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 (334)	11/30/2002 5:33:50 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2534

Beyond an academic discussion of possibilities, which part of what I have written do you disagree with? This clause: We do not have a democracy contradicts this one: we all have the freedom to choose. Since we are not a democracy where the people vote directly on the laws, I disagree with your statement. You didn't understand it. You refer to legislation by referendum. That was what helped the Athens model to fail and why the founders went in another direction. This country was specifically founded on a set of ideals and specifically not on the majority. This proves you didn't understand what I've said, and it's technically incorrect. The Constitution provides for the minority to concede power to the majority. The majority has power to override ideals. For example, Affirmative Action is based on this possibility. 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. Is this consistent with your claim that we aren't a democracy? Doesn't the Constitution require or is based on exactly the kind of democracy we have? Aren't they inseparable? This claim: I have a problem with a society and culture that preaches entitlement and rejects personal responsibility. contradicts this one: This regardless of whether there are absolute laws or whether or not the Constitution allows for possibilities of an amendment that is self nullifying. It is the admission of entitlement and personal irresponsibility that we learn that these are not desirable. The Constitution doesn't constrain these kinds of behavior up to some limit in order that we the people may explore the possibilities and find what is right. If the Constitution was written to preclude behavior which is unique to a given era, it would limit freedom and societal evolution. No one can specify the ideal society. Such a concept is a contradiction in itself(There are no absolute laws). Many have tried and all have failed. They fail because they delimit or attempt to constrain what nature or evolution would bring. Evolution brings also the apparently bad in its discovery process. Trying to eliminate that possibility is the very thing that destroyed all previous civilizations. The price we pay is like the price Russians paid for 70 years of their experiment in societal evolution. The Russians put in a great deal of suffering and so now they will reap the cornucopia of wealth in compensation.