The Cellar - View Single Post

Undertoad · 04-22-2003, 11:57 AM

Sorry to keep the thread going.

I think Juju pegged part of the real disconnect here and then the discussion went the wrong direction.

Radar wants a government that doesn't represent what the people want - or one that forces the "correct" choices (i.e., his choices) on a public that won't volunteer for them.

Radar's philosophy may well be absolutely correct. It is, fortunately or unfortunately, not shared with the majority, and so there is a Problem.

Is it tyrannical to establish a set of rules that the majority does not agree with, in order to maintain a set of abstract principles that may be absolutely correct?

Is it even possible? I don't think the people would accept Radar's non-Government; I think they would abandon it quickly and establish a new one that represents their wishes.

I notice that many of the very authors of the Absolutely Correct Constitution were slave owners? Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, all slave owners. How to square the idea that the very authors of this very rigid document should have been prosecuted under it?

How to square the idea that the LP and CP have, on occasion, put up Constitutional hardasses in free elections and these candidates have always been routed?

In the world of ideas, compromise is poison. In the real world, it is the antidote.

04-22-2003, 11:57 AM	#140
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Sorry to keep the thread going. I think Juju pegged part of the real disconnect here and then the discussion went the wrong direction. Radar wants a government that doesn't represent what the people want - or one that forces the "correct" choices (i.e., his choices) on a public that won't volunteer for them. Radar's philosophy may well be absolutely correct. It is, fortunately or unfortunately, not shared with the majority, and so there is a Problem. Is it tyrannical to establish a set of rules that the majority does not agree with, in order to maintain a set of abstract principles that may be absolutely correct? Is it even possible? I don't think the people would accept Radar's non-Government; I think they would abandon it quickly and establish a new one that represents their wishes. I notice that many of the very authors of the Absolutely Correct Constitution were slave owners? Jefferson, Mason, Washington, Madison, all slave owners. How to square the idea that the very authors of this very rigid document should have been prosecuted under it? How to square the idea that the LP and CP have, on occasion, put up Constitutional hardasses in free elections and these candidates have always been routed? In the world of ideas, compromise is poison. In the real world, it is the antidote.