If you aren't sure what they are trying to accomplish, this should clarify it...

[Tallpine]

as long as citizens can vote for the representatives that are making these decisions, it isn't 'the state' that is making the choice, it is the citizens

Yeah, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper...

[mellestad]

You must not have noticed that Congress just passed a major health care bill that 3/4 of the people opposed.

 

And if the people are still riled up in the next election cycle, they can vote those villians out, can't they?  And the saints they vote in can repeal it and make the federal government do whatever they want.  All you need is enough political power to accomplish that.  This is a Republic, not mob rule democracy.  You know that.

Also, saying 3/4 of the citizenry opposed it is an oversimplification, and 3/4 certainly do not oppose it now.  Depending on how you cheat and lie about the statistical data, support for the bill is and was between 45-55%, mostly along party lines.  You can show a >50% disapproval of the bill, but only if you count the Democrats who think it failed because it did not go far enough and grant universal coverage.  We can quote polls at one another if you want, that should be productive.

@slavery:  I've said my bit on that, you can accuse me of dodging all you want, I am clearly open to discussing the issue in proper context.  That is the last response I'll make to your request in this thread, feel free to have the last word.

[mellestad]

Yeah, democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for supper...

I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger?  We're just back to the same argument where you say libertarianism is better than anything else and I ask for proof.

There will always be haves and have nots, no matter what your system is.

[Jamisjockey]

Yes, but in a democracy the have nots get to vote to steal from the haves.   

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger? 

That tees it up perfectly...

I'll let someone else knock it out of the park.

 

[mellestad]

Yes, but in a democracy the have nots get to vote to steal from the haves.   

And the haves typically hold far greater political power per capita than the have nots, so some sort of balance is achieved, and political change is slowed down dramatically by those checks and balances.

[mellestad]

That tees it up perfectly...

I'll let someone else knock it out of the park.

 

Yes, someone please explain how you build a functional government (that you would support) without democracy.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Yes, someone please explain how you build a functional government (that you would support) without democracy.

Do you truly not understand what it is in our system of government that constrains the unbridled will of the people (or of the peoples representatives)?

 

[mellestad]

Do you truly not understand what it is in our system of government that constrains the unbridled will of the people (or of the peoples representatives)?

 

If you have a point to make about the original quote, just make it and save us all some time.

Edit:  And yes, I understand fully no-one here is arguing that democracy should be abolished, but pithy quotes don't help and I was trying to get the original poster to commit to something more substantial.

Second Edit:  I'm out, I'll respond when I wander back around.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the fact that the electorate is not the supreme law of the land in this country, the constitution is.  The constitution defines what the government (i.e. the people, via their elected representatives) may and may not do.

You seem to think that whatever the voters want is A-OK, that the very act of voting for something makes it legit.  Well, no.  Hell no!  There are some things you can't vote into law.  Quite a lot of things, thankfully.

The constitution is the difference between real liberty and those two wolves and the lamb voting on dinner.  It's a darned good thing, given that we're all the lamb at one time or another.

The constitution is the biggest impediment to statism we have.  I assume that's why people of your political stripes always seem eager to ignore it, or dance around its limitations, or redefine it into meaninglessness.

The constitution is why we can't vote for inherently evil things like slavery.  That's one of the reason I wanted to get you on record as being against slavery.  The fact that you couldn't bring yourself to condemn slavery as evil makes me wonder about your true intentions. 

But if you can't condemn slavery, howsabout murder?  Should the electorate be allowed to vote on murdering certain segments of the population (perhaps, say, people who post on internet message boards under names beginning with 'm')?  Would such an act by the electorate be inherently evil?

If you can answer that question honestly, and then reason through all of the implications, then you'll understand why none of us here can tolerate socialism or any other form of tyranny or oppression.  

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

What can change?

Especially when 50% of households did not pay income tax and over 40%'of that got money back in the form of a hand out. Approaching over half the population not paying income taxes and reliant on hand outs, that is a mob rule voting block.

[mellestad]

The piece of the puzzle you're missing is the fact that the electorate is not the supreme law of the land in this country, the constitution is.  The constitution defines what the government (i.e. the people, via their elected representatives) may and may not do.

You seem to think that whatever the voters want is A-OK, that the very act of voting for something makes it legit.  Well, no.  Hell no!  There are some things you can't vote into law.  Quite a lot of things, thankfully.

The constitution is the difference between real liberty and those two wolves and the lamb voting on dinner.  It's a darned good thing, given that we're all the lamb at one time or another.

The constitution is the biggest impediment to statism we have.  I assume that's why people of your political stripes always seem eager to ignore it, or dance around its limitations, or redefine it into meaninglessness.

