Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or maybe the nature of people prevents such a society from functioning.
You obviously don't think much of the quality of your fellow man. I see it differently.
Why not at least try it?
Also...the government is necessarily made up of some of those very same people...and they vote on behalf of their constituency. So, if "the nature of people" would prevent fairness and/or decency in the decisions that are made...it wouldn't work, regardless.
Or maybe the nature of people prevents such a society from functioning.
Also...this is from an old thread/post:
By what logic and reason is it determined the "will of a few" has less potential to be tainted by bias and create laws that oppress through prejudice than the "will of the many"?
It seems obvious that it's much more likely less than a thousand people would conspire to vote in evil laws, even though they might know it's horribly wrong (as our so-called Founding Fathers did), than it would be for millions to do it.
Oh, and, the reason I "think the framework for government was designed to be a democratic republic as opposed to pure democracy"...actually I don't "think", I'm SURE...is so those selfish, greedy, power/money/land hungry, men could further their evil agenda.
If their "game" had to stand up to the vote of ALL (to include all races and genders within the borders) they couldn't have legally sanctioned enslaving a race, just about annihilating a race, and oppressing a gender.
So they set it up so only THEY could vote on it...under the guise of "fairness", of course.
You obviously don't think much of the quality of your fellow man. I see it differently.
I'm a realist. Give human beings time and we mess things up. It's been proven time and time again.
Quote:
Why not at least try it?
Also...the government is necessarily made up of some of those very same people...and they vote on behalf of their constituency. So, if "the nature of people" would prevent fairness and/or decency in the decisions that are made...it wouldn't work, regardless.
Agreed. That's why the founding fathers came up with a separation of powers -- 3 branches of government. They recognized that power corrupts.
I'm a realist. Give human beings time and we mess things up. It's been proven time and time again.
Agreed. That's why the founding fathers came up with a separation of powers -- 3 branches of government. They recognized that power corrupts.
You can have all the Branches of Government you want...it is still necessarily made up of the very people you claim are all corrupt.
So, what is the difference in "potential corruption" of using "The Will of All the People" as compared to "The Will of A Few of The People"?
It would stand to reason that a few people that meet regularly could concoct a corrupt system in a way that hundreds of millions that don't ever come in contact with each other could never do.
I mean, how different are the cases really? The atheist senator sued God while not believing in God. While I don't personally know much about this case, I'm not stupid enough to think he genuinely means to sue God. It's like me suing all (or just one) unicorns. It's more just a statement. But so is the case of... Driskell v Homosexuals. ( )
This woman almost certainly know that no judge is going to take a case like this seriously, and likely knows just about everyone, regardless of religious or political views, will chuckle upon hearing about this. But her goals is purely abstract, just as the case of the man suing God. Both knew nothing was going to happen and the case was surely going to be thrown out and/or dismissed by everyone. But it was about making a statement against something abstract.
The cases are nearly identical. Certainly the principles behind each are entirely different, the intent is basically the same.
You can have all the Branches of Government you want...it is still necessarily made up of the very people you claim are all corrupt.
You're absolutely correct. And the current state of our government reveals that.
Quote:
So, what is the difference in "potential corruption" of using "The Will of All the People" as compared to "The Will of A Few of The People"?
The people are merely one branch. If you have a politician convince the masses to vote a certain way, he/she can usurp a lot of power by doing so. There are many examples of such in world history -- only instead of voting, we see the people rise up and overthrow a government, only to be oppressed by a worse dictator. Cuba comes to mind.
Quote:
It would stand to reason that a few people that meet regularly could concoct a corrupt system in a way that hundreds of millions that don't ever come in contact with each other could never do.
You're absolutely correct. And the current state of our government reveals that.
The people are merely one branch. If you have a politician convince the masses to vote a certain way, he/she can usurp a lot of power by doing so. There are many examples of such in world history -- only instead of voting, we see the people rise up and overthrow a government, only to be oppressed by a worse dictator. Cuba comes to mind.
OK? I agree. I'm not denying that.
I still think we should try "Pure Democracy". It has never been done. I think it would be the best system possible in a civilized society.
With modern technology, we can do it...in the past it wasn't possible to poll all the people. Now we can.
Better than a few sleazy politicians voting their own agenda. THAT'S how you guarantee it is a scam...using so-called "Representatives", and nine personal activists posing as "Justices" supposedly determining the merit of the decisions of those Reps. The SCOTUS is so bogus....9 times out of 10 you can predict how each Judge will vote. Funny, they all use the same Constitution as a basis...so why the major differences?
It's a total scam...and it's obvious.
I still think we should try "Pure Democracy". It has never been done. I think it would be the best system possible in a civilized society.
With modern technology, we can do it...in the past it wasn't possible to poll all the people. Now we can.
Better than a few sleazy politicians voting their own agenda. THAT'S how you guarantee it is a scam...using so-called "Representatives", and nine personal activists posing as "Justices" supposedly determining the merit of the decisions of those Reps. The SCOTUS is so bogus....9 times out of 10 you can predict how each Judge will vote. Funny, they all use the same Constitution as a basis...so why the major differences?
It's a total scam...and it's obvious.
I think the minutia of voting on every single issue would be impossible. At some point you need to empower people to make decisions on behalf of people. Look at the current state of our people. How many people do you think even know the basic issues? Watch an old episode of Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" and you'll find out that people don't know the basics of American government.
People have proven that they're just not willing to educate themselves on the basic issues. Heck..most people actually think the GOP hates women and minorities...when it was the DNC that rigged an election for an old white woman to beat an old white guy. The GOP? They had a black man and 2 hispanics come close to getting nominated. They nominated a woman Veep 8 years ago. But the media has created the image that the ignorant masses are only too willing to go along with.
I mean, how different are the cases really? The atheist senator sued God while not believing in God. While I don't personally know much about this case, I'm not stupid enough to think he genuinely means to sue God. It's like me suing all (or just one) unicorns. It's more just a statement. But so is the case of... Driskell v Homosexuals. ( )
This woman almost certainly know that no judge is going to take a case like this seriously, and likely knows just about everyone, regardless of religious or political views, will chuckle upon hearing about this. But her goals is purely abstract, just as the case of the man suing God. Both knew nothing was going to happen and the case was surely going to be thrown out and/or dismissed by everyone. But it was about making a statement against something abstract.
The cases are nearly identical. Certainly the principles behind each are entirely different, the intent is basically the same.
I agree the atheist was trying to make a public point. One can argue whether he should have picked that particular battle or not, but there you have it.
On the other hand I can just about guarantee you that Driskell was on a delusional mission from god to "do something" about homosexuality, and was mightily surprised and disappointed at the results. I think you give her too much credit for having many neurons in communication with each other. Given that she's a private party, not a lawyer, and taking on an issue that has been argued about without resolution all over the world since forever, there's quite a bit of megalomania in the picture there. Writing out the thing in longhand is another tip-off. You COULD be right, that she's not whacko and was just trying to score a rim-shot, but I rather doubt it. I've met too many red-faced bellowers like her.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) 
