" Communism (at least as in the form of China, Cuba, North Korea and the USSR) is not a “majority rule” government, but one where a small, self appointed, insular group at the very top controls everything. Majority rule is, however, a tenet of democracy."

You're mixing a lot of ideologies in your post. There's nothing about democracy that requires free speech, and free speech does not require democracy. Free speech can exist under a capitalist non-democracy, for example. Free speech (ie lack of regulation) is simply not democratic at all.

You also mention many American intellectuals/scientists of the past who would be pretty upset about modern day America's current situation. Most of those guys probably did not want to see democracy taken to the stage that it is at now. A lot of the Founding Fathers, for instance, were not very interested in giving political power to the common man.

As for communism being about majority rule, that's what it's supposed to be. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which is inherently majoritarian since the bourgeoisie are always the minority. It's an ideology built for the largest group of people in the world.. the working class. Not the scientist class, business class, or religious class. So I'm really surprised that so many scientists of the past supported Communism.

>> ^dgandhi:
In a democracy which has granted a financial privilege to a large majority you can pretty well expect that it will not be repealed. Unfortunately expansion of the privilege is the only plausible way forward.
Add this to the list with "taxing churches" of things that make obvious sense but will never happen.


Well, first we're not a democracy, we're a democratic republic, so whether or not a majority is given privilege or not, to me, is not so important. In fact, I don't understand why we think once a law has been set into motion that it cannot be repealed or changed, especially an unconstitutional one.

The bottom line is that marriage remains a religious institution, and therefore government shouldn't recognize it. I think the movement for equal rights in marriage would take a large step forward if the argument was more about challenging the constitutionality of it as opposed to making it equal.

There are better ways to deal with end of life and inheritance, as well. It's called a Will. And child custody has little to nothing to do with marriage, I think.

Now hold on just a minute. This is not a democracy and damn well shouldn't be either. We have administrators. They have ultimate power. Everything we do, we do because they allow it. If a decision really came down to community vs. administrators, there is no real doubt which way it would go. There is really no reason to say otherwise.

Making appointed judges (moderators) may be a way to go, but in all honesty I don't trust half the people in here enough to give them the luxury of real, REAL, moderator powers. What we have now is fine, but if stars can be banned, comments deleted and so on - actual moderator powers - are distributed to users, who just happen to "have a little fun" one day, then boom goes the dynamite.

There is a reason why the admins should and are the admins, because they care for the site, and no matter how bad a day it's been, they won't accidentally destroy the site. (ahem, no one mention 3/11!)

What we could make is a judges corner, or something similar, where all the "drama" happens. This would be * discuss, siftquisitions, and a feed of hobbling, nochannel, ban, discard, kill, all the "bad" powers, so the users that are interested in that could follow it there. We already have some things we handle ourselves, ban spammers and so on, but I would not be at all happy about having moderators, which we essentially don't know anything about - checks and balances, people.

I think the douchebag levels in this thread is exceeding the standard safety limits.

With the rise in new members, comes a natural rise in siftquisitions. Some people may be too limited to realize this, but that's what the grown-ups are here for.

I can certainly sympathize with swampgirl's position, but again, he was banned for a reason. He was continually pestering the admins and fucking up the sift. If he were to be accepted back, it should be as a new member - a new account. I have no problems with that. His ranks stricken and his powers removed. He can start over like videosiftbannedme.

It would be a very poor decision to let him back in again on the choggie account.

>> ^videosiftbannedme:
This is a democracy after all. If the majority wins, then so be it.


It is not a democracy, never was. This is a dictatorship, with the illusion of a democracy. We can vote, but if dag or lucky ultimately say, "nah, we're not gonna go with that" then that is that. And I do hope that this account is not activated again in spite of what any poll says. We have been given the privileges of democratic votes and siftquisitions, but they are not unlimited. We could never ban dag, for instance, if some of the crazies thought of that.

^I didn't say I wasn't defending Austrian Economics (not faith based economics, whatever that is), but it's as if someone cannot bring up sound money policy and fiscally conservative ideas without the defenders of Obama swooping in like unabashed children, labeling all that oppose him as Republicans and then having a gross orgy in front of us while doing so!

I mean, yeah, you and NetRunner are tops, and that's cool for you two 'cause you're pitching in the orgy, but you think the rest of us like watching the two bottoms (volumptuous and rougy, obviously) get pummeled like that? No man's rectum should be worn as a hat!

But seriously, if you think my idea of restraining government and allowing them less right to our money is somehow analogous to feudalism, then I feel sorry for the chicken little fear-laden world you must live in where you fear your neighbor so much. And, here's a quick civics lesson for you: it's a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy. Feel free to read up a little bit about it and get back to me when you've learned a little something about this country you live in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_republic#Purpose_and_scope

Theres time for pacifism and diplomacy, and theres a time for bullets and missiles.

Hitler (Godwin invocation well acknowledged), would not of been stopped with words. Vietnam was a mistake and should of never happened, same with korea. Both could of been taken care of the same way we took care of cuba re: missile crisis.

Molosovic couldn't be stopped with words either...there are times when war is an evil necessity. You cant sit there and pick and choose as a soldier, its not a democracy, the military would not function if it was. So you have no choice but to justify that you are the man on the killing end of the politicians sword, so murder isnt murder. Its a sanctioned mission in the defence of your own nation.

That is justification, whether the mission is justified or not.

