This frikkin' insane!

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
What about the modern fundamentalist christian who votes to ban abortion but doesn't personally shoot abortionists?

Lawful good (By that person's definition of good, in any event. Good is always a relative term to the ethics of the individual.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
This is what a very, very narrow form of democracy is, take it or leave it.

Fixed.

Originally posted by snoopy369
The people have the power to decide what is right or wrong, as a group, and we all agree to live with the decisions of the majority.

So in your theoretical democratic set-up, there is no such thing as an inalienable right? If 51% of the voting population sees it fit to interfere in the private lives of individual citizens, whether it concerns them or not, that's OK?

[Kuciwalker]

For better or for worse the right for a 17 year old boy to have oral sex with a 15 year old girl without facing 10 years in prison isn't enshrined in our country's constitution quite as much as some other rights. What do you suggest the judge do in this situation?

[snoopy369]

Indeed, as kuci says. There are inalienable rights, but there are few of them, and to claim that every situation that you disagree with involves one of them lessens the actually important ones quite a lot.

[LordShiva]

I didn't even read the OP, actually. I'm commenting on what snoopy said.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva

[q="snoopy369"]
This is what democracy is, take it or leave it.[/q]
Fixed.

Erm, no. Democracy is allowing the people who live in a society, as a group, to decide on the laws that govern them. That's what democracy is, period. Anything that allows individuals to determine which laws they follow and which they ignore, is anarchy. Either one person determines the laws society follows[despotism/monarchy], or several people [oligarchy/representative], or most or all of the people [republic/democracy] - or everyone determines individually what they do [anarchy].

You choose to live where you want.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva
I didn't even read the OP, actually. I'm commenting on what snoopy said.

Given that what I said was in context of the OP, I suggest you read the OP next time

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Either one person determines the laws society follows[despotism/monarchy], or several people [oligarchy/representative], or most or all of the people [republic/democracy] - or everyone determines individually what they do [anarchy].

"Republic" and "Democracy" are really not the same thing.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Given that what I said was in context of the OP, I suggest you read the OP next time

OK, I did now. I actually agree with you about the mandate of the judiciary.

But not with "majority will = teh roxxors, if you don't like it, go live in a dictatorship"

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LordShiva


"Republic" and "Democracy" are really not the same thing.

They both are goverment by the many, which is how I was classifying governments.

I don't claim that the will of the majority is always right, or even the best thing. Frankly I think benign dictatorship is the best form of government, once someone figures out how to ensure the 'benign' part. But ... it's the way things work here, and it's wrong to take the law into your own hands, ever. If the law is 'wrong', either agitate to get it changed, or move somewhere else. Or overthrow the government. Don't just ignore laws and suggest others should also. That leads to anarchy, which is much, much worse.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

When and if Sonny Purdue grants a pardon, can I assume there will be an acknowledgement of sanity, or will it simply be more of the south is teh suck and teh GOP is teh evil.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
They both are goverment by the many, which is how I was classifying governments.

The former is really "government by one who has been approved by the many," but I get what you're saying. Political classifications are spectral, anyway.

Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't claim that the will of the majority is always right, or even the best thing. Frankly I think benign dictatorship is the best form of government, once someone figures out how to ensure the 'benign' part. But ... it's the way things work here, and it's wrong to take the law into your own hands, ever. If the law is 'wrong', either agitate to get it changed, or move somewhere else. Or overthrow the government. Don't just ignore laws and suggest others should also. That leads to anarchy, which is much, much worse.

To overthrow the government, don't you sometimes need to take the law into you own hands, and ignore laws and suggest others should also?

Again, though, I understand what you're saying. There should be no place for judicial activism, and definitely not for vigilante justice. But in a less-than-ideal world, there are cases in which I wouldn't condemn a judge for making use of some leeway when delivering a ruling. (I'm not referring to the subject of the OP here) Laws may be patently unjust, but more often, there are simply too many variables for even the most conscientiously-written law to encompass, and here, the application of case-specific, independent thinking on the part of a judge is critical.

[Drogue]

While I didn't read the whole thing, it just makes me glad I don't live in Georgia. How many people have oral sex while just underage? 10 years for something so common, where most people are neither caught nor prosecuted, is unduly harsh.

[snoopy369]

The reason i'd clarify that a lawful person might overthrow the government, is that if the government fails to be in and of itself lawful - then the people who make up the society may choose to establish a new government, so long as it is with the intent of establishing a new regime of law. That would still be lawful, even if it breaks the 'law' of the previously established government. It would be pretty iffy, in any event.

However, breaking the law with the intent of anarchy is not lawful by any definition.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by snoopy369
The reason i'd clarify that a lawful person might overthrow the government, is that if the government fails to be in and of itself lawful...

Governments can be lawful, and still be worthy of being overthrown.

You're defining "lawful" to be "democratic," and in doing so, are committing the same mistake, to a different degree, out on which you called Solver.

(How's that for not ending a sentence in a preposition, BTW?)