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: ahhaha who wrote (333)	11/29/2002 11:22:23 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

Democracy means you are free to choose. And interesting definition. We do not have a democracy and therefore any definition isn't really meaningful to our situation. In fact, regardless of the government that is in place, we all have the freedom to choose. Sometimes that choice is to overthrow a tyrannical government. Sometimes the choice is to leave and find a home in a country that is more conducive to one's beliefs or lifestyle and sometimes it is to stay where you are and do nothing, even if one doesn't like where the the society is going since it ain't any better anywhere else. Thus the Constitution admits both the possibility of dictatorship of the proletariat and tyranny of dictatorship. It all depends upon what people want. Since we are not a democracy where the people vote directly on the laws, I disagree with your statement. We elect representatives who then create the laws. We could in theory elect a government that chooses to pass laws creating a dictatorship of the proletariat or a tyranny of dictatorship without having any support from the people. The Constitution was written to limit the the powers that the elected government had over the people. This country was specifically founded on a set of ideals and specifically not on the majority. If the people choose to nullify the constitution and the ideals that it is based on, then we should start to rewrite our national anthem, especially the part of the "land of the free", cuz we would no longer be living in the same country. The Constitution also admits the possibility of an amendment that nullifies the Constitution. I'm aware of the amendment process, but I don't accept the statement that the Constitution allows for self nullification. Personally, I think that the US Constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written. And as written it defines a government of which I would give my complete approval. I have a problem with a society and culture that preaches entitlement and rejects personal responsibility. This regardless of whether there are absolute laws or whether or not the Constitution allows for possibilities of an amendment that is self nullifying. Beyond an academic discussion of possibilities, which part of what I have written do you disagree with?