From: | "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za> |
---|---|
Date: | Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:15:12 +0200 |
Subject: | RE: RE: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree |
Hi Vijayaraghavan, We do not have to have an alternative to political parties. This would be imposing an alternative on the voters. Politicians have a job to do so that the average person can get on with his/her life. Voters just need the power to reject, modify or create legislation. Our energies need to be in this direction Regards Jim Powell South Africa From: Vijayaraghavan
Padmanabhan [vijayaraghavan.p(at)rediffmail.com] For people to be really able to do this, an independent
setup (free from party influence) is needed. We need to conceptualize an
alternative to political parties. Hamid, Thatis exactly the point of DD. If people have the power to make decisions, makemistakes, learnfrom their mistakes, and then correct them, they will ultimately mature into grownupcitizens. Otherwise, we live in our parent's house forever. B. T.Marking www.sdindie21.org From: Hamid
Mohseni[esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com] Outcome of bad laws
decided by people by refrandom willaffect people badly and make them to
changethe law later on From:
parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com Good point. The removal of bad laws has proven trickythroughout history. What is a bad law? Should they be judged by their intentions or their outcomes? Or, does a law become “good” if it issupported by a majority of the people, or their representatives? If a people are unjust or immoral, should a democracyallow them to design an unjust or immoral social structure? For example, if 90% of the people in Seattle want to outlaw outdoor advertising… billboards, etcetera… is it a good law? It violates property rights, but those rights are DEFINED by the public in general. Certainly, other building codes already allow the liberty of an owner to be superseded by will of the public. If 90% of the people want to outlaw Muslim churches, should that be allowed? Please, take into account that this is already the case. Our representatives can effectively change any part of the constitution if they think it will gain them votes, and 90% means a politicianw would be suicidal not to take up the call. (Honorable, but politically, a loser). So… Should good law based on a defined set of virtues (if so,then who defines the set), or should it be based on the public will? Or both? Or neither? Or something else? Be very specific. Parrhesia P.S. Our current system makes it very possible for our prejudices to work their way into law. As long as the people do not clamor forlimits to government power, the representatives tend to give them what they want. Even when the public is 40% in favor of something, the government willlatch onto it if it increases their scope and power (Health Care Bill, $700 Billion Bailout). When the people are highly in favor of a measure that limits power, however, the government is less responsive. For example, term limits for congress have had over 50% public support for over half of the last 100 years, and no congress has ever acted on it. From:
wingsprd[wingsprd(at)goldenwest.net] Andthe repeal of those that have proven ineffective or that have outgrowntheir usefulness. B.Thomas Marking From: Joseph
Hammer[parrhesiajoe(at)gmail.com] A stable, fair and productive government should promotethe formation of new laws and changes to existing ones. (To keep them fresh, one might suppose?) Parrhesia |