The libmedia that assaulted Bush's policies will now praise Obama's decisions to keep them, because The One is on 'their team'.


PS. Someone please tell Howard "historian" Zinn the US is a Republic, not "a democracy".

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
We live in a republic, not a democracy.

Same thing. The definition of republic is much broader than that of a democracy, and USA fulfills both categories. It is a democracy, but it is also a republic.

The distinction usually politically charged, because democrats want to call it a democracy and republicans want to call it a republic. They are both right (or wrong).

We live in a republic, not a democracy. The constitution sets up a system of sound money not fiat currency, and for good reason. I think it was funny how he dodged the question of how his hero would of totally hated the idea of a central bank. Though, it isn't the idea of the central bank and fractional reserve that would of been most disturbing, it would off been the complete control of the money system being in the hands of the government. Historically speaking, this almost always results in either hyper-inflation or stagflation.

Greenspan himself was a former Austrian economist until he moved on up the chain of command. The same happened with Nixon and other various political figureheads. Power corrupts I guess

^Imstellar

You say:
"the reason i did this (gay marriage = polygamy) was to illustrate that democracy is a flawed system and does not protect against oppression, intolerance, and hate--the only system which does this is a rule of law derived by basic human rights!"

Your proposition was:
"Republic government" + "That single line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is enough to ensure gay rights, polygamist rights, womens suffrage, forbid slavery, racism, protect freedom of speech and religion, maintain economic liberty, and guard against any other form of oppression."

Do we live in the same world?

The United States is a federal constitutional republic not a democracy. Bill of rights (1791) and the US Constitution (1787).

Even then slavery ended (legally speaking only) in 1865, racism continued for a long time culminating with the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Woman's suffrage only came into nationalized form in 1920.

I find it silly to lay the blame at the feet of democracy which doesn't currently exist in the US, and claim that solutions exist in a republic that issues laws and decrees that you expect to be perfectly respected by every organ of the government and applied fairly across the nation.

The obstacles to same-sex marriage stem from basic social incompatibility out of years of fear mongering that gays would ruin America and its moral standing originating in the fundamentalist christian right. It's basic social taboo, which we might find wrong but wouldn't be thought of so in the Midwest and most of the Christian enclaves in the US.

These fears are then expressed in election that bring social conservatives to power, resulting laws passed by congress, house and signed in by the President, the largest one being the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), authored by Bob Barr (republican at the time) in 1996 going fast tracked through a republican controlled house and congress.

Its Congressional sponsors stated, "[T]he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."

What I outlined there was not a democracy, it is exactly what you outlined, a republic which at its core has the bill of rights that possess "the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

In the same way as social views are altered so do those who get elected into power become representative of changing of the times, for example Prez Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.

I believe that in the next 5 to 10 years there will be a repel or reform on Prop 8, at the same time I believe it will be confined to more socially progressive areas of the US with more conservative states taking much longer.

Then if polygamy is such a big issue and concern well they can mount a organized movement to have state recognition for that (even though I think its a really minority and fringe issue not on the same scale as gay rights).

But you are mistaken to think that the solution will magically spring forth if we simply have a republic with human rights as guiding tenants because we had that and even then social issues took decades to resolve. The line "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is an ideal the forefathers gave this country it wasn't a dictum and in many ways I believe at the time it was meant to apply only to white male Americans oppressed by British rule.

But its wording has come to mean so much more as an idea. It is America's pursuit of that idea that makes that nation so great.

No empire lasts forever. Whether it is 50 or 500 years, the US as we know it will eventually cease to exist and something else will take its place. Will it be better or worse? That is the real question. Unfortunately as history shows, the likelihood of things (initially) becoming worse is much greater.

Lets also make this clear. The US of today is not a Democracy as aspired by the founders. It is a Demopublican Plutocratic Kleptocracy. Run by corporate interests, for corporate interests.

Proof the government has absolutely no accountability, nor does it represent the people in the least. The US, my friend, is a Demopublican Plutocractic Kleptocracy. Not a Democracy.

The USA might mean well.

But unfortunately she thinks fucking around with other people's economies is "democracy".

The "free market" or as i like to say "antisocial" policies in the Baltics have failed, and that's a christian european country so you'd expect more synergy, right? but.... You can't just walk in to a place and tell everyone your system is right for them. That's totally not democracy.

Democracy took thousands of years to emerge as an idea, and still hasn't been implemented properly anywhere. To talk about "successes" in the struggle to bring "democracy" to Iraq is just perverse, especially if you're a republic, not a democracy.

I live in a Republic, not a Democracy nor an Oligarchy. The Government should not get involved. The people should loose their house if they can not afford it. Others , ( the American people) should not have to pick up the slack because they were sold a load they can't afford. Also, Fanni Mea and Freddie Mac and Bear Stearns all should fall or bear the weight of their decisions, not the public.

If you dont know what a Republic, not a Democracy, Oligarchy is the you owe it to you self and your country to find out. Here is a link to a 30 minute clip. Watch it and learn.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6732659166933078950&q=overview+of+america+site%3Avideo.google.com&total=81&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&pli
ndex=0

If it does not work the go to google video and search " Overview of America "


You owe it to yourself.

>> ^Farhad2000:
The greatest lie ever told is that the US is a democracy.


This is correct, because America is not a Democracy: It's a Constitutional Republic. Or at least it was supposed to be. Sigh.