Where do you rank your political beliefs?

lol, lets just put names in for liberal and conservative to know what he means...Yes I know these are false definitions.

Liberal= Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, John Kerry
Conservative=Justice Scalia, George W. Bush, Sean Hannity
 
If non-democratic decisions are unjust in the same sense a prohibition on murder is unjust, perhaps we should all embrace injustice.

You decide to give water to a man dying of thirst.
This decision is non-democratic
You believe non-democratic decisions are unjust.

Therefore, you believe your decision to give water to a man dying of thirst is unjust.

----

What you should do, Eddie, instead of giving water to that man, you should implement democracy on your water-giving. Anything else would be unjust...

There is no argument to be made about the justice of democracy. The US was not founded as a democracy, its founders explicitly rejected the idea of a democracy.

Any true democracy, that is, one not bound up with a separation of powers, some of them allocated to a non-democratic section of government, and constitution restricting what it may decree, lasts but a short time before becoming a dictatorship.

There is no such thing as "democratic self-determination", you either determine an action yourself, or you determine it democratically, you cannot do both. That you are part of a mob does not imply that you are the mob.
 
Well I am a Conservative and I have some Libertarian views especially in the are of small government and a new income tax system.....
 
I think they "should" be able to do all these things. Not because I want them to come to pass, but because the alternative (constraining the ability to pass laws through democracy) is worse. I`m not opposed to certain checks and ballances though. And I do advocate some form of constitution and special protection for certain laws (protection as in making it harder to change them, like requiring two seperate votes in between elections).

And let`s face it, when the populace decide they want to kill off people for being hippies, or arrest people for wearing big hats, something is very, very wrong... And a sacred piece of paper outlining the role of the government will not change that. If politicans and the people want to do these things, I fear that the democracy is in danger, irregardless if you have a constitution or not. A democracy is only a coup away from a dictatorship. The constitutions of the weimar republic or tzar Russia did not protect the countries in any way...

Sorry for the late reply BTW :)
 
Tyranny is tyranny let it come from whom it may. If we have a populist populace and minarchist judges, then I am on the side of the judges.

Of all liberties, personal liberty is most important, economic liberty is second-most important, and democracy, though important, is least important. I would rather live under a libertarian oligarchy than a totalitarian democracy.
 
Wow, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Based on past precedent regarding conflicts, or potential conflicts, between the US constitution and a states constitution, the federal courts virtually HAVE to take the cases, and in the event that the state wins in the first round, appeals being granted is a given until it is in the Supreme Court.

The question of whether state constitutions can supersede the federal constitution based on the states rights argument was settled years ago. Several states constitutions specifically precluded women and blacks from voting. Guess what? Women and blacks can vote in every state. The Us supreme court struck down the constitutional provisions of those states that singled out white males as the only eligible voters.

"States rights" do not apply in cases where a state constitution potentially violates the Federal constitution, since a state does not have the right to violate the federal constitution regardless of how they do it.

Hard to overturn? In order fro the gays to win, they have to get ONE single, solitary federal judge in each district to rule on their side. In order for the fundies to win, they have to win every appeal right up to the supreme court, have to win in the supreme court, and have to prove what is basically impossible, that banning gay marriage is somehow not a constitutional violation.

This is why Bush was pushing for a federal constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments at the state level simply will not get the job done since they will be overturned in federal court as violating the US constitution. And there is really no doubt that it violates the US constitution, or he would have simply pushed a law through congress. The support for such a law was there, and congress would have had the jurisdiction to pass such a law based on the fact that the status of gays regarding marriage significantly impacts insurance, health care, banking, and even taxation, which certainly puts it under the category of "interstate commerce".

That did not pass a law because they could not find a single reputable legal expert who was willing to claim that such a law was constitutional.
 
Yeah, which is imposing their morality on others (through threat of violence). The morality that it is wrong to force things on others.

In adition to that we have property rights that certainly are imposing a moral on others (both by assigning ownership and outlawing theft). As well as contract law etc. You can`t get away from imposing morality on others unless you want to abolish government completly (in which case others will impose their morality on others based on their ability to project (threats of) violence).



You mean laws upheld by the threat of force? If you can`t see the benefits of them, I don`t think I can help you ;)
 
Well, remember that Libertarians and Conservatives both favor less government interference in fiscal and economic areas. So the idea of a more flat tax system is shared by both Libertarians and Conservatives. The difference between Libertarians and Conservatives is that Libertarians favor small government in individual lifestyles and morality while Conservatives favor more government interference in individual lifestyle and morality. Someone who favors a small government overall is a Libertarian.

So a Libertarian is not the direct opposite of a Conservative; a Liberal is the direct opposite of a Conservative and a Populist is a direct opposite of a Libertarian (a Populist is a person who favors a large government in all aspects; a Libertarian favors a small government in all aspects). Look at the chart I posted, and you'll see that it is possible for someone to be on the border between Libertarian and Conservative. That sort of person would be someone who believes in small government when it comes to fiscal issues, and is moderate when it comes to government interference in morality / social issues.

Does that make things any more clear?
 
That's what the judicary is there for. To remove laws that are blantantly discriminator and unconsitutional. Once again, striking down laws on the basis of their constituonality is bad thing to you.

Do you support the tyranny of the majority? For one who speaks of freedoms, you seem all too inclined to strip a number of groups of their rights.
 
Back
Top