CCM: Too much democracy can be a problem. Without limits it can result in the tyranny of the majority, or end up disenfranchising the majority – multiple candidates as in Minnesota resulted in ~60% of the voters winding up with some one they didn’t vote for. BTW I liked Jesse; he spoke his mind and had some good ideas, especially the one devoting a congressional session to reviewing “settled lawâ€? and repealing the no longer relevant and “stupidâ€? laws. If one were to fill book cases 8 feet high with all the extant federal statutes they would stretch 200 yards. Ignorance of any of these is no excuse and that’s just federal. Congresses have been making laws since the beginning and rarely repeal any. Too many laws beget too many lawyers. But I agree ballot initiatives often are the only recourse to overturning an entrenched out-of-touch legislative body, but they need to pass constitutional muster. They can’t be used for example to favor one class of people over another.

If memory serves me correctly (always a dangerous affair), what the Italians possessed that we don’t possess is a King who could relieve El Dulce of his place on the seat of power. Not that I’d advocate we need a monarchy. Just shows how paradoxical things can get and start bumpin’ and grindin’ away. A King can probably act with more alacrity than a Congress. Ah, the trade-offs. Guess that’s what makes for a good horse race and games of chance. Imperfections and uncertainty.

Oh, I think your post reinforces that I’m batting a nearly perfect average at being completely at odds with Mr. Tucker Bow-Tie Carlson. Perhaps his rhetoric is a really a cry for help.

Oh, and one more item from an appeal to memory. I believe I once heard on a CNN interview with the honorable representative David Dreier that California’s proposition ballot initiatives were an example of “too much democracy.” The interviewer, who I can’t remember, perhaps Judy Woodruff, was actually slightly startled by the candor. He went on to explain the nature of our representative republic construction. I think this interview occurred around the time of the recall election 2003. There’s good arguments on both sides for ballot initiatives.

I suppose you can view this multi-headed beast through many prisms of reality. Cheers…

Tucker Carlson would, without qualm, note that your quote’s weight is diminished by the fact that the USA (as currently constituted) is not a democracy but a republic.

I’ve heard him do this more than once.

He’s bright, and he’s a typical represntative of the ‘benitos’ (my newly coined but not yet formally introduced counter-attack on the quasi-slur ‘liberal’. Think ‘Mussolini’. Why? Because the neocon ideology is as bankrupt as Benito’s was.)

Secondly, I still believe as a country, we are a country of laws. We therefore need legal frameworks for how wars considered and decided upon. Moreover, they need to be articulated in a public place so a common citizen may stop and reflect upon them. Again, this encourages accountability and a means for citizens to make contributions to improvement. To my mind, the following quote from that link says something else about this notion: “”A democracy cannot… tolerate secret policies” because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.”

I’m not, I don’t think, doing “Galahadism�, and here’s why:

My recent discovery of Wajida Al-Huweidar (and thanks again to fiddlesticks for such manna from feminist heaven) reminded me that my focus on women’s issues ISN’T just a ‘women’s issues’ thing – it’s basic HUMAN rights, not simply ‘women’s’ rights.

Dubbing it ‘women’s rights’ risks trivializing it to men.

And my gender is frankly ignorant and insufferable enough when it comes to humanist concern for people of the other gender, let alone regardless of gender.

Here’s where this quibble is conditional: would I still be engaged in Galahadism if my obsession was the rights of Kuwaiti or Saudi indentured servants?

Say yes, and you’re off the hook.

Say no, and I keep talking.

Good.

Now then: despite my admiration (and envy) of your pacifism, I’ve decided to stick with my minimal tolerance for the possibility of intervention against serious, sadistic, and murderous human rights abusers.

I agree with Potter that an international convention defining the criteria for intervention is necessary, and that, considering the plague of human rights violations around the globe, such a convention should be somebody’s very serious work NOW.

And as you’ll see on the Morality thread, I’ve already begun a fuzzy-headed work-out of how such a convention might gain its legitimacy.

And that, I think, is all I’ve got to say tonight.

But thank you for your replies – they helped me find my peace of mind.

Oops – one more: I remember well the ERA, and how its defeat was reported: men did a ‘Fox News’ attack on it in all the conservative states, successfully torpedoing it – because the Constitution is just too frickin’ difficult to amend.

(Don’t get me started on THAT obsession, please.)

…but the frog.

What’s with our amphibian obsession?

How did it start?

