Which is more important to the US?

[Monk]

David, your ideas on laissez-faire capitalism are all fine and noble, but what happens when it's taken to such absolute limits? Aren't you even prepared to compromise with your ideology when it comes to environmental restrictions? I think I asked you this before, but it seems to me if you're a laissez-faire capitalist you oppose any and all gov't interference, which would include the environmental ones. Or for that matter, what about selling nuclear bombs or other heavy weapons to Osama bin Laden? Isn't this completely legal and even moral in your utopia?

[David Floyd]

You can tell him to shove it up his arse, and you can go to increase the number of unemployed people, and you will not get a new job if you are not willing to earn less or work more than the other unemployed people.

That's bull****. Just because that's how things work in Argentina () doesn't mean that's how things would workin a true free market. I can start my own business, go into farming, etc., assuming for some reason I can't find a job. But I won't haveto find a new job, because if an employer is foolish enough to drive away skilled labor (be it a programmer, construction worker, whatever) then another company is quite likely to hire that skilled labor, while the original company is stuck with the cost of replacing the skilled worker, a pointless and needless exercise.

Monk,

Aren't you even prepared to compromise with your ideology when it comes to environmental restrictions?

If you can prove that a certain type of pollution is coercive in nature and infringes on individual rights, then I'll consider a law to protect individual liberties. Normally, the best solution is self-regulation as a result of consumer pressure.

Or for that matter, what about selling nuclear bombs or other heavy weapons to Osama bin Laden?

If it's your property, the government should not restrict what you do with it, except in the case of using your property ot initiate force against another. Then government has the obligation to protect that person or persons from your coercion.

[kolpo]

I think democracy is WAY more important then capitalism.

Every person is as real as every other person and experience happyness just like every other person, so the happyness of every person is equally important as that of others. We don't know what brings happyness, there is no raison to assume that one person his idea of that is more true then that of another, because of that is the best solution to simply do what the majority thinks. There is no other base to stand on! There is nothing else that isn't disputed by at least some people, there is nothing that can't be really proved so best we have is the idea of the majority.

What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose.

Because there is no universal agreed idea of "right/good/best sollution" so best what we have is what most people think, what the majority thinks.

[David Floyd]

What the majority wants is because of that by defenition: good, right and the best possible choose

And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

[kolpo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

Also in that case wouldn't thaht be really enslaving the minority because most likley won't the majority view it that way and because there is not something as a universal agreed truth is best what we have what most people think, so if most people thing that isn't enslaving, isn't that enslaving.

A democracy is like a group of lambs who vote to eat the wolf. No longer doe sthe strong suppress the weak! But teh weak suppress the strong!

[Plan Austral]

Originally posted by David Floyd


And if the majority chose slavery for the minority?

That is what happened in Nazi germany.
And even though, Hitler was voted twice with absolute majority it was not a democracy becaused it was not guaranteeing the minimal and absolute rights for all the citizens.

If the majority wants that, it is no longer democracy.

What I said is also proves that the majority can commit mistakes.

[Arrian]

A democracy is a like a group of lambs who vote to eat the wolf. No longer doe sthe strong suppress the weak! But teh weak suppress the strong!

And that's not ok. Tyranny of the masses is still tyranny.

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

So if the majority (51%) of a country decide to kill off a minority, that's fine, because it's democratic?? I beg to differ!

-Arrian

[David Floyd]

If the majority wants that does the majority think that would make them more happy, because everyone experience happyness just like any other person is everyone his happyness equal important and is thus the happyness of the majority more important then that of the minority!

Also in that case wouldn't thaht be really enslaving the minority because most likley won't the majority view it that way and because there is not something as a universal agreed truth is best what we have what most people think, so if most people thing that isn't enslaving, isn't that enslaving.

I'm sorry, I don't quite follow - you seem to be saying that WHATEVER the majority wants is OK, because slavery isn't necessarily wrong. Is that correct?

If the majority wants that, it is no longer democracy.

Nice circular argument. So, then, can the majority pass a law that you must forfeit 99% of your net worth?

What I said is also proves that the majority can commit mistakes.

I'm sorry, it sounds like you're making my individual rights argument.

Obviously democracy is flawed, because the majority cannot be trusted NOT to run roughshod over the minority.

[MrFun]

I am an American, and I vote for democracy over capitalism.

The right for the majority to rule, while the minority groups are protected, is fundamentally important for our country and government, in my opinion.

Just look at the ideals (not necessarily reality) that was set forth in the Declaration of Independence.

[David Floyd]

The right for the majority to rule, while the minority groups are protected, is fundamentally important for our country and government, in my opinion.

That isn't democracy - that's a government that primarily protects individual rights.

[kolpo]

Hitler didn't got more then 50% of the votes so it is undemocratic that he got all the power, that ahs more to do with a bad constitution then the failure of democracy.

If I look around the world and compare the democratic nations with the non democractic ones can I only conclude that democratic nations are in general more tolerant, less racist, less violent then non-democratic ones.

Here become we angry about a simply sex scandal of a president, in despotistic nations can't peopel even become angry about genocide taht's the difference. Democratic nations tolerant because minorities ahve a vote! And all minorities combined can form a majority! Especial in a nation where there are 2 political blocks who get quite equal votes can minorities gain lot's of influence.

Also in msot democracies have people democracicly elected leaders who amde laws to protect minorities, that's also democracy.

[David Floyd]

If I look around the world and compare the democratic nations with the non democractic ones can I only conclude that democratic nations are in general more tolerant, less racist, less violent then non-democratic ones.

Obviously the US, Israel, South Korea, and much of Western Europe aren't democracies then.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by David Floyd


That isn't democracy - that's a government that primarily protects individual rights.

Did you reach the bottom of the second large bottle of beer yet, Rebel??


Seriously -- can you have a democracy that does not protect invidividual rights?

[kolpo]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Obviously the US, Israel, South Korea, and much of Western Europe aren't democracies then.

Compared to real non-democratic nations like China, North Korea and Iraq are the democratic ones saints.

[kolpo]

Also the ones that form the majority and the minority are different based on whihc political issue it is. People who may think like the majority in social issues can maybe think like the minority in enviromental issues. So In fact belongs quite every person to at least one group of minorities in at least one of there ideas, because everyone is a little bit minority himself will they feel a need to vote for laws to protect the minority against the majority, for that is there most likley a majority!