>>> What happens if someone breaks a law that Obama manages to push >>> through Congress because of a perceived mandate? How is that not being >>> ruled?
>> Being tried in court by an independent judiciary charged to protect >> constitutional rights is the difference between governed by law and >> ruled by monarchs. > In both cases, people are subject to rules handed down from above. > Calling them laws and having courts does not change the fact that > people are being ruled by those they did not choose. Well yeah, although the rule of law rather than monarchs is an important distinction it's absolutely true that we all live with some sort of compulsion hanging over us. The philosophical underpinning of democracy is that having free elections means that elected governments operate with the consent of the governed - it is an implied social contract that even those who voted for an opposition still consent to be governed by the elected. If you vote you participate in the contract. If you don't and maintain all government is evil and to be resisted, well, you're just fighting reality. One way or the other the vacuum of power will be filled. If not by the elected then by the unelected. If not by the forceful then by the wealthy, if not by the wealthy then by the admired. It'll be someone. Best for all of us if we cooperate to create the best situation for everyone. There's a philosophical thought experiment about designing societies and how we should do it - imagine you're a disembodied spirit that will be born in the future to completely random parents. You have no idea what their station or fortune will be like but it happens you have the opportunity to design the society into which you'll be born. What society to you design? And as an aside while it's true we're all governed by forces generally out of our control it's not accurate to say they 'rule' us. Ruling is something a monarch does separate from governance. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
