It's a free country!!

[H2Andy]

Not quite. In a strict democracy (direct or representative), majority rules. In a republic, majority rule is balanced against the rule of law which can protect individual and property rights against the will of a majority.

this distinction is really meaningless. even Athenian democracy (considered a direct democracy) had checks and balances against majority rule. for example, citizens were selected at random (by lot) to government offices and courts; this prevented "popular" people from being elected to represent majority wishes.

also, there was a separation of powers in effect, with the assembly, council, and courts checking each other's respective actions (very much like the separation of powers doctrine in the US Constitution)

so, as you can see, even direct democracies (and certainly representative democracies) had rule of law to balance the majority.

a republic really is just another name for a representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy

 

[drbill]

"Free" country... you should see the prices on groceries at my local monopolistic Vons!

The issue of freedom must take into account the rights of others. Personally I'd ban smoking everywhere but one's own home. Yes, I'm an ex smoker. However, I do not feel ANYONE has the right to smoke in my presence IF I have to breathe their fumes. I think cigarettes should be banned as an addictive substance. I'd even execute tobacco company executives for murder.

However, I do feel you have a point with smoking in establishments. If a restaurant or bar owner wants to make their place open to smokers, I do have the option of electing not to go into a "private" business. I can live with that. However, in public areas (including public buildings) no way.

As for cell phone use, if a cell phone is being used on a public street... no way. I've come close several times to having accidents with morons who are talking on their cell phones while driving the freeway. Cell phone use on public roadways endangers me and a host of others. Ban it... good!

When the actions of another in a public location endanger me, they lose their rights and "freedoms." When they are at home or in a less public place, I'm OK with their decisions.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Okay, I have to vent so bare with me and realize....I'm just venting!!

If it's such a free country, why weren't WE asked if WE wanted to dump a total of $50 billion dollars our OUR money into GM? GM is currently valued at approximately $500 mil. In order to break even (according to financial wizards) the company would have to be valued at somewhere between $62B and $69B!!! Anyone willing to make that investment is a sucker! They'd have been better off letting them go into bankruptcy on their own and use the $50 billion for national programs that create jobs for those that would lose their's.

If this is such a free country, why wasn't I allowed to vote on what I can do in my car? A few men/women in political seats agreed to making cell phone use/texting illegal but never even asked their constituents. Must be nice to get fat on insurance lobby money.

If it's such a free country, why is it in many cities (and that number grows) that a business owner can't choose to allow smoking? The dangers are pretty well known by everyone over 12 years old. So if I go into a business that has clearly visible signs stating it's a smoking establishment AND they ask, "smoking or non-smoking" I should accept the risks, not make everyone else stop. NOTE: I am a non-smoker! Even more crazy, a city here in california is trying, or maybe has by now, to make smoking on the street illegal. Yeah....the auto emissions, water shortages, state deficit are all issues but let's focus on the second hand smoke issue outdoors just in case it happens when there is NO wind or even a breeze!!

The other day I open my yahoo home page. It shows the top 5 searches for the day. Three were regarding reality tv show, one was music and one was Iran. Seriously? This is our priorities? I'm still worried about that crazy bastard in N. Korea!!! :shocked2:

Okay....I could go on forever but I'll go do something more productive. Hope everyone has a great day. Surprisingly, I do feel better. :cool2:

That was FUN. Thanks. By the way, I stayed at a Holiday inn Express last night

 

[fireflock]

this distinction is really meaningless. even Athenian democracy (considered a direct democracy) had checks and balances against majority rule. for example, citizens were selected at random (by lot) to government offices and courts; this prevented "popular" people from being elected to represent majority wishes.

also, there was a separation of powers in effect, with the assembly, council, and courts checking each other's respective actions (very much like the separation of powers doctrine in the US Constitution)

so, as you can see, even direct democracies (and certainly representative democracies) had rule of law to balance the majority.

a republic really is just another name for a representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy

No it's not. A representative democracy doesn't have fixed (or super hard to change) laws that limit what the majority (direct or representative) can do via government. Separation of powers and a well thought out system for selecting representatives are a nice way to balance the rule of the majority, but they are not enough to end up with what we have in the US.

It's only a meaningless distinction if you're not the one whose property or individual/natural rights are being impinged upon by the majority. If you happen to be part of that small group, the distinction becomes pretty darned important.

There's no doubt that the common use meanings of words changes over time, and we can argue all day long about how close or far we are today to the system set up 200+ years ago.

Still, the the distinction was important enough when the Declaration and Constitution were written that the word 'democracy' wasn't included. Those documents were written and re-written by smart people, over and over again. The omission of the word 'democracy' wasn't an accident. (but it was shaped by what those 2 words meant in the late 1700's and not what people use them to mean today).

