Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Pastimes : 5spl -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jorj X Mckie who wrote (329)	11/29/2002 10:48:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

The Constitution was intended to eliminate that possibility, but it is just too easy to ignore it. The founding fathers based the Constitution more on Spartan democracy rather than Athenian. Because Athens had a tyranny of the masses democracy, in the Peloponnesian War they were defeated by the militarily focused Spartans. This wasn't lost on Jefferson. From it came the notion of the need for a President who has focused action like a dictator. Thus the Constitution admits both the possibility of dictatorship of the proletariat and tyranny of dictatorship. It all depends upon what people want. Democracy means you are free to choose. When there's division of choice, the minority gives consent to the majority to take the nation where ever it might including into tyranny. That doesn't mean the minority goes against the Constitution if it resists a move to tyranny. The Constitution also admits the possibility of an amendment that nullifies the Constitution. One must admit that possibility so that a body of laws isn't static and can evolve, perhaps beyond all that it ever was. There are no absolute laws.