Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Sortition
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down

Author Topic: Sortition  (Read 9843 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #30 on: July 26, 2009, 07:39:22 PM »

So in that case Syria, Iran, post-communist Russia, Germany 1933, Hamas-ruled Gaza, those are all democracies since they have or had elections. Absurd.

Just because you don't like the decision that the mob has made, makes it no less a mob decision.

Democracy in action. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Maybe, if you can see past your own rejection of the results, you might see why lots of people reject the process that leads to those results.

Government, regardless of the propaganda used to support the arbitrary process of that government, sucks.
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #31 on: July 26, 2009, 09:18:31 PM »

Oh I get it, Wikipedia sucks when they don't agree with you. Then how about:  [...]

You just don't get it, do you...  You're making a circular argument.  Democracy is defined thus because democracy behaves thus - in this culture, at present.  The degree of freedom that is experienced in our culture doesn't come from democracy, democracy merely reflects what is there for pragmatic political reasons - a nation with an advanced service-based economy requires a literate and independently-minded populace, which in turn requires the "long dog-leash" method of social control.  Look up "democracy" in an encyclopedia published in North Korea and you'll get a reflection of the North Korean culture, which doesn't contain even an inkling of things like free speech.
Logged

markuzick

  • Atheist Pro-Lifer
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1876
  • Dr. Montessori: Discipline through liberty
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #32 on: July 26, 2009, 10:58:11 PM »

Quote from: markuzick link=topic=30082.msg556194#msg556194
Then you must hate the market and you must love bloodshed.

Democracy is not, primarily, a system of governance, but the only known vehicle to change government, for better or worse, and even, possibly, to one day, eliminate the state altogether, without resorting to violence. When democracy fails, sooner or later, violence ensues.

You're redefining words here.  "Demos" means people (i.e. a collective abstraction) and "cracy" means rule (i.e. through force), like in the "Democratic Republic of Korea" (i.e. the north one).  If you mean something else, why not use appropriate words like a grown-up?

You need to go back to school. "Etymology" is not synonymous with "synonym".

BTW: All rule, with the exception of pacifism, which limits itself to social pressure, is backed by force. If you want to live in the real world, you will be willing to defend yourself with force and coercion. Even a pacifist cannot make a reasonable argument to deny your right to self defense by force, if necessary.

Also: You're cherry picking definitions. The definition you're referring to, is the popular conception of democracy that doesn't actually exist anywhere, for the simple reason that it's stupid; so stop trying to impose your stupid ideas on people.

Quote
Democracy and the free market are compatible only if everyone who votes is a perfectly rational individual who'd vote for personal liberty and nothing else, which has never happened before in the history of democracy and probably never will.

Democracy, as in the majority or plurality of the people choosing the kind of government/s they will have, is compatible with whatever form of government/s they choose. It is also the only possible means by which a voluntary society can be established, outside of settling some unoccupied place.

Even then, the vast majority of libertarians that exist today don't understand enough about liberty to create the kind of voluntary laws and institutions to create more than a primitive simulation of true liberty. Again, it would be democracy, in the form of the market for government that would determine whether true liberty would evolve or degenerate into something that was, to varying degrees, statist.

Logged
As the state feeds off of the limitation and destruction of legitimate government, anarchy is its essence.

To claim "economic rent" from someone Else's labor when applied to land, which is something no one can own outright, is in itself, to claim landlord status over raw nature. It is an attempt at coercive monopoly power that is at the root of statism.

Terror Australis

  • Bitcoin Evangelist
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1181
  • People cannot be coerced into freedom.
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin
Re: Sortition
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2009, 03:18:09 AM »

I live in a democracy.It sucks ass.

It is still rule by majority any way you cut it.Lets not get started on compulsory voting.....

