:lol: What you talkin' about, Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by pj
Printable View
:lol: What you talkin' about, Willis?Quote:
Originally Posted by pj
I know, but I've decided that I agree with you about how cool the 70s were, so I'm knocking 7 years off my demands just so that the decade of Starsky and Hutch can remain (pretty much) where it should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by Universal Mind
Don't forget that the 80s produced such musical masterpieces as "The Eye of the Tiger", which is not at all Kajagoogoo-ish. (And I don't think the 70s has anything over the 80s in terms of pants (or haircuts (or shirts))).
Sorry, but I'd say that the Rock Renaissance of which you speak can actually be traced back to the late 60s. (Led Zep formed in 1968, as did Sabbath and Deep Purple!).
So in fact... 1968 + 507 would be... 2475. And hey presto, all those bands DID form in the 70s. You with me now?
Rather than democracy, let's use the invention of the printing press in 1436. That would make it 571. The other logical starting point would be the adoption of the Gregorian calendar in 1582 which would make this 425.
So we should be ruled by freaks, outcasts and individualists?Quote:
Originally Posted by pj
Doesn't sound like fun to me.
How did you extract that from my statement?Quote:
Originally Posted by Identity X
Who owns you?
^^^To paraphrase Churchill.
Whoops, a little late; disregard.
When begin to look back on the 90's/2000-201o, I think we will see it as the worst era for (popular) music. Too much shitty music containing shittier lyrics.
PJ, it's easy to knock democracy when you're living confortably in one. To follow Moonbeam's train of though, it's the least worst system we have right now. What would you suggest as an alternative?
Common misconception there, friend. We most certainly do NOT live in a democracy. The U.S. is a Constitutionally Limited Republic. As originally conceived, democratic selection was limited to delegates, the House of Representitives (and NOT the Senate), local and state politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
The slide into a 'representative democracy' is a tragedy that would have this nation's founders rolling over in their graves.
Quote:
"A republic, if you can keep it."
--Benjamin Franklin
(finishing the prior post - got interrupted.)Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
As an alternative, I would recommend a return to a strictly limited federal government, as clearly outlined in the Constitution. What has gone wrong with the U.S. is the entrusting of the federal government with vast wealth and power and then allowing it to break free of its constitutional constraints.
I'm a bit of an ametuer astronomer, why not revert to Julian time?
Besides, I think the humanists have tried to pry the calandar away from Christianity with their designation of Before Current Era (B.C.E.)
Birth of democracy? Has anyone a firm date on when this occurred?
PJ:
Oh, I didn't know that! Thanks. I live in Switzerland where things are even a bit too democratic (we are asked to vote about everything all the time, even things like "should the airforce buy more F/A18s... (actual case a few years ago)). So in fact you DO like democracy, right? :-)
Hi Seeker, what's Julian time?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seeker
About the birth of democracy, the link in the original post (above) dates it back to some reforms in Athens in about 508/507 BC. (But I'm sure others have put in prior claims!).
No... not really. Democracy is nice in certain areas, but handing the entire rule of law over to the majority is a formula for self-destruction. The best sales pitch would always rule the day.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Which, of course, is what is increasingly happening here.
I like democracy in choosing representatives, not in settling public policy.
So what's your solution?
At the root of it, I'm an anarchist. Humanity isn't ready for that yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by three and four
Again, my solution is a return to what we were established to be - a loosely-knit group of states with individual and powerful state governments, each pretty well autonomous, and a federal government whose purpose is STRICTLY limited to national defense and international trade. I would also repeal the 17th amendment (and the 16th as well, but that's another tirade), returning the Senate to being the appointed protectors of the states rather than another elected body catering to a constituency.
Together, the 16th and 17th amendments turned this nation into something it was never intended to be by investing vast wealth and power in the federal government while placing the choosing of all handling that wealth and power into direct elections.
Oh no. I'm having flashbacks to Extended Discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by pj
We live in a democratic republic. It's not a total democracy. Pure democracy would be a cluster#$%@ because there are so many laws we need to leave it up to our "expert" elected representatives to make and repeal.
Then again, that strict definition is only in the "esp." part of some definitions ("majority rule"). Democracy is more loosely defined as any government where the people have the ultimate control. One run by elected representatives is genearlly considered to be a form of that. In that sense, the U.S. is a democracy because we could undo the entire government right away if enough of us wanted to.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy
Indeed, PJ, we are not yet ready for anarchy! (But having no need for rules because nobody would even think of harming / abusing / threatening / exploiting others would be Paradise for sure. Maybe in some distant future we could reach that stage...).
I can’t comment much on the specifics of the US that you both (PJ and UM) have mentioned – I don’t know your system well enough. Few people know that Switzerland is also a Federal State: this country is actually composed of 23 (small!) States with their own Parliaments, etc, and a lot of freedom in terms of education, construction, taxation, etc. So I certainly agree with the principle of limiting the powers of the Central (Federal) government, and letting local entities do things their way as much as possible.
But bottom line, as UM said, is that democracy boils down to people getting together to govern themselves. And that basic idea, at our current stage of development, surely is not such a bad thing (even if it means that not everybody can be happy all the time!).
And I still think that the official date of its birth (back in ancient Athens) would be worth remembering! (Because I don’t think any of us would want to be living in North Korea right now).
Thanks for the info about Switzerland. It is fascinating, and now I want to learn more about your history. You are a fascinating country indeed, and one of the few remaining in the world that is not using fiat currency. That alone demands tremendous respect.
To understand what the United States was MEANT to be, you need to recognize that the entire system came out of a deep mistrust of government power and the recognition that humans, when invested with vast wealth and power, become corrupt. The key to understanding the TYPE of government we have (had) here in the U.S. lies in the principle of sovereignty. The democratic process, (as opposed to democracy as a governmental SYSTEM,) is only a small part of our government Of the People, By the People and For the People. (Well, it used to be anyway.)
When we broke with the English crown, sovereignty was invested in the individuals - us... me. According to our system of government, I am sovereign. (Oh, if it were only true.)
So the democratic process becomes a tool for the sovereigns to speak, and that only under very limited circumstances and with protections against it all turning into mob rule and steamrolling minority groups, smaller states, etc. The system that was established, however, was most certainly not based in democracy. Democracy is not the sole essence of self-government. (It is, in fact, an extremely flawed method of self-government.) Individual rights are the essence of self-government - rights that are respected by the government rather than granted.
Rights that are granted are not rights at all, you see - they are merely privileges to be manipulated by those in power.
I don't like the date our calender starts on, but it would be way to hard to change it now, because there would be so many dates that would need to be changed. The history books would be a mess. And sadly, most people think Jesus was the son of god/a prohphet so, many people would be against it. The birth of democracy was a great day though.
PJ, I agree with everything you said about rights.
Yeah, there are some laws the government has no business passing, even if the representatives passing them are elected and could be recalled out of office immediately. Democracy and full freedom are not synonymous.
The mayans had it right when they based the calendar on astronomy. No event should be the basis of the beginning of the new age aside from astronomical revolutions. What if we just decided the new year would start everytime we put a celebrity on trial?
June 18, 2003 would be a really good time to begin the calander. :D
Let's change 1 minute to 100 seconds, an hour to 100 minutes, and a day to 10 hours while we're at it.
Actually, we could kill leap years by adding a month to our calendar.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvo