posted on Jan, 19 2011 @ 10:36 AM
["no, we have a house of representatives and a court system that may over rule the vote of the people, if it is plainly wrong (this is a necessary
function of a republic, to keep the masses from trying to vote away each other's human rights, to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, freedom of
speech, freedom of religion and etc.)."]
I suggest, that you together with some contemplation of logic and general semantics also include some thoughts on political philosophy.
What is "....the vote of the people, if it is plainly wrong...." referring to (relating to the word "plainly")? Are 'authorities' (beloved in
christian worldviews) some kind of ultimate reality-interpretators, or are they (ideally) just administrators of an even higher democratic principle:
A constitution, which even authorities must bend to.
And a democratic constitution is ALSO an expression of majority ruling, and fortunately so embedded in safe-guards (AND public opinion), that it
can't be toppled by palace revolutions just like that, but requires some complex procedures to change. Ofcourse all the competing power-groups, be it
politicians, ideological leaders, military or the money-grabbers try to get around it, as they best can (to my knowledge US has been in a 'state of
emergency' for decades, thus centralizing power), but in a functional democracy the ultimate 'power' lies with the herd (which you called mob) for
good or bad.
What seemingly is your alternative suggestion: Elitism, has been tried in many different versions, from 'representatives' of the proletariat,
'god's elected', social Darwinists expressing alpha superiority (grabbing money is a sign of competence) to nazi ideals of ethnic perfection. And
the resulting oppression is always more brutal and more extensive than in a functional true democracy.
Quote: ["there have been times in the past, where this has happened here in the usa because the public at large, wanted to refuse these basic human
rights to a group of people they disagreed with for whatever reason."]
Nothing new here. This has happened everywhere and still happens somewhere, and only demonstrates a/ that these cultures/nations/political
constellations were NOT egalitarian, liberal, secular democracies (but elitist) and b/ that they sorely needed to become such democracies.
A, possibly pop-psychology, interpretation of your mindset suggests to me, that you start from some basis of general competitiveness, which you have
taken down to an individual level, instead of seeing it in the context of a society we all have to live in, in spite of our differences on
Democracy is a compromise and all its institutions' main function is to balance the various power groups into an (maybe uneasy) armistice.
You are constantly hinting at some undefined 'injustice', you want to repair. But you're never really getting to any demonstrable point, but circle
around alpha attitudes of: I have rights, because I'm right. Putting you at the fringe or outside democracy.
Try to get some basic social principles in order, from where you can refer to this or that example. I have a bid for such principles as a conceptual
and practical starting-point: "There's freedom FROM........And there's freedom TO......".
Should you choose to remain with elitist principles, it would be more convincing if you formulated such principles clearly instead of falling back on
quarulous whining on 'the oppressors are oppressed', the same old self-pitying song all extremists from all camps have been singing for eternities.