I should have registered to vote.

[MrPopo]

I agree that there are certain acts that tend to be considered wrong across all cultures and times. However, I don't see these as absolute morals as immuatable as the physical laws that govern the universe. I see these as survival mechanisms that allow humans and society to continue to grow and evolve. To use your rape and child killing But this aversion initiates from a subconcious level. And we can look through history and see just how often war and rape go hand-in-hand.

You do not have to believe to believe in absolute right or wrong to disagree with the "might makes right" ideas of democracy. Not believing in absolute right or wrong does not logically lead one to democracy or a 50% + 1 determination of right and wrong. Additionally, there is no necessary link between "right" and "wrong" and "legal" and "illegal". There are many things that I believe to be wrong which I also believe should be legal.

The conversation at this point can go two ways. Either it can continue as a discussion of politics, or the existence of absolute morality. I do not see a strong correlation between the two.

I agree with you here that majority rules is not necessarily the best way to determine right and wrong. I'm going to leave legal and illegal out of it because theoretically right should equal legal and wrong should equal illegal and I don't want to confuse the issue. However, if democracy (majority rules or variations where you need a certain amount of majority to rule) is not the best system to determine what is right or wrong then what is? A single man? How do you pick him? A small council? How do you pick them?

Any system of government involves trading in some amount of freedom to do whatevery ou want in exchange for security. A system of laws determines what you can and cannot do. By the very nature of having government the laws must apply to everyone (once again, let's not cloud the issue with special case laws). And no matter how the laws are picked there will be people that disagree with them. So how do you decide which things should be laws? Democracy has the greatest chance of creating laws that people will accept because they the majority of the population has agreed that something should be a law.

Now, don't forget that we don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic. There is a big difference between the two. Can you imagine trying to pass ANYTHING if everyone in America was allowed to vote on it?

[Limewater]

I agree with you here that majority rules is not necessarily the best way to determine right and wrong. I'm going to leave legal and illegal out of it because theoretically right should equal legal and wrong should equal illegal and I don't want to confuse the issue.

I don't follow. If you don't believe in absolute, how can you say that right and wrong should correlate with legality? If you say there are no absolutes and that right and wrong to correlate with legality, doesn't that just leave everything is some gray area between legality and illegality?

Again, I don't see any necessary correlation between "right" and "wrong" and "legal" and "illegal".

However, if democracy (majority rules or variations where you need a certain amount of majority to rule) is not the best system to determine what is right or wrong then what is? A single man? How do you pick him? A small council? How do you pick them?

I don't see that I need to provide an alternative to democracy to discuss its problems. If we are being optimistic, I think that a clear best government would be a true theocracy. Who better to determine what should or should not be legal than G_d?

So how do you decide which things should be laws? Democracy has the greatest chance of creating laws that people will accept because they the majority of the population has agreed that something should be a law.

Sure, democracy has the greatest chance of creating laws that the majority of people will agree with. But that is pretty meaningless, in the grand scheme of things. It just gives people and excuse to tell others what to do, and leads to things being made illegal just because enough people find them distasteful, annoying, or just not their preference. People will impose their will on others given the chance. Just look at the people who try to trick people who don't like mayonnaise to eat something that contains it. Or look at the pot heads who try and try to get others to smoke with them. And that's just silly stuff.

Now, don't forget that we don't live in a democracy; we live in a republic. There is a big difference between the two. Can you imagine trying to pass ANYTHING if everyone in America was allowed to vote on it?

Sure, I can imagine trying to pass stuff if everyone was allowed to vote on it. As I mentioned before, the entire country would pretty much exist to serve California and the northeast.

[Mr.White555]

For all those people who want a direct elections I have one word. HITLER!

Yeah that's right. I said it! He was elected by free people in a direct election.

There hasn't been a single powerful political institution which has not been mutated by corruption and which lead to tyranny.

The state will eventually be so corrupt a "savior" will be there to "redeem" the nation. Julius Caesar... Napoleon Bonaparte... Vladimir Lennon... Hitler... Who Will be next??!

History repeats itself gentlemen.

[Limewater]

For all those people who want a direct elections I have one word. HITLER!

