Him.
Oh good. I was afraid it wasn’t clear that I had paraphrased his question.
It’s a fallacy to claim that the poor & economically disenfranchised are not invested in society. We are all interested.
Disenfranchising the landless merely protects from legal retribution those who would swindle land from their peers.
That stood out to me too. Add me to this request please. Huerta88, if you have some sort of anthropological evidence that people in pre-historical societies respected private property, I’d love to see it. As far as my own studies have indicated pre-governmental societies worked much like dogs marking turf. You might smell some other dogs scent on a tree, but unless he was standing there growling, then you lifted your leg and took the tree for your own and prior claims be damned. Even if the other dog was standing there, growling, if you thought you could take him, you did. Then you took the stuff he thought was his, his hunting grounds, his bitches, any and everything.
Huerta88, what makes you believe man was/is any different? Respect for Private Property being the defacto state of the world, especially without social contract governments, is a pretty radical statement from my point of view. Do you have any evidence to back it up? I’m not sure it applies now, and I’m very skeptical about it applying in a pre-historical context.
Enjoy,
Steven
So, as noted, they’ve passed a law in Afghanistan that seems clearly contrary to their own constitution. Is there any chance that the Stara Makama, the Afghan Supreme Court, will (or can) overturn the law? Our system works because of separation of powers; the checks and balances of three co-equal branches of government, based on constitutional principles.
Certainly, democracy without such a system is tyranny of the majority. (And considering that GWB went to Yale and to Harvard Business School, and still manages to be shit-for-brains, I’m glad there’s at least some counter to the landed gentry.)
The OP has confused majority rule with democracy.
Well, majority rule is democracy. Sure, there are things like “representative democracy” which isn’t actually democracy, but democracy itself is majority rule.
He has confused taking a statement that nobody believes, accusing one group of holding it, while ignoring that another group that he apparently likes better seems to hold it more…with intelligent and reasonable argument.
Says who?
We took a vote, and decided that’s what “democracy” means.
No, majorities can be tyrannies that run amok over the rights of others. They’re inherently more democratic than your various oligarchies, monarchies, totalitarian regimes, etc, but one of our biggest problems with democracy is that we think we’re there. We’re not.
An absolute democracy may not be possible but that doesn’t mean no more progress in that direction can be made. There are ways to reach decisions, including relatively binding ones, that are closer to total consensus than “OK everyone we’re gonna have a vote now”.