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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (26868)	8/19/2006 3:36:36 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 543356

Unfortunately, AFAIK, the only way to protect FREEDOM is through a majority of the population supporting the idea, i.e. freedom exits only in suitable democracies. I think that the point is that democracy doesn't provide freedom so we shouldn't use democracy as a proxy for freedom because democracy may facilitate freedom or it may not. Whether or not you can achieve freedom in a system without provision for a popular vote is beside the point, seems to me. Mr. Schwartz, while usefully pointing out the distinctions between the two words, failed to advance any ideas of how to accomplish his goals. I don't know which goals you have in mind. As I read it, his goal was to quit pushing democracy as though it were the be all and end all and to start pushing freedom. To accomplish that, you just have to let the speech writer and the Secretary of State know of the change in policy. OK, that's an exaggeration, but it's in the neighborhood. I don't know what further ideas for accomplishing it you might be looking for.