More later on your reply. But yeah, I knew full well that you’re a pacifist, and it’s one big reason I like your posts so much.

As for my apologies, you can just blame my damned empathy, Jazzman. And the apologies may strike you as unnecesary breast beatings, but for me they’re salves for an unhappy conscience. So grin and bear it please good sir.

And I’ll refrain from anymore — until my next sarcastic excess. God save me.

In case you’re still in doubt, I am a consummate pacifist, (by choice not by nature) against capital punishment and war (state sanctioned murder) and believe violence only begets more violence. As I noted in “morality� I deplore violence directed at ANY life or the environment and I definitely do not believe that “noble� ends justify less than ideal means, however it seems that the majority of correspondents here have no problems with a “little� loss of life to achieve their “ideals.�

Nikos writes:>> J[azzman writes]: “The bandwagon fallacy of multiple nations forcing their collective “morality� on anyone…�

N[ikos writes]: Does this argument dispute the internationally recognized concept of ‘crimes against humanity’?>> YES – just because a “moral� majority (international or not) decides that certain criteria constitute “crimes against humanity� does not give them the right to commit violence on the “criminals� especially with collateral consequences.

Nikos:>> I sense underlying your argument the supposition that the population of Taliban Afghanistan was united in its fundamentalist Islamic morality…– will doubtlessly disabuse you of this ‘a priori’ assumption. (Is this the meaning of ‘a priori’?)>> If it were my assumption it would be (but as it isn’t it ain’t) derived “a prioriâ€? (deduction by reasoning not empiricism) as I have no firsthand knowledge of Afghani religiopolitics. However it would be fallacious to assume that any group would be united in any morality (look at ROS.)

Elected/democratic governments in the world are the exception rather than the rule. The democratic philosophy that was instrumental in forming this country was/is a bold still on-going experiment (only 230 frog years) that could easily go awry if we are not vigilant. It requires from each individual a great responsibility to uphold its ideals (that ALL citizens are equal under the law – IN THEORY but as Orwell noted in Animal Farm, some are more equal than others. Hey Nikos, remember the ERA? That must be another of your betes noire – but remember a MAJORITY of women opposed it or at least didn’t support it enough for passage.) At least under our laws you are (theoretically) innocent until proven guilty. According to most religions one starts out guilty and must be made/proven innocent by purification/Atonement/Auditing etc. Should we violently depose every non-democratic regime on the planet? How about the ones that have committed “crimes against humanityâ€? like the US vs. its own aboriginals, China vs. Tibet and its own citizens, N. Vietnam vs. S., N. Korea against its citizens, – most of Africa vs. itself. Few nations have clean hands in the human rights dept. The USSR reverted without a bloodbath except in the Muslim oriented areas, Gandhi and Mandella prevailed more peacefully than most – the exceptions that proves the rule?

Nikos:>> J[azzman writes]: “They are frightened and FRIGHTENED PEOPLE DO NOT WANT FREEDOM… N[ikos Writes]: This is common platitude, but an arguable if not downright questionable one. I am not however qualified to do the arguing. >> Religious fundamentalists are scared of offending their respective deities and do not want freedom they want to follow the rules (dogma) and go to their eternal reward. I don’t think that point is questionable or arguable.

As to the rest of your plea to liberate the oppressed, I’m sure anyone in an undesirable situation would like to be liberated. I would like to be liberated as I believe ALYB stated from the “well meaning� oppressive “protect me from my own stupidity laws� that our legislators and courts have seen fit to impose on the nation. Again I am not equating this largely psychological oppression with the actual oppression being suffered worldwide. As insensitive to the “victims� as this might sound, “victims� and horrific circumstances provide an opportunity for humans to re-establish a sense of their humaneness and exercise their best, altruistic selves such as Schindler or the abettors of the Frank family (but again, not violently.) I’m sure that the oppressed would object to this characterization, that they act as foci for others altruism or soul-enrichment but I believe that they are instruments in each other’s “spiritual evolution.�

Nikos: I just saw your trio of apologies. Stop the metaphorical breast beating – as long as you don’t get to “verballyâ€? violent. I’ll continue to supply ROS with “bad tasteâ€? humor. You know the value judgment “Badâ€? is an acquired taste it takes getting used to afterwords it’s “Good”.

Jazzman: I’m working up a novel concept for the Morality thread you’ll doubtlessly find worthy of scrutiny. Look for it in a day or two.