The constitution is why we can't vote for inherently evil things like slavery.  That's one of the reason I wanted to get you on record as being against slavery.  The fact that you couldn't bring yourself to condemn slavery as evil makes me wonder about your true intentions. 

But if you can't condemn slavery, howsabout murder?  Should the electorate be allowed to vote on murdering certain segments of the population (perhaps, say, people who post on internet message boards under names beginning with 'm')?  Would such an act by the electorate be inherently evil?

If you can answer that question honestly, and then reason through all of the implications, then you'll understand why none of us here can tolerate socialism or any other form of tyranny or oppression. 

Ah, I see, like how our constitution banned slavery in the beginning?  Oh, wait...

Your argument only makes sense if you make the assumption that the constitution bans any form of socialism.  You say it does (I assume), and the supreme court (for a long time) has said it doesn't.  So get the political power together to elect presidents and congress critters who are willing to put in supreme court justices who will overturn everything you don't like.  This isn't rocket science, and I don't see how you added anything new to the basic debate, all you did was raise the emotional stakes of your initial argument, say, by saying socialism is one slippery slope away from state sponsored murder, among all the other appeals to emotion in your post.

Once again we are back to the point where you are flatly asserting that your political views are objectively, moraly, true, this time by appealing to a minority opinion of a source of authority, the constitution.  And how do we resolve this difference of opinion?  Politics and representative democracy.

[mellestad]

Are we past the point of productive debate here?  Should we just let the thread die?

[Monkeyleg]

We could just re-name it the "Mellestad/HTG argument thread".

[Perd Hapley]

HTG was just saying that the American form of government places beau-coup obstacles in the way of pure democracy.  

Your argument only makes sense if you make the assumption that the constitution bans any form of socialism.

Actually, the Constitution does not specifically empower the national govt. to enact socialist policies.  This should be enough to settle the issue.  Unfortunately, the very anti-democratic Supreme Court has not so ruled.  You are correct, in that a large enough super-majority can ultimately override even the Constitution itself, but that is not very democratic, either.  

 

Ah, I see, like how our constitution banned slavery in the beginning?  Oh, wait...

Not relevant.

Are we past the point of productive debate here?  Should we just let the thread die?

I believe I told you earlier that the time for debate is over.  If so, I'm glad we now agree.  

[mellestad]

We could just re-name it the "Mellestad/HTG argument thread".

I think I'll bow out, I've said my bit and explained my position, others have said their bit.  We've been circling for a couple pages without saying anything new.  At this point either observers have accepted the validity of a mixed social and economic system, or they have rejected it in favor of a pure social and economic system.  I've done my best to be clear and give and honest argument.

I imagine I could be baited by fistul for at least another thousand posts though, so I'll have to go cold turkey on him

@HTG:  I'd still like to see that thread on objective morality someday, if people are polite I'll drag that one out till a week after Ragnarok.

Edit: @Mak:  I'd still like to see a response on the economic development index stuff.  I don't want to fight, I'm honestly curious.  PM me if you would rather go that route.

[Tallpine]

I know that is a clever quip of indeterminate origin, but since that is the basic nature of a democratic system do you have any suggestions on how to divide political power without that danger?

Some old white guys came up with a pretty good solution a couple hundred years ago.

Too bad we're not following it anymore 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I've done my best to be clear and give and honest argument.

You "best" is pretty weak.  

 

From my perspective it doesn't look like you've been at all honest or open in this debate.  You throw out your points and expect us to take them seriously, and then you turn around and completely ignore, sidestep, or dismiss any countervailing points the rest of us make to you.

@HTG:  I'd still like to see that thread on objective morality someday, if people are polite I'll drag that one out till a week after Ragnarok.

If you want such a thread, go start one.  I'm not interested in any long-winded interpretations form you on objective morality.  I just want to know if you're ok with slavery or not.

[mellestad]

You "best" is pretty weak.  

 

From my perspective it doesn't look like you've been at all honest or open in this debate.  You throw out your points and expect us to take them seriously, and then you turn around and completely ignore, sidestep, or dismiss any countervailing points the rest of us make to you.
If you want such a thread, go start one.  I'm not interested in any long-winded interpretations form you on objective morality.  I just want to know if you're ok with slavery or not.

I have to ask.  Can you give me specific examples of where I failed to answer a question, or ignored a response?

I've disagreed with many people's points, but I don't think I've ignored, avoided or sidestepped anything in this debate (besides your slavery derail attempt).  Since I've made a specific request for people to keep me honest in this debate, I would appreciate a specific acusation so I can resolve it.

Put your money where your mouth is Headless.  (Haha, you don't have a mouth.  You're headless!)