Democratic choice?

[Stratos]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, it depends. If Senator Palpatine-Bush called for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Vallorum-Lewinsky, which was upheld, there would be a need for a new, stronger Chancellor. Palpatine-Bush is a good choice, and given the state of galactic emergency, he could likely get the Galactic Senate to abdicate some form of limited marshall law. If Palpatine-Bush then were able to free the Galactic Republic from the shackles of fear of some of its problems, notably terrorism brought on by the rebellion in several systems, which may only grow as a result of Palpatine-Bush's rise to power (He IS unpopular in other sectors, you know), then our citizens would have extreme faith in him. By then maybe he would be strong enough to disband the Galactic Senate. At which time, who knows what WoMDs he may release on the fringe systems, including those in the Outer Rim (such as Alderan, which has been rumored to have rebel ties). It is rumored his lackey Rumsfeld-Vader is already looking into possible targets for "extreme deterrence" with some new sort of MOAR (Mother of All Ray-guns) that is in the works. Though, news reports that the MOAR is actually being built IN SPACE itself, as it is much too large to fit on a planet. Rice-Dooku apparently has knowledge and plans for the device, but unlike Rumsfeld-Vader, she has been smart enough not to mention it. Oh, well.

I can´t wait to see the next episode of this.

[Attalus]

In the first place, in a Constitional Republic like the USA, a simple majority could not abrogate the Constitution. The amendment process would come into play, and 2/3 of the state legislatures would have to accept it - an absurdity on the face of it. No, there is no way that the USA would give up its government for some dictatorship. We are too independent, too proud of our freedom. We would have to be conquered, and fortunately, there is no one strong enough to do that.

Originally posted by Yorick: MagiK.... didn't the founding fathers of America do the same thing though? Didn't they make decisions that have affected the generations after them? Like the gun issue. Enshrined in the constitution long after the circumstances have changed. What if those that voted on a dictatorship (communist, fascist or otherwise) were viewed as the "founding fathers" are? Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today? Isn't it all the same principle?

You didn't ask about constitutions..you just made a general question about "A" democracy.

The USA has never actually been a Democracy. There is a reason our constitution is the key to our nations governance....which I am NOT about to get into with you again it would just end up with me being exasperated and asking you to leave if you don't like it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Heck I might even splutter and say that, you not being a citizen don't deserve to talk about it....Ok that was a joke, and I do hope that if I didn't before, that you know I am sorry said those things to you before....but I really don't feel like a deep constitutional debate right now [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today?

1. They were smart enough to try to keep government simple.
2. They were learned orators, philosophers, and businessmen who put lots of thought before their action. If you want us to once again undertake the federalist papers style of public review, maybe I'll consider giving modern folks the same credit.
3. PR, TV spots, insta-commentary by Geraldo Rivera, and 90% of newspapers nationwide being owned by 2 mass media companies were not there to corrupt the process.
4. They had the wherewithall to pick up their guns and knives and overthrow the government they didn't like. If you are willing to join me and other like-minded folks in doing that today, just maybe we'd be deserving of the same credit they got. But so long as our will to power is limited to 80wpm at the keyboard, we are mere armchair quarterbacks.
5-500. Give me some time. I'll think of them. [/QUOTE]You know..some times I am just darn happy I get to meet people like you [img]smile.gif[/img] I love the Internet good post [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Attalus: In the first place, in a Constitional Republic like the USA, a simple majority could not abrogate the Constitution. The amendment process would come into play, and 2/3 of the state legislatures would have to accept it - an absurdity on the face of it. No, there is no way that the USA would give up its government for some dictatorship. We are too independent, too proud of our freedom. We would have to be conquered, and fortunately, there is no one strong enough to do that.

I'm not asking whether such a scenario is possible, or whether it will happen, I'm presenting a hypothetical. What would you do if it did? What if every human bar a handful in your country wanted a dictatorship? Would you go along with the will of the people, or would you believe that your vision of what was good for them, was the right one?

Would you accept the people making a decision you believe to be "wrong".

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today?

1. They were smart enough to try to keep government simple.
2. They were learned orators, philosophers, and businessmen who put lots of thought before their action. If you want us to once again undertake the federalist papers style of public review, maybe I'll consider giving modern folks the same credit.
3. PR, TV spots, insta-commentary by Geraldo Rivera, and 90% of newspapers nationwide being owned by 2 mass media companies were not there to corrupt the process.
4. They had the wherewithall to pick up their guns and knives and overthrow the government they didn't like. If you are willing to join me and other like-minded folks in doing that today, just maybe we'd be deserving of the same credit they got. But so long as our will to power is limited to 80wpm at the keyboard, we are mere armchair quarterbacks.
5-500. Give me some time. I'll think of them. [/QUOTE]1.One party rule is pretty simple.
2.Ah.. they were soldiers, politicians and people like you and I. No better no worse. Unless you're stating that humanity has somehow devolved?
3.No. Orators were there to 'corrupt' the process by influencing others. Same effect different medium.
4.So might makes right? What if they had set up a communist dictatorship with those guns and knives. Would that have made them right?
5-500. Bring them on.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: MagiK.... didn't the founding fathers of America do the same thing though? Didn't they make decisions that have affected the generations after them? Like the gun issue. Enshrined in the constitution long after the circumstances have changed. What if those that voted on a dictatorship (communist, fascist or otherwise) were viewed as the "founding fathers" are? Or, why should we hold the opinions of dead men generations ago as more important and valuable than people aliv e today? Isn't it all the same principle?

You didn't ask about constitutions..you just made a general question about "A" democracy.

The USA has never actually been a Democracy. There is a reason our constitution is the key to our nations governance....which I am NOT about to get into with you again it would just end up with me being exasperated and asking you to leave if you don't like it [img]smile.gif[/img]

Heck I might even splutter and say that, you not being a citizen don't deserve to talk about it....Ok that was a joke, and I do hope that if I didn't before, that you know I am sorry said those things to you before....but I really don't feel like a deep constitutional debate right now [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]I was speaking "A" not the USA specifically. I just used that as an example. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Apology accepted MagiK. No worries mate. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Yorick: I'm not asking whether such a scenario is possible, or whether it will happen, I'm presenting a hypothetical. What would you do if it did? What if every human bar a handful in your country wanted a dictatorship? Would you go along with the will of the people, or would you believe that your vision of what was good for them, was the right one? Would you accept the people making a decision you believe to be "wrong".

In this hypothetical, I would fight to the death to try and keep the "masses" from harming themselves....There would have to be a major mental collapse in these people and it would be my duty to try and save them from themselves..since I can't think of one logical reason why anyone would think one lone dictator would be a good idea....sounds a little like the story arc of the TV series "Angel" that just finished up [img]smile.gif[/img]



[ 05-14-2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Djinn Raffo]

In Canada during the past elections we had a guy named Stockwell Day who was leader of the Canadian Alliance. Part of his agenda was to set up a referendum style way of voting things in. If you could get a petition of a million names or something like this then their would be a referendum and a national vote on the issue.

It lost some of its.. sparkle.. when the people at This Hour Has 22 Minutes put together a petition to hold a referendum to change Stockwell Day's name to Doris Day. Millions of people signed up.

Originally posted by Djinn Raffo: It lost some of its.. sparkle.. when the people at This Hour Has 22 Minutes put together a petition to hold a referendum to change Stockwell Day's name to Doris Day. Millions of people signed up.

[img]graemlins/jawdrop.gif[/img] You are kidding...right? ohh that would be too too funny [img]smile.gif[/img]