🚀 go-pugleaf

gary@ke4zv.uucp  writes:

> In article <1992Aug12.001838.14325@news.unomaha.edu> trajan@cwis.unomaha.edu (Stephen McIntyre) writes:
> >goykhman_a@apollo.hp.com  writes:
> >
> >>     Do you realize that if the New World Order takes hold,
> >>     there will be no place to hide?
> >
> >Why would you have to hide?  Are you breaking any laws or something
> >     that would make you want to hide?
> 
> That's a singularly stupid statement. If you were living in a country
> that decided to exterminate jews, would you happily obey the law?
> Suppose you were a jew. Stupid, dangerous, and vicious laws have been 
> passed throughout history by dictatorships *and* by democracies. Mob rule 
> is one of the most dangerous kinds of rule, look at the French revolution,
> or early Soviet Union for examples of what happens when the will of the 
> majority is unchecked.

[ The rest deleted to save space.]

I would not be happy to abide by a law that would require me
     or anyone else to exterminate Jews.  I don't think anyone
     else (except a bigot) would either-- which is why you will
     never see a law passed like that in this country or in the
     majority of Western nations.
     
While it is true that inhumane laws have and still exist 
     throughout the world, even being passed through by
     dictatorships and democracies alike, the majority of
     Western democracies have done away with such laws.
     You mentioned, for example, the U.S. and its treatment
     of slaves (sorry I erased it).  What you failed to say
     was why the slaves were treated the way they were:
     human ignorance (this, BTW, is no excuse for the nation's
     behavior.)  You also neglected the fact that 1) the U.S.
     did away with slavery (human enlightenment) and that
     2) legalized slavery will never be a part of this nation
     again (The Constitution has this covered.)
     
You also mentioned the French and Bolshevik revolutions.  Again,
     while you certainly pointed out these cases as being instances
     of mob rule, you still fail to see (or perhaps say) how
     Western democracies have more or less done away with such
     reactionary mobs.

> Our founding fathers partially saw this danger called democracy. That's
> why the US is not a democracy. It's a constitutional republic with some
> democratic elements. The system of checks and balances on majority whim
> is an attempt to mitigate the horrors of the mob. It's fallible because
> it's operated by fallible men, but it's better than any purely democratic
> alternative in protecting the rights of individuals.

I stand corrected-- I should have stated that our government is 
     a republic, with *democratically* elected officials (Congress)
     overseeing our nation.  But you did point out something I had
     said in an earlier posting: our government is controlled
     by using a system of checks and balances, making the each of
     the three branches of our federal system watch and counter-
     balance one another (how else could we stop the government
     from taking away our rights?).  This same form of checks
     and balances could also be applied when creating a world
     government; see earlier postings of mine on this subject. 

> Gary

Stephen @Trajan