> The answer is not to rebel against a democratic system - it is to encourage
> rational people to get off their bitching and moaning asses and use the system
to vote in >saner policies and politicians. First you decry that there are no acceptable Republicans anymore, then you say we must work through the system. If the system excludes those that represent your sentiments, then you have the Constitutional right to rebel against that government, by any means necessary. I want a system that knows inherently to stay away from my wallet. I shouldn't have to bribe some slimeballs to make sure it happens. I might as well pay taxes then.
You have the constitutional right to either run yourself, and see how many voters share your sentiments enough to vote for you, or to find and support candidates who do share your sentiments. That is the rebellious and revolutionary means supplied by the same constitution which houses the 2nd Amendment (the overthrowing an unjust government part is in the Declaration of Independence). The remarkable thing about our form of government is that it is perpetually evolving in response to the expressed will of the people. It cannot do so perfectly (utopias are ideal), but it must do so adequately (to forstall dystopia-inspired uprisings). The means by which it accomplishes this is the interplay between the popular vote and the constitution. The moment you have a multiplicity of people living in close proximity whose freedoms may conflict, and it is wished that all shall enjoy all freedoms which do not interfere with the exercise of the same freedoms by others (and where freedom!
s collide, the conflict should be resolved by equal and proportional compromise), it is necessary to have a document which codifies these freedoms and their order of precedence, and which prevents a majoritarian tyranny from usurping minority rights; this requires a constitution. The general language of this document must be interpreted to apply to particular cases; this requires a judiciary. Individual bullies and bully groups must be deterred from trampling on the freedoms of their fellows; this requires an executive. The document must be updated to evolve with changing sociocultural and technological realities; this requires a legislative. Finally, the people who occupy these positions must be fairly chosen; this requires free and democratic elections. It has been said that our form of government is the worst there is, with the exception of every other which has been tried. Given the situation as I have described it (and I trust that it is a fair description), exactly !
with what would you replace it, and why and how would your replacement function better than what we've got, if we'll only work with it (notice that the law of club and fang alternative of NO government is intellectually feasible only to pimply-faced adolescent idealist utopians who have not yet abandoned their starry-eyed Randian pubescence in the face of a reality of which they have as of yet inadequate experience).
Joe E. Dees
Poet, Pagan, Philosopher