How does any authority exist in a democratic society?

[bripat9643]

If we lived in a pure direct democracy, you'd have a point. But neither we, nor any other country in the history of the world has ever been one.

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

If we lived in a pure direct democracy, you'd have a point. But neither we, nor any other country in the history of the world has ever been one.

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Did he actually say that?

 

[HappyJoy]

If we lived in a pure direct democracy, you'd have a point. But neither we, nor any other country in the history of the world has ever been one.

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

 

[HappyJoy]

If we lived in a pure direct democracy, you'd have a point. But neither we, nor any other country in the history of the world has ever been one.

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Did he actually say that?

Did he not?

 

[Deleted member 53821]

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Did he actually say that?

Did he not?

He actually didn't say those words. So the answer is NO.

 

[boedicca]

Authority only exists if it is according to the rule of law. Anything else is Tyranny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HappyJoy]

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Did he actually say that?

Did he not?

He actually didn't say those words. So the answer is NO.

Point stands. Athens is not an example of a successful form of direct democracy, whether we compare children to women or not.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Authority only exists if it is according to the rule of law. Anything else is Tyranny.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. The hippies are (and have been) stacking the deck with judges that legislate from the bench - this has been their "backdoor" plan since the 60s. It is beginning to work in their favor. Just look around you. Their mantra now is "We are a nation of laws" - as long as it is the "laws" that they want.

We are being subverted to the point of non-existence. Rather than one dictator we now have a thousand dictators. And it grows stronger each day.

 

[HappyJoy]

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

 

[Deleted member 53821]

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

 

[HappyJoy]

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Just curious...

 

[HappyJoy]

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Just curious...

With that said, it was much better than many other forms of government, but we've evolved. Just like we've evolved since our own country's beginnings. We'd be appalled by how the political establishment decided who could vote or not at our origins.

 

[Deleted member 53821]

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Just curious...

With that said, it was much better than many other forms of government, but we've evolved. Just like we've evolved since our own country's beginnings.

I really don't know if people evolve because we are the same gene pool as a thousand years ago. I understand that we embrace new popular ideas that didn't exist back then but if those ideas did exist the same people probably would have embraced them. Same idea...same gene pool...why wouldn't they?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It kind of seem natural to think that a large group of people would automatically collude around a leader. It makes sense since a dictatorship is more efficient. This kind of introduces the idea of inequality among the people since we always have to have someone giving orders and others receiving them. The minute we introduce democracy into this society this relationship seems to evaporate since each person votes on what is to be done and how it is to be done. Each person would become equal to the other. Wouldn't inequality cease to exist in any society with democracy as its government? It is just a philosophical issue.

It would be worse than a republic, mob rule.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

If we lived in a pure direct democracy, you'd have a point. But neither we, nor any other country in the history of the world has ever been one.

fascinating...

Why even have a democracy at that point?

We don't have a "democracy". We have a representative republic.

Do the people, as a whole, have any power whatsoever over the system?

No, and they aren't supposed to, by design.

 

[HappyJoy]

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

How do you define 'not working'? It just seems like if the legally allowed people can vote and they vote and laws are created based on that then how do you say it did not work? It seems like the system worked as it was designed to work. The only way I can see it not working is if the people elected got to do something contrary to the goals of the kind of government it is.

I define not working in that by today's standards denying groups based on sex, religion or race the right to vote is a failure. If blacks for example were not allowed to vote we wouldn't be a free society. 8 year olds, admittedly, I'd prefer if they wait a couple years before casting a ballot, but that's me being rational.

Just curious...

With that said, it was much better than many other forms of government, but we've evolved. Just like we've evolved since our own country's beginnings.

I really don't know if people evolve because we are the same gene pool as a thousand years ago. I understand that we embrace new popular ideas that didn't exist back then but if those ideas did exist the same people probably would have embraced them. Same idea...same gene pool...why wouldn't they?

I didn't mean that kind of evolve. I mean Democracy evolving.

You think if Thomas Jefferson just said, "Hey, let's let our slaves vote" that would have done it? They just didn't think of it at the time? Please, we've had a complete cultural shift since our founding.

WIth that said, this has nothing to do with my point. Direct Democracies don't work, because as pointed out by others it's too easy for the majority to just vote away minority rights.

 

[bripat9643]

They had one in ancient Athens, where democracy was invented.

And women weren't allowed to vote so...there you go.

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

You have an arbitrary definition of "direct democracy." According to you definition, you have direct democracy if children can't vote, but you don't if children and women can't vote. Saying "children don't have full rights" is just another way of saying they can't vote. In the time of ancient Greece children were the largest segment of the population.

So basically everything you said was bullshit.

 

[bripat9643]

We don't allow children to vote.

Just an fyi, comparing the intellectual capacity of a women to children kind of makes you an asshole.

Suggesting I did such a thing makes you a douche nozzle.

Children don't have full rights now to include voting. My point was Athens didn't have direct democracy that worked because the largest political minority was prevented from voting and you're response was "what about the children..." Jesus, really?

Dictatorships don't allow women to vote either?

What would be the difference between not allowing children to vote because you think they are less capable and not allowing women to vote for the same reason? It is not true that women have the mental capacity of a child but if you thought that certain people shouldn't because they were incapable then what would be the difference in that case? Wouldn't you just view it as one in the same if you thought women had the same capabilities as children?

What? Dictatorships? Huh? The question was posed to name a successful form of direct democracy. Middle Finger brought up Athens and I pointed out that it didn't work, at least not by today's standards because they didn't allow certain groups to vote such as women. Then genius comes in with something about children. It's irrelevant as they can't vote now and nobody sees that a a smirch on Representative Democracy (or any other form of government).

Our democracy doesn't work. It certainly hasn't lasted as long as Athenian democracy lasted. You description of it as "successful" couldn't be more absurd.