The whole thing ends up being a popularity contest and vote buying scam with the politician promising the most winning.People will act in their own interest so when they see someone promising miracles they will vote for them,never recognising the violence inherent in the system.If you have to choose between two robbers promising to take your money against your will it really makes no difference.
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 03:31:35 AM by davehollis »
Logged
User generated content + bitcoin = http://witcoin.com

avshae

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2009, 03:39:39 AM »

So in that case Syria, Iran, post-communist Russia, Germany 1933, Hamas-ruled Gaza, those are all democracies since they have or had elections. Absurd.

Just because you don't like the decision that the mob has made, makes it no less a mob decision.
The people in Angola, North Korea, Syria etc. decide nothing. The dictator typically seizes power by coercive or forceful methods such as conquering the land and eliminating all substantial opposition. Elections in these type of countries are staged - the dictator eliminates any opposition by force, so even if one does not want to vote for the dictator there is nobody else to vote for. If there is a legislative body, the dictator controls it completely and can pass any laws he wants, he can even disband the parliament at a whim. The dictator possesses complete control of the judicial system and uses it to oppress people he deems dangerous for his regime. If the dictator reaches retirement age and is still in tight control of the dictatorship, the reigns of the dictatorship are often passed to an heir such as the dictators son (Syria, Jordan) or brother (Cuba).

Democracy in action. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Since you seem to like down-to-earth examples, I will set your example straight for you.
Democracy: there are wolves and sheep, but the sheep's right to life is legitimized by law therefore the wolfs cannot eat them, no matter how many wolves vs. sheep there are.
Dictatorship: There is one wolf, and many sheep. The wolf can eat any sheep it chooses any time it chooses, and the sheep are powerless against it.

Maybe, if you can see past your own rejection of the results, you might see why lots of people reject the process that leads to those results.
It has been said by Churchill that democracy is a very bad governing system, but it's the best we know. The countries listed above are not democracies, even if they have fake elections. People living in real democracies are generally happier, wealthier, more educated, and enjoy more freedom than other countries.

Government, regardless of the propaganda used to support the arbitrary process of that government, sucks.
Anyone who understands political science understands that wherever Anarchy has existed, that Anarchy was a temporary void, which was soon filled by either a dictatorship, or democratic rule.

Logged

avshae

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2009, 03:50:19 AM »

You're making a circular argument.  Democracy is defined thus because democracy behaves thus - in this culture, at present.  The degree of freedom that is experienced in our culture doesn't come from democracy, democracy merely reflects what is there for pragmatic political reasons
78 million years from now on planet Zoltar, neither you nor I know what the word "democracy" will mean. Perhaps it will mean banana-split with cherries. Let's talk about here and now. It is no coincidence that in countries where people have equal access to power, power is divided among several bodies which check and balance each other. It is no coincidence that in these countries, since power is checked, individual rights are maintained much more than they are in dictatorships.

- a nation with an advanced service-based economy requires a literate and independently-minded populace, which in turn requires the [characteristics of democratic society].
Required by whom?

Look up "democracy" in an encyclopedia published in North Korea and you'll get a reflection of the North Korean culture, which doesn't contain even an inkling of things like free speech.
Where does an individual enjoy more freedom, in North Korea or in South Korea?

Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Sortition
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2009, 04:11:54 AM »

So in that case Syria, Iran, post-communist Russia, Germany 1933, Hamas-ruled Gaza, those are all democracies since they have or had elections. Absurd.

Just because you don't like the decision that the mob has made, makes it no less a mob decision.
The people in Angola, North Korea, Syria etc. decide nothing. The dictator typically seizes power by coercive or forceful methods such as conquering the land and eliminating all substantial opposition. Elections in these type of countries are staged - the dictator eliminates any opposition by force, so even if one does not want to vote for the dictator there is nobody else to vote for. If there is a legislative body, the dictator controls it completely and can pass any laws he wants, he can even disband the parliament at a whim. The dictator possesses complete control of the judicial system and uses it to oppress people he deems dangerous for his regime. If the dictator reaches retirement age and is still in tight control of the dictatorship, the reigns of the dictatorship are often passed to an heir such as the dictators son (Syria, Jordan) or brother (Cuba).