I know the democracy/republic argument has been co-opted by folks on one side of the political spectrum, but that's not enough to dismiss it out of hand. You can argue that a representative republic is really a special subcategory of representative democracy, or that a republic is a democracy plus something else, but you can't argue that they are the same

 

[H2Andy]

No it's not. A representative democracy doesn't have fixed (or super hard to change) laws that limit what the majority (direct or representative) can do via government.

it's a distinction of degree. as i showed you, even direct democracies have mechanisms in place to control majority rule

are they as efficient as the US Constitution? No

but then again, we had 2000 years of government/political theory to benefit from

 

[fireflock]

So there is a distinction (of degree), but it's meaningless?

If it's meaningless, why make the distinction?

Only you can decide how important the distinction is to you. We have pretty good evidence of how important the distinction was to the people who took those 2000 years of theory/experience and came up with something just a bit better.

Happy 4th.

 

[MikeFerrara]

"Free" country... you should see the prices on groceries at my local monopolistic Vons!

The issue of freedom must take into account the rights of others. Personally I'd ban smoking everywhere but one's own home. Yes, I'm an ex smoker. However, I do not feel ANYONE has the right to smoke in my presence IF I have to breathe their fumes. I think cigarettes should be banned as an addictive substance. I'd even execute tobacco company executives for murder.

However, I do feel you have a point with smoking in establishments. If a restaurant or bar owner wants to make their place open to smokers, I do have the option of electing not to go into a "private" business. I can live with that. However, in public areas (including public buildings) no way.

As for cell phone use, if a cell phone is being used on a public street... no way. I've come close several times to having accidents with morons who are talking on their cell phones while driving the freeway. Cell phone use on public roadways endangers me and a host of others. Ban it... good!

When the actions of another in a public location endanger me, they lose their rights and "freedoms." When they are at home or in a less public place, I'm OK with their decisions.

Bill,

Restraining people from harming each other has always been an accepted role of government in this country. I think some of your examples are debatable though. As you point out, I don't know where the government gets off telling a business owner that he/she can't allow smoking. If you don't like it, spend your money elsewhere or work elsewhere. For many many years about the only public building you could smoke in have been bars and some restaurants anyway. LOL, Personally, I don't like bars or restaurants with or without the smoking.

But you want to outlaw smoking? How about outlawing everything that's potentially dangerous? Maybe they should make us stop diving...and there's no way they should let me ride my horse...or even do my job which is shoeing horses because it gets pretty dangerous sometimes. When you execute tobacco execs are going to do in the execs of scuba equipment manufacturers and certification agencies too? LOL when the government starts trying to protect people from themselves, it's time to get a new government...and we should have started working on that when they passed the seatbelt laws.

As far as cell phones...I spend a lot of time on the Chicago toll roads and there's always someone trying to run into me. Lots of them are on the phone but they're also reading the paper or doing something else. I haven't noticed the roads getting any worse. Is there evidence that the accident rate has gone up because of cell phones? In any case POOR driving should absolutely be illegal (and I think it is) and, personally, I don't care why the driving is poor. If we have to outlaw each individual potential cause, we'll be writing legislation till the cows come home...and what if we miss one? Probably the biggest reason driving is poor is because most people demonstrably aren't very good at it. You don't need to know much about driving to get a license to drive.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Okay, I have to vent so bare with me and realize....I'm just venting!!

If it's such a free country, why weren't WE asked if WE wanted to dump a total of $50 billion dollars our OUR money into GM? GM is currently valued at approximately $500 mil. In order to break even (according to financial wizards) the company would have to be valued at somewhere between $62B and $69B!!! Anyone willing to make that investment is a sucker! They'd have been better off letting them go into bankruptcy on their own and use the $50 billion for national programs that create jobs for those that would lose their's.

Of course, now we know that they went bankrupt anyway and should be oporating under the name Government Moters.

My vote would have been to leave the 50 billion (or whatever it ends up being) in the hands of the people who EARNED it. "Earning"...now there's an interesting concept for you. huh?

 

[H2Andy]

So there is a distinction (of degree), but it's meaningless?

yup ...

it's ok if you dont' get it

 

[D_B]

If we can get GM to produce something revolutionary like electric cars with good speed and range, that recharge using something other than fossil fuels, the money will have been well spent.

Also, FWIW, there's no such thing as "wasting" money. Even if GM does "something", then fails, doing "something" will have provided jobs, and paid people so they could keep the lights on, pay the phone bill and buy food. The end product isn't as important as the process.

Terry

at the GM training center in Burbank there are probably 50 or more hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles on the lot, it is and will be the training center for all fuel cell vehicles and a service center, they are farther along on hydrogen fuel, and the infrastructure needed to support it, than anyone else.
and GM is coming out with the first true hybrid vehicle, the Chevy Volt, one where the highly tuned and efficient gas engine does not drive the car, but recharges the batteries when needed

I get tired of hearing that GM does not make efficient cars (more 30mpg and above models than anyone else) or cars that no one wants ... who do you think was driving the sale of SUV's??? ... the customers.
... people don't want the kind of cars found in Europe , they don't sell until the gas goes over 4 dollars a gallon .. when it goes back down, people forget all about small and efficiant cars