Nationwide protest against Proposition 8 tomorrow.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Founding Fathers

are dead.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


are dead.

They are?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kidicious


The rich were worried about mob rule because they weren't the mob. Protecting the rights of minorities is something different entirely, unless you want to consider the rich a minority, and in that case the minority rules.

Just because I would not have sympathize entirely with wealthy elite or loyalists does not mean I cannot recognize when such individuals have made legitimate, rational points.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
are dead.

Doesn't mean they are wrong about what 'democracy' means. Hell, all the ancient Greeks are dead and they created the word.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
The Founding Fathers did not believe that the "wikipedia definition" is the definition of the term 'democracy'.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

James Madison - Federalist #10

That doesn't say that they weren't creating a democracy, only that they intended to create a good democracy where everyone has equal rights. Sure you can call tyranny of the majority democracy because everyone has an equal vote. But everyone does not have equal power. Therefore it is a weak democracy, not a strong one.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by MrFun
Just because I would not have sympathize entirely with wealthy elite or loyalists does not mean I cannot recognize when such individuals have made legitimate, rational points.

Sure they saved their own asses and became the real rulers of a new government. That doesn't mean that a majority of people should oppress a minority or that such a thing should be called a democracy, but then neither should the rich ruling over the majority be called a democracy either.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Doesn't mean they are wrong about what 'democracy' means. Hell, all the ancient Greeks are dead and they created the word.

Our (as in, we living people) definition is the one that counts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
That doesn't say that they weren't creating a democracy, only that they intended to create a good democracy where everyone has equal rights. Sure you can call tyranny of the majority democracy because everyone has an equal vote. But everyone does not have equal power. Therefore it is a weak democracy, not a strong one.

You've never read The Federalist Papers have you? I thought if I just gave you an excerpt of Federalist 10, you'd be able to piece if out... we'll that'll teach me:

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction,

Hell, even in my own quoted section!!:

Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

The Founders were opposed to the idea of a democracy, but pushed for a republican form of government.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Doesn't mean they are wrong about what 'democracy' means. Hell, all the ancient Greeks are dead and they created the word.

And the definition of the word has changed since the ancient times as well as since the American revolution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Our (as in, we living people) definition is the one that counts.

And we the living people usually go back to the source of the word to figure out what it means. The term the "United States is a republic, not a democracy" is telling.

Also "we living people" equate "communism" with Stalin and Mao. Is that the definition of "communism" that counts to you?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And the definition of the word has changed since the ancient times as well as since the American revolution.

Nope.

It's like you've never heard the saying: "We're a Republic, not a Democracy"

[Kidlicious]

Imran,

"pure democracy" is different from democracy. You should have said that in the first place. The only way you can have a good pure democracy is if you don't have minorities, as in communism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Nope.

It's like you've never heard the saying: "We're a Republic, not a Democracy"

Yes, I hear that from conservatives

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Imran,

"pure democracy" is different from democracy. You should have said that in the first place. The only way you can have a good pure democracy is if you don't have minorities, as in communism.

As Democracy = Rule of the People (from its root), pure democracy IS a part of the term 'democracy'. Therefore a vote to strip a minority of power is democratic. It is not something that fits for liberal democracy, but that is simply another part of the term democracy.

So it makes no sense to say a vote of the people that limits someone's right is not democratic. That's exactly what it is. And these type of referenda are an attempt to include pure or direct democracy into the republican form.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Yes, I hear that from conservatives

Who are, btw, absolutely correct.