Democracy in action. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.
Since you seem to like down-to-earth examples, I will set your example straight for you.
Democracy: there are wolves and sheep, but the sheep's right to life is legitimized by law therefore the wolfs cannot eat them, no matter how many wolves vs. sheep there are.
Dictatorship: There is one wolf, and many sheep. The wolf can eat any sheep it chooses any time it chooses, and the sheep are powerless against it.

Maybe, if you can see past your own rejection of the results, you might see why lots of people reject the process that leads to those results.
It has been said by Churchill that democracy is a very bad governing system, but it's the best we know. The countries listed above are not democracies, even if they have fake elections. People living in real democracies are generally happier, wealthier, more educated, and enjoy more freedom than other countries.

Government, regardless of the propaganda used to support the arbitrary process of that government, sucks.
Anyone who understands political science understands that wherever Anarchy has existed, that Anarchy was a temporary void, which was soon filled by either a dictatorship, or democratic rule.



Have you also noticed that that void with anarchism was full of suffering due to other events typically caused by the revolution or the catalyst of the revolution? For An-Caps, a peaceful revolution of change from within and a change with society there will not be this suffering and will not be this need to find a quick fix through the creation of a government. Kropotkin (the Anarchist Prince) wrote about this in his book "The Conquest of Bread" (hence the title).

http://archive.thenuclearsummer.com/print/kropotkin_conquest_of_bread_1907.pdf
Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2009, 06:03:37 AM »

All of you major Fail.  Yes pure Democracy is simply rule by majority vote or mob rule.  However, where you keep losing Avsha is on the concept of modern Democracy.  Most modern Democracies follow a Rule of Law.  Rule of Law typically attempts to codify natural rights like equality under the law.   Most modern Democracies accomplish this with a national constitution which is suppose to act as a check against pure Democracy.  Because pure Democracy would be a dictatorship of the majority. 

People tend to blur the lines between Democracy and Rule of Law.  And it doesn't help if you don't recognize the two separate concepts when demonstrating the evil inherit in rule by majority vote only.  This lack of understanding of rule of law is wide spread.  Many know how to manipulate enough of the population to gain a majority vote on just about every issue.   And since the population has been conditioned to accept majority rule unquestioningly many don't  ask, "does this violate our government's rule of law". 

Even so Rule of Law isn't 100% guarantee of protecting natural rights from mob rule.  Because anti-natural rights laws can be codified into a governments rule of law document.  Examples of those would be victimless crime laws or prohibitions.  So even rule of law isn't without its flaws for protecting natural rights.  You also are working with people who have their own biases interpreting the application of the rule of law. 

Maybe this 9 min video will help to clarify the differences.  It is part of a speech given by the Duke University Department Chair for Pol. Sci. 
[youtube=425,350]T1z4NpJPCog[/youtube]

Logged

Alex Libman 14

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2009, 06:53:04 AM »

(Markuzick's nonsense ignored - life's too short...)


The people in Angola, North Korea, Syria etc. decide nothing. [...]

That's silly.  No dictator can control a population by blunt force alone!  They must all pay very close attention to public opinion in order to gain and then hold on to power.  Sure, they also influence public opinion, but so do all governments.  That influence need not be total - it should be just enough, but too much of it will backfire.


[...]  the dictator eliminates any opposition by force  [...]

The more sophisticated the country, the more sophisticated are the means of accomplishing this.  Blunt force is messy.  The two party system, the subtle influence over the media, and (worst of all) public schooling do the same trick in the United States.


[...] the sheep's right to life is legitimized by law [...]

And where does "the law" come from?


[...]  Anyone who understands political science understands that wherever Anarchy has existed, that Anarchy was a temporary void, which was soon filled by either a dictatorship, or democratic rule.  [...]

In the late 19th century you could have said that "anyone who understands the history of engineering understands that wherever heavier-than-air flight was attempted it always came crashing down".  But things change.  Rational AnCaps see anarchy as a vision for the future that will not be attained overnight. 

