From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Apr 19 2003 - 16:57:57 MDT
Samantha writes
> Artillo5@cs.com wrote:
> > With something as serious and important as waging war on another country, I
> > think that something as simple as a popular vote on whether or not we go to
> > war could be effective, IF we were presented with all sides of the issue, and
> > IF people cared enough to be that well informed. That way, we couldn't really
> > say that the war wasn't decided by the people rather than by the
> > administration.
>
> I meant what in the current setup could have been done that was
> not done by the people obviously against this "war"? We marched
> and wrote congress critters by the hundreds of thousands and
> millions and the war still went on. It would be very nice if a
> war was put to the vote of all the people but this is not the
> case. Even what the Constitution says is needed for declaring a
> war was circumvented. So what could we have done differently
> and what can be done differently the next time around?
Gee, that's a toughie. It sounds like you did everything you
could. One big problem---that even a mobocracy vote wouldn't
have helped---was that a majority of people were for the war.
One solution is to just let other people around the world
vote too. Why should decisions by the American government
be influenced only by American voters? Sounds rather unfair.
But even then, on many issues the vote could still go against
you. That is, no matter how much you marched, no matter how much
civil disobedience, the majority might continue to stubbornly
persist in an incorrect opinion. Have you studied Lenin? He
had a solution. You mobilize the vanguard of the people (you
and the marchers), and then you get your way like he did.
Sometimes the masses just have to be led by those who see
more clearly, that's all.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Apr 19 2003 - 17:06:56 MDT