Sounds like a dictatorship.
Sounds like a dictatorship.
But one person is above the law in dictatorship, no?
Yes one person is, but then who would create the laws? Sythe?
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2005
- Sythe Gold
- 5,470
- Messages
- 8,074
- Discord Unique ID
- 742989175824842802
- Discord Username
- Sythe
Well historically whoever founds a society makes the rules. This is the concept of a constitution -- the basis for law in a new society.
A dictatorship is very different to the rule of law. Dictatorship is the rule of man, where everyone has to obey the dictates of the state (or its rulers). We currently live in a sort of world dictatorship, although no one will admit it. Why else would people in Europe and the Middle-east be so concerned about who is elected into the White House?
The rule of law means that no individual or collective is above the law. Specifically, in my mind, this also includes the inability to write new laws or amend existing ones. Once the law of the land is laid down, it should be either followed completely or completely abolished. Otherwise it tends to be just an illusion covering what is essentially the rule of man. If law is to be made then it should be followed unconditionally or abolished. Middle ground would be the rule of man.
This means no amendments, no new laws, no new taxes, and no new interpretations.
Of course this brings up some interesting problems. If there is to be just one unconditional unamendable piece of public law, then surely it must say very little, in a very simple way. It would not be possible to include a large amount of law because of changing culture and technology. Therefore the law would need to be restricted to just those issues concerning rightful property and individual rights.
This of course would be separate from the common law (private law). More like an amendment to, or restriction on, the common law as practiced in courts within the society.
We have seen that democracy is a mask for mob rule and dictatorship. We have seen that limited democracy becomes unlimited democracy. And the only justification for having democracy, seemingly, is to avoid revolution. But revolution tends to be a product of injustice and unrest (particularly high taxes and inflation). It would not surprise me if a free-society of limited or no government, founded under the rule of law, would also be immune to revolution.
Actually, if you really know what democracy is, you would know that a real democracy is run by people and not a government. But there is no such thing as a real democracy.
Democracy is derived from the Greek words Demos and Kratos, which mean "the people rule".
Actually, if 51% voted that they want to invade a country, they have to do it, or else it's against democracy.
Actually you are wrong. Run by the people is not entirely true. Please do your research before you respond, as a democracy is "For the people, by the people". The people do have power, but only to elect or remove their government. Which, in essence, is running the country.
And no again you are wrong. Who would start the vote but the leader of the country? People cannot just begin votes to invade, it has to be approved by senate (or congress in the States) and approved by the leader. The people have power, but they cannot just go around voting for whatever they want. There are rules you know, depending on what type of democracy your country is.
The Fat Controller
Guru
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2007
- Sythe Gold
- 1
- Messages
- 1,003
You're both wrong. There are different types of democracy. Direct democracy, representative democracy and so forth. Specify which form of democracy you are discussing and there will be no misunderstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_types_of_democracy
Women are human beings, rational creatures. Of course they deserve equal rights.
(Voted against suffrage by mistake.)
(Voted against suffrage by mistake.)
I laugh at how women wanted equal rights and then say no when they have to sign they can be drafted for war. This is hilarious. You have to take the whole package to be equal as males.
You idiot I said there was different types. So you were incorrect in posting that I was wrong, and he was just plain wrong.
Its my opinion that the one thing can't be counted upon is human accountability, therefore even by establishing in the begginning an unchangeable set of laws, we take an unkillable risk of screwing ourselves over. If much the same way that if we establish an infastructure for eavesdropping under a democracy today, and then find ourselves in a dictatorship tommorrow, rule of law simply hands the future tyrant a set of tools.
Therefore i believe the solution is to limit the boundaries of government from the outset and prevent a cycle of increased government power. A federal government in control of our military, a state/provincial/county/local government in control of our police, and no one in control of anything else* would prevent the efficacy of tyranny... dictatorial OR democratic. In such a system, assuming the people are aware of the limits of their government (and if they don't consent, they are of course free to leave), they will never really need to change things. And if a dictator assumed power, he would be greeted by a populace largely unfamiliar and therefore hostile to having their freedom limited.
*And by this, I mean the rights currently disallowed to us, to marry whomever we want, to do unto our body as we please, to engage in whatever activity so long as in reasonable doubt no one else is harmed.
sly motherfacker
Member
1st. They fight for their rights.
2nd. They get their rights
3rd. They complain that chivalry is dead
4th. You can't have equal rights and chivalry from your men at the same time so shut the fuck up and get on your knees
2nd. They get their rights
3rd. They complain that chivalry is dead
4th. You can't have equal rights and chivalry from your men at the same time so shut the fuck up and get on your knees
The right to vote shouldn't be decided by age, sex, race, or anything else besides not being an ignorant ass. There should be a test that would make sure that you know why your voting for someone. You shouldn't be allowed to vote for someone unless you know where they stand and why you agree with them.
sly motherfacker
Member
No. But there should be a required IQ test before you are allowed to vote.
Women should vote... Im against uneducated people that vote..