Even coming as far as we have would have been impossible before the Internet!  Further technological and social advancements -- greater functional literacy and access to information, better understanding of economics, higher average quality of life, more accurate methods of declaring property ownership, better passive security systems and non-lethal weapons, innovations of contracting techniques, more sophisticated corporate management, etc -- are what will someday make anarchy possible!


You're making a circular argument.  Democracy is defined thus because democracy behaves thus - in this culture, at present.  The degree of freedom that is experienced in our culture doesn't come from democracy, democracy merely reflects what is there for pragmatic political reasons
78 million years from now on planet Zoltar, neither you nor I know what the word "democracy" will mean. Perhaps it will mean banana-split with cherries. Let's talk about here and now.

Yes, let's abandon all attempts at objectivity.  Let's ignore history (democrats killed Socrates), foreign lands, literature, and inductive / deductive reasoning...  Democracy is when a guy called Obama is in the white house and James Cameron is releasing a 3D space adventure film called Avatar about the Na'Vi who live on planet Pandora.  Anything different is not a "democracy"...  :roll:

Humbug!  In fact, how about I stop using the word "democracy", since people are so confused about its definition, and use the term "demagogue politics" to refer to its idealized vision, and the term "mob control" to refer to its functions in real life.


It is no coincidence that in countries where people have equal access to power, power is divided among several bodies which check and balance each other. It is no coincidence that in these countries, since power is checked, individual rights are maintained much more than they are in dictatorships.

It's no coincidence that all sophisticated economies find it prudent to keep their citizens on a longer dog-leash through demagogue politics to some degree, for the same reason slavery becomes impractical with the advent of the industrial revolution.  And "equal access to power" is an illusion.


- a nation with an advanced service-based economy requires a literate and independently-minded populace, which in turn requires [demagogue politics].
Required by whom?

By evolutionary pragmatism.  It's like asking "who" dictates that cars have round wheels instead of triangular ones - the alternatives don't work very well.


Look up "democracy" in an encyclopedia published in North Korea and you'll get a reflection of the North Korean culture, which doesn't contain even an inkling of things like free speech.
Where does an individual enjoy more freedom, in North Korea or in South Korea?

In the less democratic one, err, I mean the one less driven by demagogue politics - the South one.  Their president gets approval ratings that make Bush look like Elvis, but he and his group of pragmatic technocrats are able to exploit flaws in the electoral process to gain power and push through their unpopular reforms (which I'm a big fan of, BTW).
« Last Edit: July 27, 2009, 07:05:18 AM by Alex Libman 2012 »
Logged

BobRobertson

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 929
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2009, 01:33:42 PM »

All of you major Fail.

If you're going to berate others, it would behoove you to use better grammar.

Quote
Yes pure Democracy is simply rule by majority vote or mob rule.  However, where you keep losing Avsha is on the concept of modern Democracy.

I'm not losing Avsha. He is unable to separate the process of decision making from the society in which those decisions are made.

"Democracy" has nothing to do with "rule of law", or any other external factor. It is merely a decision making process by majority vote.

"Democracy" is a substitute for decision by combat. Rather than actually fighting it out, the "side" that accumulates a greater number of supporters is assumed to be the one which would have won the fight.

It's perfectly reasonable to have a monarchy that follows the principle of "rule of law", just as it is for a democracy to be simple mob rule on everything.

Gang rape is a democratic process, I doubt that Avsha is going to suggest gang rape has anything what so ever to do with rule of law.

Quote
Even so Rule of Law isn't 100% guarantee of protecting natural rights from mob rule.  Because anti-natural rights laws can be codified into a governments rule of law document.

Exactly. Democracy is merely a decision making process, it guarantees nothing.

I'd rather live in a rational dictatorship than an irrational democracy. Again, Hanse Hermann Hoppe's book would go far to disillusion folks here as to the brainwashing we've all had at the hands of the government schools and mass media that "democracy" itself somehow is a guarantee of rights.

