Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dan B. who wrote (6287)	11/16/2000 2:35:04 AM
From: quasar_1	Read Replies (1) of 10042

The Leaders Must Follow... How can I know "abrogating the common democratic standard of majority rule through law" must follow from our government being overthrown? This was not a premise. I think most would agree that armed insurrection is not within the framework of the rule of law. It is the antithesis of it. Therefore the act of 'overthrowing the government' itself breaks the rule of law. It doesn't matter what follows it. Try some Lysander Spooner, you'll like it. Is this an author? I'll check it out on the web. Thanks for the tip. There is a clear un-agreed to premise here. That is that something rotten is imposed as a result, or at least something anarchaic and far less agreeable to the people than what they had before. That is not my premise. I am saying the overthrow itself is abrogation of the Constitutional contract. The armed overthrow, in and of itself in anarchic. It is not a comment on what political institution, if any, exists after the armed insurrection. As the immigrants in your piece above thought of themselves, so might the overthrowing parties. The difference is that the immigrants went to a new land as a group choosing to set up new political institutions. An analogy would be for those who disagree with the government, who were considering armed insurrection, to physically emigrate to a new land and set up new political institutions that they democratically consent to. The American Revolutionaries would never have overthrown the King of England in England. This is another important distinction. (The fact that we imposed our will on the native Americans is another kettle of fish...) I believe the constitution indeed reveres the right to revolt, I agree. But the revolt occurs every two years at the polling booth. That is the beauty of the document. hence the opportunity to vote for more constitutional government by voting for Harry Browne this year. I like Harry. I think he is forthright and adds much to the political debate. Why is he not on the stage with Bush, Gore, Buchannan, and Nader. This is what I mean about the stifling of democratic discussion. It is truly appalling. Anyway, 'Tis good it's possible to get it done without violence if we want. It's the only way its going to work. The political debate must change first with each and every one of us. If the people lead, the leaders must follow... Freedom Works But freedom only works when it is accompanied by personal and collective responsibility. This is what is often lacking in the debate. One side emphasizes personal and the other collective responsibility. The funny thing is they are both right. Have a good night DB! Q

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next