| Moderated by: Joe Kelley | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Joe Kelley Administrator
|
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17912.htmth The reader can read the above. I may too. I picked out the following and it brought me back here to debate the concept with anyone so willing. It has nothing in common with democracy, which is the power of the majority in respect to the interests and opinions of the minority. The idea called democracy may have managed to become a form of despotism. It did not start out that way. Democracy is a concept that does not empower the majority at the expense of the minority. The opposite is true. Democracy is a concept whereby no one has power over anyone else except in cases where someone is overpowering someone else. Democracy is a concept whereby one person or many people engaged in overpowering one person or many people have less power then the democrats. Is that too tough to understand? I have a real hard time communicating with people who are so mired in falsehood that they blame me for their inability to read plain English. I can elaborate: Democracy is a concept whereby one person or many people are no longer sanctioned to have the authority to over power one person or many people. Did that set of words sink in? Forgive me if it did as I elaborate further and comment upon those who are unwilling to entertain the notion that democracy is not a concept whereby the majority over power any one person or any number of people. In practice the concept of democracy can take on the form of a republic. A republic may be the only form a democratic social structure can exit as; as in being. The alternative is anarchy. The form a democracy will take depends upon how much power is wielded by criminals. A definintion of a criminal is in order at this time. A criminal is a person who injures another person on purpose for some gain of some kind whereby the criminal gains at the expense of the injury to the victim of the crime. The crime is caused by the criminal. Is that tough? If a person is doing nothing at all and that person is injured by someone else, on purpose, then a crime is committed by the criminal. This may be as difficult to conceptualize, in these times, as is democracy difficult to conceptualize. You can't blame the crime upon the victim. That is a crime. Blaming the crime on the victim is gaining at the expense of the victim; like pouring salt into a wound. No number of people, no aggregate sum, no majority of any kind who by their actions are, in fact, gaining at the expense of any one person or any number of other people are anything more or less, better or worse, than common criminals. That is not democracy. That, the crime of gaining at anther's expense, is crime. If more than one person is involved in gaining at another person's expense, then, that is not democracy; that is organized crime. Call it a conspiracy to gain at another’s expense. Call it extortion. It is not democracy. It is not the democracy known by democrats of old like, for example, Thomas Paine. Democracy is another expression of a concept called "The rule of law". Democracy, like the rule of law, is universal to all - equally. Democracy is not, and never was, equal distribution of economic wealth. Equal distribution of economic wealth is crime by another name. If the first rule is: If you have the power to take wealth, then, take wealth - if that is the rule, then, the rule is this: Might makes right. Might does not make right. Taking wealth is stealing. Democracy is a concept whereby no one or any group of people are sanctioned by law with the power to commit crimes of any kind - at all. Each democrat is treated, by law, the same as each other democrat. The problem with democracy, or any other set of rules, remains to be two fold - not one problem. A. Criminals B. Liars. Liars make criminals out of all of us. Check in the mirror and see which kind of democrat you are: A. Criminal B. Not A |
|||||||||||
