It is good to see that there are some very well thought out and sound arguments here. It is true that democracy is not a perfect form of government. I don't believe that a perfect form of government can exist without perfect people so I am not holding my breath for that. I believe that corrupt people can corrupt people. I cannot say with any level of certitude that the majority is exercising authority in the governing process of America and for that matter in certain other "Democratic Republics." Theoretically, it may be the ideal case where the majority rules but in actuality it may not be realized. The ideal (underlying) meaning here is that the majority has objectively arrived at some consensus on the greater benefit to the greater number of citizens. But the reality is that the majority may only be expressing what they have been convinced of by false or misleading facts. In which case their judgment is meaningless. And that, I believe, is more often than not, the case. Someone also mentioned that Democracy (I assume meaning Democratic Republican expression) is not necessarily the best form of government. That may be true, but do we have any way to determine that fact? There has been much opposition to the idea of a Republican form of democracy in the 20th century. It spread across the globe in a very short time. It has not been more successful by any real measure, including efficiency. Under the banner of a People's Democracy, an oligarchy exercised the authority of decision for political, social and economic functions. It was begun by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. By western standards, it was unsuccessful. And, speaking of misinformation, I once read on one of the internet encyclopedias that the Bolsheviks overthrew the Czar. But actually, Nicholas had already abdicated the throne and freed the peasants, etc. It was a democracy that the Bolsheviks overthrew with the DUMAS (Houses) being represented by the Bolsheviks, party of Lenin and the Mensheviks, party of Trotsky. The word Bolshevik means majority but they were the minority and the word Menshevik means minority but they were the majority. The minority seized power and political control based on an ideology that was almost a century old and ill-suited to a modern world. (Marxists will disagree) It is a much more subtle process in American politics but the minority has seized control of the media and other influential organizations. Someone here wisely questioned the majority's qualification to make decisions. That is why the republican for was conceived. However, the question is relevant and important because it raises another important question. That question is whether the system is flawed or whether the elected representatives have become corrupted and thereby encumbered the system to its detriment? My own observations and research suggests that the system is sound but corrupt individuals are in influential positions and are willing to corrupt it for personal gain, or else commitment to an ideology that is anathema to it. Here are some other questions related to the idea that the majority is not qualified to decide on issues. If the majority acts according the will of the minority because they are influenced to accept certain premises by the minority, is the will of the majority arbitrary? When the will of the minority exercises control over the will of the majority by rule of law extending from the minority power in the court system, is there any meaning to majority rule? Is there any meaning to "rule of law?" Given that state of affairs, is the democratic system broken or simply exploited? ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Newtons Massmind" To: "'Microcontroller discussion list - Public.'" Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 12:31 PM Subject: RE: [OT] If engineers ruled the world... >> I wonder if those people voted the Nazi program because they >> embraced Hitler's Mien Kampf or if it seemed like the lesser >> of two evils. Did they do so because they were hoping to >> find some solution to the oppressive forces obtaining from >> what they called the Versailles Diktat and the ever >> encroaching Soviet expansion with designs on German >> ingenuity, resources and productivity? I wonder if we can >> continue to look myopically at German history and learn from >> it. Hegel said "The only thing we learn from history is that >> we learn nothing from history." (Paraphrased.) Perhaps he >> was right. Perhaps it is because history is more than a >> summary of human events. > > Certainly everyone does what they feel is right for them at the time. I > don't think any German citizen of the time knew what the result of that > vote > would be and I don't blame them for what happened in the least. My point > is > only that democracy is NOT perfect and may not even be the best possible > system of government. I happen to believe it is the only REAL system of > government; the people are always in charge, they just often times allow > someone else to make up their minds for them. > > "Democracy is the only form of government; all the others are simply > democracies where the ruling body has abdicated." > > My point about anarchy is that I do not believe that the majority is > actually qualified to decide what should be done. The best thing is for > each > person to be as independent as possible and be left the hell and gone > alone > by the rest of the world. > > ...as much as possible. Obviously there are many cases where the majority > can not just allow one person to do as they please, but it would be my > wish > that these cases be the exception rather than the rule. > > The decisions, that are made and supported by the majority, to interfere > in > the lives of others should always be questioned long and hard. And then we > should decide not to bother them unless they are actually, actively, > bothering us or our allies. > > For example: When Kuwait started slant drilling over the boarder into > Iraqi > oil fields back in 1990, we should have used our military to support our > ally (Iraq) and stop that theft. But Kuwait was also an ally, so perhaps > we > did the right thing in staying out of it. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, we > were > right in using our military to stop them, and we were right to stop at the > boarder. They had accomplished their goal of destroying the oil rigs that > were stealing their oil, but they went to far and needed to be removed > back > to their country. Minimum interference while protecting our allies. > > I won't get into the current war because it just plain hurts me too much > to > talk about it. This Christmas, more US soldiers will have died in Iraq > than > US citizens died in 9/11, and I still have nightmares. > > --- > James. > > > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.11/460 - Release Date: 10/1/2006 > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist