Subject:
|
Re: Democratic? (was: Sticking my gun ...)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Sep 2003 00:06:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
640 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz wrote:
> I guess it all comes down to whether you believe people are inherently
> good or governments are inherently good. The way I see it is that a
> government is just a collection of people, and therefore has no special
> claim of goodness beyond the basic goodness of people, and therefore, if
> there is any basic goodness in the world (and there does seem to be
> basic goodness in the world), it must be an inherent goodness of the
> people. What really makes the world tick is that we have a sufficiently
> similar understanding of goodness that we are able to form collective
> opinions. A government is ultimately just a formalized collection of
> those collective opinions. A democratic government is then superior to a
> non-democracic government then because it forms that collective opinion
> based on the input of more people.
However the party system stuffs all that up by forcing members to vote "along
party lines" instead of how their constituents want them to vote (except in
conscience votes, which don't happen often in parliament). Note that I'm
referring to Australian parliament here - other countries may be different...
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
111 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
|
|
|
|
