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 : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Little Joe who wrote (108524)	2/19/2010 11:13:21 AM
From: Hawkmoon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Not logical response. Democracy is rule of the majority. If we use it's purest definition, you're correct. But Democracy is a "blanket" term that is primarily used to define systems of government where ruling authority is derived by consent of the governed. We could call the American form of government what it is, a "Representative Republic", or call it Polyarchy.. etc. I prefer to use the broader term, Democracy, since the above systems are sub-sets of Democratic systems. en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org But Joe.. my premise is based upon the view that the US form of democracy is distinct, if not unique, in that we have applied the concept of inalienable rights of man, and then written a constitution to defend those rights. Those rights would not be guaranteed without that constitution and the willingness to stand by values presented within it. And without the concept of inalienable rights, there would be little to prevent a "tyranny by the majority". Inalienable rights are the foundation upon which all of our civil rights are based, thereby protecting minority rights. Democracies can exist without the concept of inalienable rights. There are plenty of democracies that currently exist which do not expressly acknowledge inalienable rights for their citizens. Also depends on what kind of freedom you mean. Yep.. "freedom to", and "freedom from" are important differences. As I was privately discussing with someone last night in defending one of my posts, a social/economic "predator" may filter their personal freedom through a distorted sense of self-entitlement. They may perceive themselves as the "Alpha Male", or an "victim of societal oppression", and therefore entitled to exercise their "freedom" to exploit, or even eliminate, those they perceive threaten their happiness. Who is freer the man who is free to speak or the man who is economically free. I don't think we can separate them. If you were economically "free", then your votes would be cast with your wealth. Your money would be your voice. And that's probably why we all need to be urging the Congress to reverse this SCOTUS decision, via legislation, that permits corporations to give unfettered amounts of money to representatives for whom they don't even have the constitutional right to vote. freespeechforpeople.org Hawk