<!--QuoteBegin--Nemesis Zero+Jul 11 2003, 07:46 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Nemesis Zero @ Jul 11 2003, 07:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> [QUOTE=Salty,Jul 12 2003, 12:34 AM]According to modern judicative standards, a law that's not in tune with the democratic spirit of a constitution (as the Bill of Rights) is not demoratic. If officials, whether elected or not, resort to such means, they are acting undemocratically. [/QUOTE]
Thats what I disagree with. If the people want it wether its breaking inalienable rights such as the execution of socraties it is democractic because the people wanted. I think we just are getting on a course of which word is right :/[/QUOTE]
Well, then let's take the example I already mentioned, Hitler: In the last 'free' election, he got 42% of all votes. The simple majority was his. Does this mean that he was democratically entitled to use this democratically obtained power to destroy democratic principles, such as the defense of minorities (such as Jews, some sects, homosexuals, Sinti, Roma, disabled...), the democratic organisation of the state, and so on? It's a snake biting its own tail: If democratic power is used against democratic institutions, it ceases to be democratic. As I already said, do not believe that the simple translation of the word 'democracy' suffices to define the term. It is by far bigger than majority vote, although this is its basis and the normal way of decision finding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Aparently it does give him that entitlment to if there are no ground rules to stop him. Without many external and internal controls rights are taken away.
But this is not undemocratic. External and internal rules are the way any working political system functions. As I said before: You're basing your idea of democracy on its most radical theoretican. It's not surprising that his 'pure' definition won't work out. There are other, widely accepted theories including checks, balances, and additional ideals into the democratic idea. You can't just ignore this in your definition of the term.
[edit]Anyway, a new build is gonna be released any minute. I feel I pretty much made my point clear, so don't assume I'll post before tomorrow morning.[/edit]
I don't even have a internet at my house so im not going to assume that you gave up.
There is more then democracy and representation. There is also philosphy. I don't know about germany in the 1930s if they had goverment based on a philosophy or not but the United States is. The philosophy is seen the constitution. Division of powers the bill of rights all comes down to the philosophy of capitalism. That is that man without social instituions making him do good is just down right evil. There is another idealology that he is good and social institution make him do evil things, that is were communism comes from but im not going to get into that because the United Staes obviously isint communist. To show my point ill use a quote from James Madison
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasoning behind a small goverment seperations between church, economy, states and all that is because since goverment is made of men and men are evil then goverment is evil. The only way people can have peace is for there to be balance. So to get back on track there is also a balance inbetween philosophy representation and democracy. When democarcy looses a little the others gain some. Niether of the 3 is good alone so society needs all of them. Democracy is where the United States goverment recieves its legitamacy. Democracy does not mean it has to have seperation of powers and representatives. The United States is less democratic then athens was but that dosent means the U.S. is undemocratic.
Democracy lost a little the others gained some. This dosent mean voting is now useless or America is undemocratic now its just slightly less.
Comments
[/QUOTE]
Thats what I disagree with. If the people want it wether its breaking inalienable rights such as the execution of socraties it is democractic because the people wanted. I think we just are getting on a course of which word is right :/[/QUOTE]
Well, then let's take the example I already mentioned, Hitler: In the last 'free' election, he got 42% of all votes. The simple majority was his. Does this mean that he was democratically entitled to use this democratically obtained power to destroy democratic principles, such as the defense of minorities (such as Jews, some sects, homosexuals, Sinti, Roma, disabled...), the democratic organisation of the state, and so on?
It's a snake biting its own tail: If democratic power is used against democratic institutions, it ceases to be democratic.
As I already said, do not believe that the simple translation of the word 'democracy' suffices to define the term. It is by far bigger than majority vote, although this is its basis and the normal way of decision finding. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Aparently it does give him that entitlment to if there are no ground rules to stop him. Without many external and internal controls rights are taken away.
But this is not undemocratic. External and internal rules are the way any working political system functions. As I said before: You're basing your idea of democracy on its most radical theoretican. It's not surprising that his 'pure' definition won't work out. There are other, widely accepted theories including checks, balances, and additional ideals into the democratic idea. You can't just ignore this in your definition of the term.
[edit]Anyway, a new build is gonna be released any minute. I feel I pretty much made my point clear, so don't assume I'll post before tomorrow morning.[/edit]
There is more then democracy and representation. There is also philosphy. I don't know about germany in the 1930s if they had goverment based on a philosophy or not but the United States is. The philosophy is seen the constitution. Division of powers the bill of rights all comes down to the philosophy of capitalism. That is that man without social instituions making him do good is just down right evil. There is another idealology that he is good and social institution make him do evil things, that is were communism comes from but im not going to get into that because the United Staes obviously isint communist. To show my point ill use a quote from James Madison
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reasoning behind a small goverment seperations between church, economy, states and all that is because since goverment is made of men and men are evil then goverment is evil. The only way people can have peace is for there to be balance. So to get back on track there is also a balance inbetween philosophy representation and democracy. When democarcy looses a little the others gain some. Niether of the 3 is good alone so society needs all of them. Democracy is where the United States goverment recieves its legitamacy. Democracy does not mean it has to have seperation of powers and representatives. The United States is less democratic then athens was but that dosent means the U.S. is undemocratic.
Democracy lost a little the others gained some. This dosent mean voting is now useless or America is undemocratic now its just slightly less.