The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy. 
Topic: Strong democracy or strong constitution ? - page 3. (Read 3458 times)
Strong Constitution would be my choice without question. They say a democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what is for dinner.
Hi,
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
Do you prefer a political system with strong democracy, where for example if the majority agree you can kill a part of the population or a system with strong constitution where even if just one person disagree you can't have "clean energy" subside ?
i dont care about thats all . i just want to be rich and life freedom with sexy gir until i ddie ...
Law to protect individual and privacy are needed via strong constitution.
Strong democracy implies mob rules.
Strong democracy implies mob rules.
I don't know much about politics but isn't constitution a product of democracy?
Also it seems to me that democracy is more dynamic and constitution is more rigid. They are both flawed.
Constitution could work if it were perfect but that's impossible to achieve.
Also it seems to me that democracy is more dynamic and constitution is more rigid. They are both flawed.
Constitution could work if it were perfect but that's impossible to achieve.
Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
Have you even heard about Switzerland ?
Yes, I heard about Switzerland and I know what you mean.
People there have right to ask for national referendum about any issue in their lives, but still they need their political Representatives, parliament, government etc.
Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
Have you even heard about Switzerland ?
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy. Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%
For countryfree:
Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.
This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.
I know all that. It wasn't smart tactics but democracy's always like that. Nothing has changed. In today's democracy, the winner is the one who spends the most in advertising. I shall also remind you of the Bush vs Gore battle for the U.S. 2000 presidential election. Gore had half a million more votes than Bush, but the latter got elected. Democracy may be the best system, but it's far from perfect.
Successfully blackmail the president to get a post isn't equal to be democratically elected. Isn't that clear enough? %)
Between the two, a strong constitution is the most direct form of democracy, since the democratic process here primarily takes place in the economy: the number of votes you get is directly equivalent to how much you contribute to that economy; nothing could be more fair.
Not exactly, the purported dichotomy is if capital votes or if people vote, i.e. is one dollar bill == one vote, or is one person == one vote. That's a difference. A pauper would practically have zero voice in such a purely capitalistic society, while in a democracy he would (theoretically) have one vote.
But either way, theoretically we have democracy in most parts of the world, but we all know in practice both approaches kinda fail.
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy. Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%
For countryfree:
Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.
This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.
I know all that. It wasn't smart tactics but democracy's always like that. Nothing has changed. In today's democracy, the winner is the one who spends the most in advertising. I shall also remind you of the Bush vs Gore battle for the U.S. 2000 presidential election. Gore had half a million more votes than Bush, but the latter got elected. Democracy may be the best system, but it's far from perfect.
Why do you think that this 2 terms are separated and that we have to choose between them?
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
Demos in Greek language is people, so democracy means that people rule the country through elected political representatives.
This representatives, in the name of the people, create constitution and lead the nation.
I don't think that is today's modern and complex society is possible something like ''direct democracy'' where people directly rule, without representatives.
This is to idealistic view but will never happen.
So, we will always choose representatives who will lead the country and people, and based on their political agenda, they will create constitution but for average people other lows like labor low, financial regulations, economy are more important in everyday life than constitution.
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy. Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%
For countryfree:
Reich president refused to appoint Hitler as reich chancellor. Then Hitler tried to get 2/3 of seats in order to get the post of reich chancellor without President's consent. But even during the state of emergency, even after 3rd attempt (elections were performed in 1932 and twice in 1933) to reach a super majority his party got only 36.8% of seats. It was epic fail for him.
This wasn't enough to get a position of reich chancellor without being appointed by the reich president. Realizing that the his democracy game isn't going well, he began to look for compromising evidence which could be used against the president, and found it. This evidences of tax evasion were used to force president appoint him as a reich chancellor.
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy. Indeed he was never elected democratically.
1932 Elections:
Nazi party: 36.8%
Independent: 53%
Communists: 10.2%
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected
No, he never was elected democratically. He tried to get a super majority in the parliament multiple times, but failed. Then he found a proof of tax evasion by the president, used this information as a subject of blackmailing to get a post of chancellor, and later appointed himself a president. Despite it was a direct violation of constitution, I wouldn't say that it was any kind of democracy.
Strong Constitution, people in big groups tend to be moved by emotion more than reason.
Issue with a Constitution is that people interpret it different ways.
For example:
1st Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Patriot Act internet controls could be interpreted constitutional as the 1st Amendment only protects freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. NOT the Internet or Telecommunications...
Issue with a Constitution is that people interpret it different ways.
For example:
1st Amendment, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Patriot Act internet controls could be interpreted constitutional as the 1st Amendment only protects freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. NOT the Internet or Telecommunications...
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected, or the djidahists who kill thousands because their religious book (which should be the base of a constitutional state according to them) tell them they're infidels.
You are free to choose one or the other and I'll keep on refusing both.
You are free to choose one or the other and I'll keep on refusing both.
I will not choose any of any of those groups. I will leave that country or joined the rebellion that is my choices.
True democracy sucks. That's why I roll my eyes when someone uses a majority of Americans supporting a policy as justification. Unless we have basic rights and limited government based on a constitution which is the *supreme law of the land* there is no limit to how the majority can abuse the minority.
"Democracy" itself is not a virtue. A society based on individual liberty, justice and rule of law, such as the one the founding fathers designed is. Don't throw democracy in my face when you are trying to take my rights and interfere in my life. The majority can be just as cruel a master as a king.
"Democracy" itself is not a virtue. A society based on individual liberty, justice and rule of law, such as the one the founding fathers designed is. Don't throw democracy in my face when you are trying to take my rights and interfere in my life. The majority can be just as cruel a master as a king.
The choice is between Hitler, who was democratically elected, or the djidahists who kill thousands because their religious book (which should be the base of a constitutional state according to them) tell them they're infidels.
You are free to choose one or the other and I'll keep on refusing both.
You are free to choose one or the other and I'll keep on refusing both.
Libertarians and anarchists love their guns. So if a socialist government comes to attack, then they will face resistance, unlike a country who believes they cannot trust their own citizen with weapons...
They will just stay away and fire big enterprise and then smaller enterprise with missile to make investor fear and the economy go back to something like Waziristan.
the fact that every land is on the control of a government make me very skeptical about anarchism defense. What will an anarchist society do when a socialist government army will come?
Libertarians and anarchists love their guns. So if a socialist government comes to attack, then they will face resistance, unlike a country who believes they cannot trust their own citizen with weapons...
Jump to: