--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <jon.rol...@...> wrote:
> We have the same problem if a majority of say, 51%, votes to take away
> the lives, liberty, or property of the minority 49%, who votes against
> it. That is the problem of majoritarian rule, and the reason the
> Founders insisted on a republic, with impediments to government action
> that would enable minorities, which have come to be called "veto
> groups", to block action.
I've been hearing that sales pitch since my 7th grade social studies class.
While a direct democracy does indeed produce a Tyranny of the majority, a
republic only replaces that with a Tyranny of the MINORITY. Either way, you
will have Tyranny, so what's the point?
Loop holes will eventually be found and exploited by those who seek power. It
is only a matter of time until the constitution is completely circumvented, and
there's nothing that you or I can do about it.
Participation in government by the citizenry (which you advocate) only
increases the stranglehold of Tyranny by legitimizing what is essentially a
textbook Criminal Protection Racket.
Why would any decent person want to contribute to the deliberations of a Crime
Syndicate? The fact that so many people have turned down the opportunity to
participate in this scheme is encouraging to me.
My goal is to sow the seeds of this disillusionment wherever I can. Breaking
our dependence on Authority is the only way out of this mess.
---Sasan
