From: Randall Randall (wolfkin@freedomspace.net)
Date: Tue Jul 30 2002 - 15:57:09 MDT
Lee Corbin wrote:
> Randall writes
>
>>>(fanciful exceptions aside,
>>
>>With the number of deaths attributed to government in the 20th
>>century alone standing at well over 100 million people, I hardly
>>think you can call exceptions 'fanciful'. The word seems to
>>imply that you believe that people just make up these things,
>>or that such things can't happen where you live, so aren't
>>worth worrying about.
> What, did you start replying even before you got to the end
> of the sentence? :-)
I was impatient. :)
> It's clear I meant democratic
> societies, and that totally and specifically excludes
> the 20th century holocausts.
Well, no.
"On August 19, 1934, 95% of the Germans who were registered
to vote went to the polls and 90% (38 million) of adult German
citizens voted to give Adolf Hitler complete and total authority
to rule Germany as he saw fit. Only 4.25 million Germans voted
against this transfer of power to a totalitarian regime."
-- The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer
Democracies do things like this, sometimes.
Now Eliezer will jump in to proclaim the thread over. :)
> Yes, laws made by democratic societies are mostly better, but
> you sound as though that's the only reason to support democracy.
Actually, I don't think that's a good enough reason.
> Yes, we should always "cut to the chase" and advocate the
> enactment of good laws. Of course. But democracy (or
> republicanism) also causes power and influence to be spread
> more evenly, encourages openness, and teaches cooperation.
> (Think of kids holding elections in schools.) A benign
> dictatorship somehow guaranteed to produce only laws that
> were just would still be a worse place.
Would you agree that republics or parliamentary democracies
with universal adult suffrage are democratic? Some examples
of countries which are democratic and have been for some time:
Rwanda since at least 1991
Serbia since at least 1992
Zimbabwe since at least 1979
Clearly democracy, in and of itself, is somewhat overrated.
Nearly every nation gives lip service to "democracy", but
that has little bearing on the actions of the government
of said nation.
>>>Democracy is the least worst
>>>of governments because of that feedback from the voters.
>>
>>Democracy may be better than other forms of government.
>>However, even democracy gave us WWII and the slaughter
>>of the Native Americans.
>
> Sorry, but that's utter nonsense. World War II was brought
> about by the imperialistic ambitions of Germany and Japan.
> Had they been democratic, it wouldn't have happened.
See above about Germany. Hard as it may be to accept,
democracy doesn't prevent such things.
> elsewhere in the U.S. No, in every case, whether its
> Britain's management of its African and Indian colonies,
> or Frances, life for the natives would have been infinitely
> worse under Mussolini, Tojo, or the Germans.
I don't know enough to argue this point with you.
>>There has never been a nation ruled by laws. Such a thing
>>sounds nice, but those who enforce the laws still must
>>choose to do so. President Jefferson of the US acknowledged
>>that he was violating the Constitution himself during his
>>term in the early 1800s.
>
> Again, you pick one exception by one American president to
> conclude that "there never has been a nation ruled by law".
No, I'm just pointing out that if even Jefferson didn't feel
constrained by the Constitution, while most of its authors
presumably still lived, why should we suppose that any
President or Congress has paid it any attention, except when
we have evidence otherwise?
The Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" in the US,
yet it was ignored steadily, even by those one would expect
to most want to uphold it.
> Since ancient times, many societies have indeed been held
> in check by the laws, and innumerable times otherwise
> nearly omnipotent dictators had to bow before it. In
> most major countries in the world today, those in power
> have utterly no choice but to obey the law. Why didn't
> Nixon just order the arrest of all those pesky scoundrels
> in Congress the way that Indira Ghandi did? Simple: India
> had not yet evolved to the point that it's at today.
Certainly not because he thought that some law would get him.
Remember that he'd already been breaking the law, and didn't
apparently consider that a problem. No, he couldn't do that
because the orders wouldn't be obeyed. Gorbachev didn't
have Yeltsin killed, but not because the rule of law stopped
him.
It is clear that in the US today, you can be disappeared. There
is even an ongoing thread about it on this list:
"Man Criticizes Government, News at 11". This doesn't happen to
just anyone, yet, but that's certainly the direction it seems
to be heading, and I don't know any way to prevent it.
Electing different officials hasn't slowed it yet; why would
that work now?
> that fact doesn't change it. I'd bet anything that you
> really knew what was attempting to be communicated.
Well, it was clear you picked the wrong analogy, but other than
that, I got the "just because the system isn't perfect is no
reason to abolish it" message.
>>At the same time, it is also true that the majority of actual
>>prison inmates are people who are just like the average person
>>on the street, except that he or she was in the wrong place at
>>the wrong time, or angered the wrong person.
>
> Still seems incorrect to me every time I read that and similar
> statements. Presumably you're talking about drug offenses.
> So am I to infer that you think that the majority of people
> take drugs but don't get caught?
I think that lots of people have used some illegal drug at
some point in their lives, and the vast majority didn't get
caught. Before seeing this:
http://www.samhsa.gov/oas/nhsda/2kdetailedtabs/Vol_1_Part_1/sect1v1.htm#1.1a
I would have thought that the number was well over 50%, but
if we are to believe those statistics, it isn't.
> Do you have an even more
> amazing claim that a very large fraction of people in jail
> merely made a cop angry, or pissed off a judge, or fell
> a foul of some important person's personal displeasure?
> I don't understand.
No, I'm not saying that most people now in prison are there
only because someone was pissed at them. I am saying that
any one of us could be there for that reason. If we were,
this would not make us any different from who we are now;
no magical prisondust would cause us to become homicidal
maniacs upon sentencing. It is true, however, that we would
probably be more likely to have further problems after being
released (if ever), because of the nature of the prison
environment.
Anyway, my statment about "wrong place at the wrong time"
covers most drug use inmates, I would imagine. I don't
have any further statistics for that, however.
-- Randall Randall <randall@randallsquared.com> "Congress keeps telling me I ain't causin' nuthin' but problems and now they're sayin' I'm in trouble with the government; I'm lovin' it" -- Eminem
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:47 MST