<<You can put me down as a supporter of creating political mechanisms through which the citizens of a country can choose (over and over again) for themselves what kind of government they so desire>>
... what would be the point? so all can go bankrupt together?
<<If they desire a theocracy, I'm fine with that, so long as the mechanisms are maintained for the people to be able to change their minds at a later date.>>
... given that is what america fundamentally has, a theocracy, at the very core, you have to be fine with it, else you qualify for terror lable ;0)
<<People should have the right to choose, even if their choices lead to negative outcomes>>
... wrong. most people are not remotely qualified to choose.
<<That's how we learn and grow as a civilization>>
... wrong again. electoral mechanism could well be just an experiment, mostly of pop cultures, possibly past its best-use-by date, and could prove to be an utter failure in so far as civilization is concerned.
<<What right to choose have the Tibetan people enjoyed since the Chinese invaded them in the interest of "law and order"?>>
... what tibetan people? you mean the folks who got there from china first, about 2000-3000 years ago? vs the late comers, say 60 years ago?
the early travelers can freely choose to do business, open up shops, raise many children, and not have the kids skins made into items of clothing and lamp shades, unlike when ruled by the dalai lama.
what is the genetic distance of the various groupings in israel?
please continue to twist, so that i do not have to turn :0) |
