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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (65188)	6/18/2005 3:22:48 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Re: Heh. Real democracies do what real people do. There is no Santa Claus. A somewhat tautological platitude: Real dictatorships do what real people do. There is no Santa Claus. Real stratocracies (Israel, eg) do what real people do. There is no Santa Claus. Real plutocracies do what real people do. There is no Santa Claus. Real .....() do what real people do. There is no Santa Claus. ()Put your favorite regime. So, my point is that "reality" is a rather flimsy criterion to tell a democracy from one of its many undemocratic nemeses.

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (65188)	6/18/2005 9:36:31 AM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Gib, You and Raymond are both wrong, my country is not a democracy and at a federal level was not intended to be a democracy in the first place. It was created as a republic. Voters essentially selected delegates to an electoral college and this body chooses the president of the country. This is still the practice today. US Senators were originally chosen by the State legislatures not by direct election. In 1913 the 17th amendment to the Constitution changed this to direct election and this was probably a mistake, considering how things have turned out. The national government was not intended to be a democracy. Under the original dispensation the individual states, though still republics in their own right were much more democratic than the national government. At least they were more accountable in that the elected leaders were by law local residents and not persons far away and unknown to the local voters. They had to live within and be legal residents of the state in which they served, and hence be more responsive to local needs. Such is still the case today, though there has even been some erosion of local control in statewide elections due to the influx of out of state money in many elections, a practice that was once illegal in many jurisdictions though this reasonable prohibition has been overuled by the Federal courts in many cases. Ane there is the nub of the problem. The Federal government, which is much less "democratic" by design and even geography compared to the states has been vastly increased in size and power vis-a-via the individual states in the last 70 years. And too make matters worse there has been an attempted "power grab" by the Federal courts over the other two supposedly equal branches of the Federal government. The New Deal was the cause of this regrettable change from the original arrangement using the supposed "emergency" of the 1930's depression to create for themselves a national dictatorship, which they hoped to control of forever and to move the country toward socialism. This effort failed, thankfully and those opposed to creeping socialism will make sure that the Federal government expends its resources on other efforts such as war and national security to make sure that no resources are available for a welfare state. Unfortunate, but not nearly as bad as the alternative. Slagle