republican democracy is much better. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| (...) It's a simplified definition, I think you are talking about direct democracy, I was talking more of a constitutional democracy, where the people have certain rights (a.k.a. Bill of Rights) and protection from being murdered and so forth. A (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Government's role [Was: Re: What happened?]
|
| Chris, (...) I would disagree with your definition of democracy in terms of minorities being pushed around, but I think that everyone should be treated the same in terms of law, etc. I don't think anyone deserves special treatment for anything. OK, (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jul-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
433 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
