The founding fathers declared that government (the Constitution) is instituted to secure our unalienable Rights.
I do not understand the fear that somehow this concept is a threat to Liberty.
rwj
‘There’s glory for you!’
Your conclusion was so far off the mark, I wanted to give you a chance to redeem yourself after making such wild and wrong guesses
Rather than have a system in which elected officials create laws which are then interpreted by judges and enforced by an elected executive, we should have a system in which elected officials create laws which are then weighed by judges against the Truths that We the People find self-evident and enforced by an elected executive.
rwj
The truths found within the philosophy of moral relativism can only be made evident to others when subjective comparisons are made.
Salaam. A
That’s a rather sad commentary on your vocabulary and understanding.
I would ask my fellow posters to this thread to refrain from further posts until and unless our OP lists those states or countries that are not or were not dictatorships according to his definition. He’s playing us for fools, and we shouldn’t let him get away with it. If you feel you must post, then post the question some of us have been asking: Name those countries that are not dictatorships.
It’s like having a debate with an Eliza program. Certain key words trigger responses but there seems to be no connection to the ideas.
That my guesses are wild and wrong says more about your ability to clearly express your thoughts than it does about my ability to understand them.
I’d like to hear more about the role of judges in your system. By what process, exactly, do judges “[weigh laws] against the Truths that We the People find self-evident”? In the current system, judges are able to determine that a law is unconstitutional. You seem to be arguing, however, that the Declaration of Independence—which is not, to my knowledge, a legal document—supercedes the Constitution and should be the basis for judges’ decisions. Do I have that right? In such a system, what determines the validity of a law besides the whim of a judge? For that matter, what happens when a judge decides that a portion of the Constitution is in conflict with the self-evident truths you speak of?
On preview, I’ll join John Mace in asking for an example of a government which you would not consider to be a dictatorship.
Furthermore, I’d appreciate it if you would define the following words: freedom, liberty, justice, self-evident, dictator, dictatorship, and tyranny. Feel free to add any other words for which you plan to use nonstandard definitions. Just to make sure we’re on the same page.
Well, when he uses a word, it means just what he chooses it to mean – neither more nor less.
Forget it, Catalyst. It’s dictator-town.
Man, he/she/it reminds me of another poster way back when, who kept using post-modernist theory or a random post generator, no one was ever sure which. Who was that? 
Wow. I went to public school in Berkeley, California, where we did not have school on Malcom X’s birthday or International Women’s Day, but not a single one of my teachers taught me that the rule of law is a synonym for dictatorship. Since my schooling came from an ultra-liberal slant, I can only assume that you went to school in an ultra-conservative location?
But I agree with John Mace: What countries are not dictatorships? I challenge you to name three.
Sealand, Freedonia & Alexandisle - but those examples hold about as much water as the OP
How do we determine what truths we people have found to be self-evident? And where do we get these Judges who are able to tell what is a “self-evident truth” when the voting populace and their elected representatives have passed laws that contradict this “truth?” How do they get put in office? Are they elected by the same population that voted for the dictatorial laws they are supposed to strike down? Are they appointed by the politicians who wrote those dictatorial laws? Wouldn’t any judge so elected/appointed share precisely the same biases and prejudices as the people who put him in that office?
Especially since Freedonia is moving toward a Sylvanian style of government.
Don’t get greedy. I’ve only been asking for one.
It’s interesting that our esteemed OP seems to have lost interest in his thread now that we have, as a group, forced him to get specific and to quit playing vague word games.
Come on, JWJ, show us what you got! Name that one country and reclaim control of your thread!!
John et. al.:
Just call me a dictator.
I am short on time and wish to pursue my own quest on this thread. Forgive me if I do not bow to your dictates.
I am not familiar enough with other governments and not interested in doing the research necessary to give a proper answer at this time.
Maybe another time.
Peace
Only through Liberty
rwj
Vocabulary yes, understanding no. Words cannot adequately express understanding. There are not enough words.
Take the word crime as an example. In truth, a crime is a tort (harm or threat) against liberty. However most, and especially tyrants define crime as any violation of law. In truth, to harm or threaten liberty in the name of the law is a crime, not the violation of that law.
Yet, it seems most on this board fear truth more than law.
rwj
Still can’t come up with even one country fitting your requirements? Could spend more time on supporting your claims and less time with cheap insults?
Go ahead with your bullshit excuses - you made the claim, the expectation is that you will back it up or retract it.
Can you provide a respectable cite for anything at all you have alleged in this thread? (E.g., that there can exist a democratic dictatorship; that crimes are torts against liberty; that free countries exist, but the US is not one of them; that you’re actually busy and don’t have time to post as opposed to having no decent responses to simple questions, etc.)