The part where you implied that "of the people..." meant "in other words,
democracy". That is clearly not what the founders had in mind by that
phrasing. They meant that government could only derive *just* powers by the
consent of the governed as an extension to the inalienable rights of the
governed. This limitation on government is not simply democracy.
- samantha
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-extropians@extropy.org
[mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]On Behalf Of Zero Powers
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 9:18 PM
To: extropians@extropy.org
Subject: Re: election
Did you misread my post? I said it's *not* a perfect democracy. What part
of my post are you calling "false?" I'm confused.
-Zero
Learn how your computer can earn you money while you sleep!
http://www.ProcessTree.com/?sponsor=38158
----- Original Message -----
From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
To: <extropians@extropy.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2000 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: election
> Zero Powers wrote:
> >
> > Well if we *must* split hairs, the US is a tripartite, democratic,
> > constitutional, federal republic. But the overiding principle of the
> > government is supposed to be of the people, by the people and for the
> > people. In other words, democracy.
> >
> > It's not a perfect democracy, but a democracy it is.
> >
> >
> False. In a pure democracy the majority can violate any and all rights
> of the individual when and if it wants to. The "just" powers of
> government are derived from the individual rights of the people. If the
> government includes the power to nullify those rights then it cannot be
> just. The founders most certainly did not have in mind to create a
> simple democracy. A "perfect" democracy is perfectly horrid.
>
> - samantha
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT