mahoney@bach.DEC (01/09/86)
-------------------- mail dated 7-JAN-1986 20:49--------------------- >---- > No, it doesn't. The president is elected by the people. The president >is also commander and chief of the armed forces. Democracy does not mean >that the people make the decisions directly. > The U. S. constitution does give Congress the sole power to declare war. >It can be legitimately argued that undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam >are unconstitutional. This has no bearing on whether the U. S. is a democracy. >If Reagan unilaterally decided to push the button tomorrow, we will all be >dead, and Reagan will have become the greatest mass murderer in history, but >the U. S. will still have been a democracy. >-- >Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan Mr Tanenbaum Democracy does mean the the people make the decisions directly. The best represenative of a democarcy in the US is New England Town Meetings. The people by direct vote make the policy decisions for the town. The US is a republic or as the term now in vougue repersenative democracy. The reason the term democracy is used is that men like Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt thought that democracy sounded better then rebublic. (They being democrats and all). I feel even the term represenative democracy is misleading remember what the name of the army during the civil war The Grand Army of the Republic. We have freedoms and so forth but freedoms do not make you a democracy direct control of decision making is what makes you a democracy. We the people do not have direct control we elect represenatives to make decisions for us. We have indirect control and thus we are a republic. One of the big reasons for moving away from the term reublic I think is that most of your communist countries use it. We don't want people to be confused. :-) I agree with you when you say what the presidents do has no bearing on what type of government the US is. They obviously are acting in an unconstitutional manner as such those presidents should have been removed but that is neither here nor there now. Brian Mahoney
kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) (01/12/86)
Brian Mahoney is correct. The US Government is structered as a Republic, meaning that a small number of representatives make decisions on behalf of their electorate. We call ourselves a representative democracy because every adult citizen is entitled to vote for his/her representative, although the voting strength is not perfectly uniform across the populace. In a society as large as the US, it would be impractical to have a true democracy, because it would be infeasible for the citizenry to adequately inform itself of all the issues at hand. This is why we trust our representatives to specialize in various kinds of legislation. The price we pay is that from time to time, one of our specialists fails to consider the concerns of a disadvantaged group. Would that we had the capacity to be fully informed at all times. Alas, the human information channel has finite capacity, which falls far short of the demands of a true democracy. --Barry Kort
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (01/15/86)
> make decisions on behalf of their electorate. We call ourselves > a representative democracy because every adult citizen is entitled > to vote for his/her representative, although the voting strength > is not perfectly uniform across the populace. > > --Barry Kort In theory, the american political system can be called a representative democracy, because of the ONE MAN/ONE VOTE principle. However, in practice , the system is not adequately representative, because the actual principle of representation is ONE DOLLAR/ ONE VOTE. Thus you find numerically small groups of the population over represented and over influential thru their lobbies, due to their dollar power. Conversely, you also find numerically large groups of americans under-represented and marginally influential, due to their lack of sufficient dollar power. Chedley Aouriri. ITT-ATC, Shelton,CT.
matt@brl-tgr.ARPA (Matthew Rosenblatt ) (01/16/86)
> In theory, the american political system can be called a > representative democracy, because of the ONE MAN/ONE VOTE > principle. > However, in practice , the system is not adequately representative, > because the actual principle of representation is ONE DOLLAR/ ONE > VOTE. [CHEDLEY AOURIRI] Not really. The middle-income people (like me) have much greater aggregate income than the rich. Yet the rich remain untouched by the economy, their kids never got drafted, and the income of the middle-income people is heavily taxed for redistribution to rabble who have never worked a day in their lives. Is our government run right? Is government of the people, by the elite, for the rabble what we want? If not, let's discard BOTH the 1962 Supreme Court's "one man, one vote" (which, by the way, was never the intent of the Founding Fathers in 1787) and Mr. Aouriri's "one dollar/one vote." Reorganize the government like a corporation (NB: NOT a "corporate state"!), and sell SHARES for something like $5 apiece to Americans. These shareholders would elect a President and a Board of Directors according the "one SHARE/one vote" principle, the way other corporations do. Together, the hundreds of millions of working people would own more shares, and hence outvote, the few hundred thousand rich and the pointy-headed intellectual elite, and we'd see government that actually provides a return to those of us who are footing the bill! -- Matt Rosenblatt
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (01/17/86)
>/* kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) / 1:43 pm Jan 12, 1986 */ >The price we pay is that from time to time, one of our specialists fails >to consider the concerns of a disadvantaged group. Why do you call this "a price we pay?" Perhaps the majority would prefer it this way? Perhaps the majority would prefer it if representatives gave less consideration than they do now to such groups? Mike Sykora
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (01/19/86)
> > If not, let's discard BOTH the 1962 Supreme Court's "one man, one vote" > (which, by the way, was never the intent of the Founding Fathers in 1787) > and Mr. Aouriri's "one dollar/one vote." Reorganize the government like > a corporation (NB: NOT a "corporate state"!), and sell SHARES for something > like $5 apiece to Americans. These shareholders would elect a President and > a Board of Directors according the "one SHARE/one vote" principle, the way > -- Matt Rosenblatt Matt's propsal of "one share/one vote" is equivalent to "X DOLLARS/ONE VOTE" where x is the market price or value of one government share. To the extent that those government shares will be bought and sold on the free market (the NY stock exchange?), their price x will fluctuate according to the economic law of supply and demand. We would have then a fluctuating democratic principle of government. If we adopt such a system, we will have to be careful and keep in check those who would try to manipulate the government stock price. Wall-Street Corporate raiders and take-over specialists will be delighted to expand into the market for government control, whenever the market for corporate control gets depressed. And of course, we can expect foreign investors (Arabs, Japanese,...and who knows, may be russians) to pour all their money in our country to take over our government. Nice way to solve the budget deficit, is n't'it? :-) -:) -): :-) -:) -): Chedley Aouriri ITT-ATC, Shelton, CT. ...ittatc!ittvax!aouriri
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (01/20/86)
> However, in practice , the system is not adequately representative, > because the actual principle of representation is ONE DOLLAR/ ONE > VOTE. Thus you find numerically small groups of the population > over represented and over influential thru their lobbies, due to their > dollar power. Conversely, you also find numerically large groups of > americans under-represented and marginally influential, due to > their lack of sufficient dollar power. > Chedley Aouriri. Here Chedley goes again with his racist remarks. I know you didn't say "Jews" (or maybe "Zionists") but it's obvious what you meant. Did you get this from "protocols of the elders of zion"?
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (01/21/86)
> > However, in practice , the system is not adequately representative, > > because the actual principle of representation is ONE DOLLAR/ ONE > > VOTE. Thus you find numerically small groups of the population > > over represented and over influential thru their lobbies, due to their > > dollar power. Conversely, you also find numerically large groups of > > americans under-represented and marginally influential, due to > > their lack of sufficient dollar power. > > Chedley Aouriri. > Here Chedley goes again with his racist remarks. I know you didn't say > "Jews" (or maybe "Zionists") but it's obvious what you meant. > Did you get this from "protocols of the elders of zion"? OK! Assume that I meant to include american jews in the set of numerically small groups who are over-represented and over influential in the american political system. I do not see why is that a racist remark?? Psychologists have a name for those who label a racist any non jew who says something about jews: it is persecution paranoids. Chedley Aouriri.
brandx@ihlpl.UUCP (H. D. Weisberg) (01/23/86)
> > > Here Chedley goes again with his racist remarks. I know you didn't say > > "Jews" (or maybe "Zionists") but it's obvious what you meant. > > Did you get this from "protocols of the elders of zion"? > > OK! Assume that I meant to include american jews in the set of > numerically small groups who are over-represented and over influential > in the american political system. I do not see why is that a racist > remark?? > Psychologists have a name for those who label a racist any non jew > who says something about jews: it is persecution paranoids. > > Chedley Aouriri. Since it's obvious that you meant Jews, then I definitely feel that you are making a racist remark. 1) You have no proof that support of Israel is provided because of "over-represented and over influential" American Jews. The fact is that US interests decide foreign policy with respect to Israel. 2) The line you have is exactly the line taken by hard-line racists (Farrakhan, neo-nazis, etc.). You call my seeing the similarity of your arguments (not only in this case, but in general; I won't forget what you said about the spy case) to that of racists "persecution paranoia". I don't care what anyone calls it. As a Jew, I have a responsibility to fight the spread of racism.