OT Question for atheists

Religions > Atheism > OT Question for atheists

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 2

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Troy"
Date:	21 Nov 2005 09:05:39 AM
Object:	OT Question for atheists

This question is probably more suited in a political NG but I want to ask it
here because atheists tend to have an open mind. I know that the xian
fundies would disagree because atheists don't give credence to their
superstitions. So let me very quickly define open-mind. (If you're an
atheist you can skip this) Both xians and atheists (pretty much all people)
believe they have an open mind. The people that truly have and open mind are
the ones that admit they could change their mind given substantial evidence
to warrant a change.
Example:
Q1: Do you believe in god?
Atheist A1: No
XianA1: Yes
Q2: Could your answer ever change to yes?
Atheist A2: Yes (Unlikely but possible)
XianA2: No (No matter what evidence is brought forth the xian will never
change)
That's not to say that xians don't lose their faith and convert; thankfully
it happens all the time. The point is that at any given moment in time
(most) xians are closed minded. Yes, I can hear you say that the example is
related to religion and of course xians aren't going to admit that they
could lose faith. So let me do one more example:
Q1: Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry and receive the same
rights as heterosexual couples?
AA1: Sure. (It doesn't affect me)
XA1: Ewwww! Yuck! It's an abomination.
Q2: Could your answer ever change.
AA2: Sure. (If it began to affect me)
XA2: Ewwww! Yuck! It's an abomination.
You could apply the same line of questioning to just about any controversial
subject. Abortion, political parties, government, stem cells, space tourism,
etc etc etc.
SKIP TO HERE IF YOU'RE AN ATHEIST
===============================
My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy, but is a democracy truly the best form of
government? It seems that it is very easy for the various politicians to
become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists and forget what
the people really want. Basically, in a democracy it appears that money is
the key to getting what you want.
My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could ever be
good for the general population?
My thought is with the right dictator life could be pretty good for the
general population. Of course I can't actually predict how having the power
of a dictator would affect me, but right now I think I could be a pretty
good dictator. Basically I would have just one law; don't physically,
mentally or financially harm anyone else. I wouldn't even care if you did
drugs as long as you were not a burden on society. I wouldn't live in a huge
palace while the people lived in shacks. The government would truly be for
the people; to protect them from others that would do them harm. I really
think it could be possible to have a place that would be so nice that no one
would want to do crime just because they would be afraid of being banished.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject? It really doesn't make any
difference because there's really no way to start a new government. I just
saw a report of Bush praising Mongolia for pushing democracy and it just got
me thinking. I'm sure this thread will turn into an argument over open
mindedness anyway.
Have a nice day.
.

User: "navi-gater"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 01:46:17 PM

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com:

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around
the world and fighting for democracy, but is a democracy truly the
best form of government? It seems that it is very easy for the various
politicians to become corrupted by special interest groups and
lobbyists and forget what the people really want. Basically, in a
democracy it appears that money is the key to getting what you want.

Well Democracy put Nixon, Lincoln, Hitler, Bush, Churchill, Kennedy and
Thatcher in positions of power.
Some of them good, some of them bad (based on the measurements of their
times of course).
On the whole though, Democracy gets you "average". Yes you get horrific
dictators and (at least in principle) you might get benevolent
dictators. With Democracy you avoid much of the worst, but you probably
don't get the best either.
For example many "dictatorships" can achieve great levels of military
strength, achieve scientific breakthroughs and on the whole, focus their
populations towards one or two goals (based on the goals of the
dictator).
Democracies are not focused since each individual decides what they want
and pursue that. In a democracy you need enough like minded individuals
to get something done.

My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could
ever be good for the general population?

I imagine a religious person would answer 'Yes' to this question.
Personally I say 'No'.
I'll also say though that I would need a clear definition of "good for
the general population" before I would commit to that answer ;)

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

The only comment I have is that there are no governments which are fully
democracies - after all, to be 100% democratic you would have to have a
public vote on every item - nothing would get done.
So in practice, democracy is practiced by voters electing officials who
then argue on the behalf of the constituents (hence the "lesser of two
evils" thing - you elect someone who you mostly agree with).
The system by which this process happens is subject to variations. Each
"democratic" country seems to have its own unique bits of government.
The US system seems to offer the much more power to a single individual
(the President) than the Parliamentary (a Prime Minister) system for
example.
So depending what you want (economic prosperity for example) one
particular form of democracy might work (incorporating capitalism no
doubt) whereas a goal of high living standards might lead to a different
form of democracy (more socialist in nature).
gater.
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 05:50:58 PM

"navi-gater" <gater@the-gate.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9715964BA1649thegatenet@207.69.189.191...

