Dear John,
I do not think that voting in a mob is a democracy, maybe you could call it an illegal democratic decision. We have seen many misuse of the democratic systems, maybe one very recent one. The thing is that we do not have anything better and with a lawful parliamentary democracy you are not secure anyway, as history show with painful accuracy. Plato did loose his beliefs in democracy, when Socrates was sentenced to death by a direct democracy. He obviously had strong reasons. I do not know of any democracy of today, that have a direct democracy of that kind. It is therefore natural for me to judge a current situation and not disqualify a democracy because of something that do not exist. I have earlier raised doubts about direct democracy, but the only form that are used today are advisory referendums. A parliament that are responsible for decisions do not even have the obligation to follow a referendum result, if it is strong reasons for not to do so. Until somebody does not come up with a better and fairer system, I think that I keep my beliefs in democracies. I will even include the US one in it, despite the obvious corporate vote purchasing. Hakan At 12:34 PM 4/22/2003 -0400, you wrote: >Hakan Falk wrote: > > > I do not understand why you think that parliamentary democracy > > has anything to do with mob rule. I have never heard such a stupid > > definition of democracy and never experienced it either. I have to > > ask you what the opposite alternative is? > >"It is the besetting vice of democracies to substitute public opinion >for law. This is the usual form in which the masses of men exhibit their >tyranny." -James Fenimore Cooper > >"Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, >suppress minorities and still remain democratic." > - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn > >Hakan, I normally respect what you have to say around this parts, but I >think you are overreacting to Kirk's cynical definition of democracy. >Respect for the rule of law is required to temper pure democracy for >otherwise it is doomed to decay into a tyranny of the majority. > >I don't want to speak for Kirk, but I imagine his point was that >democracy must be tempered by law. Presumably, you automatically assume >such contraints when you use the phrase parliamentary democracy. >However, I think Kirk's point remains that a pure unconstrained >democracy is a very dangerous thing. > >John ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Make Money Online Auctions! Make $500.00 or We Will Give You Thirty Dollars for Trying! http://us.click.yahoo.com/yMx78A/fNtFAA/AG3JAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