Here's Hoppe's media archive on Mises.org, and a talk on the book for your edification.

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=author&ID=164

http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3

And here's a particularly good talk, called "WW1 as the end of civilization":

http://mises.org/mp3/War/War8a.mp3
Logged
"I regret that I am now to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1776 to acquire self-government and happiness to their country is to be thrown away by the unwise and unworthy passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be that I live not to weep over it."
-- Thomas Jefferson, April 26th 1820

avshae

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2009, 02:52:30 PM »

I have provided three main-stream definitions of democracy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/democracy.aspx
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

All of them incorporate the idea of legitimized (rule of law) freedoms for individuals. Curiously enough, none of them even mention majority vote as a crucial part of democracy. Most democracies do use majority vote as a way of nominating representatives (and only for that purpose), but there are other equal-access methods to power, like sortition.

You people remind me of Humpty-Dumpty:
Quote
`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

If you want to come up with alternative definitions to words, be my guest, just don't expect the rest of the world to accept them.

Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2009, 08:15:24 PM »

Amazing the dictionary is inaccurate.  All those definitions fail to separate out the various forms of democracy.   

Pure or Direct Democracy - Everyone gets a vote and it is majority rule or pure rule of the people.

Democratic Republic or Indirect Democracy -  People vote for representatives who run the government.

Political Democracy - Equal sharing of political power among all citizens.  Also vested in the concept of majority rule.

Private Democracy - Voluntary associations which agree to accomplish some sort of common goal.

There can be various combs of each of these forms of democracy and they can have Rule of Law or totally disregard Rule of Law or their Rule of Law can codify natural rights or violate them.

Each of you are calling your particular combination of the various forms of democracy the only definition of single word democracy.   Being a Libertarian I tend to see just the word Democracy and only think of pure Democracy without any rule of law.  However, I realize that most other people don't think of pure Democracy when they see the word Democracy on its own.   They think in terms of their own Political Democratic Republic bound by Rule of Law.  They are only right in that the word Democracy has come to mean this with no regard to the separate concepts.

Avshae this is inaccurate on your part; "none of them even mention majority vote as a crucial part of democracy."  They all do. The concept is expressed as, "rule of the people or majority rule."  The problem is that you are at the same time right and wrong.  The accepted misconception of the single word Democracy now refers to any Western Political Democratic Republic with a Rule of Law codifying natural rights and some violations of those rights.  You are right this is the common inaccurate definition.  You are not recognizing the concept of a pure democracy.  Pure democracy has no moral principle it is simply what the majority of the people happen to want. 

Sorry, the online think tanks failed to separate the various forms of democracy adding to the communication break down.





Logged

anarchir

  • Extraordinaire
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5103
  • No victim, no crime.
    • View Profile
    • Prepared Security
Re: Sortition
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2009, 08:45:11 PM »

Logged
Good people disobey bad laws.
PreparedSecurity.com - Modern security and preparedness for the 21st century.
 [img width= height= alt=Prepared Security]http://www.prepareddesign.com/uploads/4/4/3/6/4436847/1636340_orig.png[/img]

avshae

  • Guest
Re: Sortition
« Reply #43 on: July 28, 2009, 03:36:09 AM »

Amazing the dictionary is inaccurate.  All those definitions fail to separate out the various forms of democracy.   

Pure or Direct Democracy - Everyone gets a vote and it is majority rule or pure rule of the people.
Democratic Republic or Indirect Democracy -  People vote for representatives who run the government.
Political Democracy - Equal sharing of political power among all citizens.  Also vested in the concept of majority rule.
Private Democracy - Voluntary associations which agree to accomplish some sort of common goal.

There can be various combs of each of these forms of democracy and they can have Rule of Law or totally disregard Rule of Law or their Rule of Law can codify natural rights or violate them.