Yeah that's right. I said it! He was elected by free people in a direct election.

There hasn't been a single powerful political institution which has not been mutated by corruption and which lead to tyranny.

The state will eventually be so corrupt a "savior" will be there to "redeem" the nation. Julius Caesar... Napoleon Bonaparte... Vladimir Lennon... Hitler... Who Will be next??!

History repeats itself gentlemen.

Wow. Eight pages into a political discussion and I honestly didn't see Godwin coming.

[Xonticus]

And media funded by advertisers (ie: anyone with money enough to buy time) is a better solution? Journalism used to have some ideals, some integrity, almost all of it is now gone. Almost anyone could tell you that Fox News supports the conservative causes and CNN supports the liberal causes. There was a time when you couldn't peg a good media outlet as either, they simply reported the news instead of told you what to think about (their version) of the news. Oh Walter Kronkite we miss you!

I believe that yes, it would be a better solution. It may not be the BEST solution, but certainly better than media directly tainted with government ties. And this is where I agree with you about what journalism used to be. The funny thing is that even then, they had advertisers funding them, and that wasn't so bad was it? We need more people like Walter Kronkite, Edward R. Murrow and (dare I say it) Jon Stewart in the world to make us actually think about events rather than reporting a skewed one-sided ratings-grabbing "story".

For all those people who want a direct elections I have one word. HITLER!

Yeah that's right. I said it! He was elected by free people in a direct election.

There hasn't been a single powerful political institution which has not been mutated by corruption and which lead to tyranny.

The state will eventually be so corrupt a "savior" will be there to "redeem" the nation. Julius Caesar... Napoleon Bonaparte... Vladimir Lennon... Hitler... Who Will be next??!

History repeats itself gentlemen.

Interesting conclusion, I just hope that I do not live to see that day.

[Mr.White555]

For all those people who want a direct elections I have one word. HITLER!

Yeah that's right. I said it! He was elected by free people in a direct election.

There hasn't been a single powerful political institution which has not been mutated by corruption and which lead to tyranny.

The state will eventually be so corrupt a "savior" will be there to "redeem" the nation. Julius Caesar... Napoleon Bonaparte... Vladimir Lennon... Hitler... Who Will be next??!

History repeats itself gentlemen.

Wow. Eight pages into a political discussion and I honestly didn't see Godwin coming.

Godwin Smodwin. I was using an example how general will is a futile endeavor that leads to a vicious cycle which GOD FORBID includes Hitler.All of those leaders I stated all came to power from popularity(general will in one form or another) and were able to sustain their rule by popularity.

Popularity + Charismatic figure + Turbulent time = A tyrannical regime whose original goals were considered progressive to their native populations.

Popularity and politics don't mix. Direct elections are an extension of general will/popularity.

I'm done with my rant

[Limewater]

Godwin Smodwin. I was using an example how general will is a futile endeavor that leads to a vicious cycle which GOD FORBID includes Hitler.All of those leaders I stated all came to power from popularity(general will in one form or another) and were able to sustain their rule by popularity.

Popularity + Charismatic figure + Turbulent time = A tyrannical regime whose original goals were considered progressive to their native populations.

Popularity and politics don't mix. Direct elections are an extension of general will/popularity.

I'm done with my rant

I think your rant is legitimate. I was just surprised at myself for being surprised at a Godwin, given the nature of the discussion.

But I'd be careful mentioning Hitler on this thread. I talked about getting punched in the face earlier, and apparently that was enough to get my points branded as silly and ridiculous. Hitler's definitely edgier than a kick to the groin.

[Specineff]

Vladimir Lennon.

I want to hold your hand, Comrade. All aboard the Red Submarine! Sgt. Pepperov's and the Soviet Hearts Club. She loves you, da, da, da. Power to the People of the Republic, and Give The Revolution a Chance.

Sorry, it's late.

[Octopod]

Oh well, Brown won. Let people reap what they sow. I have no idea why I started this thread here anyhow, I mean, this is a video game forum. Sorry for that folks.

[MrPopo]

Limewater, last night I had written up a response to your post, but then my internet freaked out after I hit submit and it was lost. I promise to respond to you when I get some time today.