Each of you are calling your particular combination of the various forms of democracy the only definition of single word democracy.   Being a Libertarian I tend to see just the word Democracy and only think of pure Democracy without any rule of law.  However, I realize that most other people don't think of pure Democracy when they see the word Democracy on its own.   They think in terms of their own Political Democratic Republic bound by Rule of Law.  They are only right in that the word Democracy has come to mean this with no regard to the separate concepts.

Avshae this is inaccurate on your part; "none of them even mention majority vote as a crucial part of democracy."  They all do. The concept is expressed as, "rule of the people or majority rule."  The problem is that you are at the same time right and wrong.  The accepted misconception of the single word Democracy now refers to any Western Political Democratic Republic with a Rule of Law codifying natural rights and some violations of those rights.  You are right this is the common inaccurate definition.  You are not recognizing the concept of a pure democracy.  Pure democracy has no moral principle it is simply what the majority of the people happen to want. 

Sorry, the online think tanks failed to separate the various forms of democracy adding to the communication break down.

Yes, in your terminology I go with the definition of democracy as a system where (1) there is equal access to power and (2) there is  Rule of Law codifying natural rights. A democracy need not be a representative system (i.e., a Republic, although most are), it can be any system where everyone has equal access to power, such as sortition, or a direct democracy. As long as it is not a system where a certain privileged group gets to rule.
Your definition of democracy is broader as it does not require "rule of law", and it is pointless to argue over definitions, but let me ask you this: in modern History (300 years) does there or did there ever exist any state with any form of Democracy other than Indirect Democracy with rule of law? I think not, unless you consider countries like Syria or Hitlers per-WW2 Germany, with rigged and/or coerced elections, to be democracies.
So perhaps you can understand why most of the world defines democracy as I do. If there is no genuine protection for individual rights, the immediate consequence is that there is no stopping those in power from tampering with the elections and controlling the result. Hence there can be no real democracy without rule of law and limitation of power among several entities (typically government, legislative and judicial).

Logged

libertylover

  • No Title Needed
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3791
    • View Profile
Re: Sortition
« Reply #44 on: July 28, 2009, 09:55:07 AM »

So perhaps you can understand why most of the world defines democracy as I do. If there is no genuine protection for individual rights, the immediate consequence is that there is no stopping those in power from tampering with the elections and controlling the result. Hence there can be no real democracy without rule of law and limitation of power among several entities (typically government, legislative and judicial).
It is great in theory.  However, this is where Libertarians tend to have problems even with modern definition of democracy.  They recognize that the human factor comes into play.  People are motivated by self-interest even those who are in positions of power.  Regardless of how they acquire those positions even if it were by lottery.  They are also influenced by their own prejudices or bias.  This is why many Libertarians warn people not to worship at the feet of their governments even if they are "Democracies." 

As for Hitler he was legally made Chancellor of Germany according to their democratic process.  At the time Paul von Hindenburg was elected President and Hitler with the 2nd highest total in the election was appointed Chancellor.  Chancellor was similar to being US Vice President and Speaker of the House all rolled up in one.  When Hindenburg died in office Hitler was promoted according to the German constitution.  Hitler and the Nazis manipulated the population and the rule of law to come to power in Germany.   The original election wasn't rigged, Hitler actually lost, but he was placed next in line to power.   I like this writers time line to Hitlers dictatorship but he fails to prove the original election was rigged.  http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany1.htm

This is the danger in all modern democracies.  Politicians and special interest only have to manipulate enough of the population to win elections.   The normal checks and balances failed in Germany to stop the takeover by the Nazis.   The normal checks and balances are failing in the US as more and more un-Constitutional laws are passed.  Our Supreme Court has become more a gaggle of constitutional contortionist to justify rulings which reflect more their own personal bias rather than rule of law.   Our Executive branch has for the most part by-passed the legislature giving the President more and more dictatorial powers.  And our legislature is out to lunch with special interest groups who are seeking political favors and more of the public funding booty.   Because every legislature's first and foremost concern is with re-election and getting the funding necessary to advertise and manipulate the voting public. 
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Sortition

// ]]>

Page created in 0.113 seconds with 32 queries.