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com:

Well Democracy put Nixon, Lincoln, Hitler, Bush, Churchill, Kennedy and
Thatcher in positions of power.

Some of them good, some of them bad (based on the measurements of their
times of course).

On the whole though, Democracy gets you "average". Yes you get horrific
dictators and (at least in principle) you might get benevolent
dictators. With Democracy you avoid much of the worst, but you probably
don't get the best either.

For example many "dictatorships" can achieve great levels of military
strength, achieve scientific breakthroughs and on the whole, focus their
populations towards one or two goals (based on the goals of the
dictator).

But, is it not possible for a dictator to have support for his goals? For
instance, if the dictator thought that teleportation would be the most
important discovery of all time and he wanted all of the top minds to
develop that technology, wouldn't he get a lot of support. If his goal was
to have a different Rolls Royce for every day of the year, he probably
wouldn't get much support.

Democracies are not focused since each individual decides what they want
and pursue that. In a democracy you need enough like minded individuals
to get something done.

But at the same time you get special interest groups that try to twart the
goals of other groups. Take stem cell research for instance.

My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could
ever be good for the general population?

I imagine a religious person would answer 'Yes' to this question.

Personally I say 'No'.

I think you may be right for the religious person as long as the dictator
was of the some religion. Personally, I'd have to say I don't know.

I'll also say though that I would need a clear definition of "good for
the general population" before I would commit to that answer ;)

That's the real question. Even if a group decided to start this (I'm going
to change the term from dictatorship to) dictocracy and everyone agreed what
would be the best goals and what would be "good" for the people before it
started, the problem would come after it was running because times change
and goals change. But, it seems that it could be possible to set up a system
of govt that could accomplish the good things and evolve with the times and
be set up in such a way to be uncorruptable.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?

The only comment I have is that there are no governments which are fully
democracies - after all, to be 100% democratic you would have to have a
public vote on every item - nothing would get done.

So in practice, democracy is practiced by voters electing officials who
then argue on the behalf of the constituents (hence the "lesser of two
evils" thing - you elect someone who you mostly agree with).

The system by which this process happens is subject to variations. Each
"democratic" country seems to have its own unique bits of government.

The US system seems to offer the much more power to a single individual
(the President) than the Parliamentary (a Prime Minister) system for
example.

I think a leader with power and not have to jump through bureaucratic hoops
could be a good thing. There just has to be a system in place to remove the
person from power when he turns into a whacko.

So depending what you want (economic prosperity for example) one
particular form of democracy might work (incorporating capitalism no
doubt) whereas a goal of high living standards might lead to a different
form of democracy (more socialist in nature).

gater.

I just want a system of government that I can forget about. In the US you
see so many govt restrictions everyday that it's impossible to ignore.
Thanks for you thoughtful post gater.
Troy
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 12:43:18 PM

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com...

This question is probably more suited in a political NG but I want to ask
it

<snip>

My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could ever
be good for the general population?

Oh, yes, absolutely.
And the one which would be best for the general
population would be the one in which I am the
dictator. Honest. I'll give every one a Mercedes.
Honest. So back me on this.
Ron Baker for Dictator!
And to paraphrase P. J. O'rourke:
"A democracy is a parliament of whores."
--
rb #2187
.

User: "Katt"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 09:28:33 AM

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what he's
doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either. Thus your
next question --

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

-- looks very much like it's been asked by someone who simply won't
understand any informed answer that's posted in reply.
Tell you what: go read a few books, and then come back and try again.
Katt.
.

User: "Mark Vaughan"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 07:40:05 PM

"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in
news:BIlgf.26018$c66.14301@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what
he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either.
Thus your next question --

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

-- looks very much like it's been asked by someone who simply won't
understand any informed answer that's posted in reply.

Tell you what: go read a few books, and then come back and try
again.

Katt.

as the OP said, atheists only "tend to have an open mind".
no doubt he had someone like you in mind when he qualifed
his statement.
--
Mark Vaughan
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 09:37:28 AM

"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in message
news:BIlgf.26018$c66.14301@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what he's
doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either. Thus your
next question --

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

-- looks very much like it's been asked by someone who simply won't
understand any informed answer that's posted in reply.

Tell you what: go read a few books, and then come back and try again.

You are obviously offended and must be a die hard Bush supporter. That's
your prerogative. If you have and "informed" opinion, I'm sure I have the
mental capacity to understand. Your mental capacity at this point seems
questionable.

Katt.

User: "shadow"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 10:03:44 AM

"Katt" <kahgfghttt@t.com> wrote in message news:BIlgf.26018$c66.14301@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what he's
doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either. Thus your
next question --

yes, all of the american presidents ARE/WERE fighting 'for freedom
AND democracy'. thats what keeps your vote in check, honey.
and it doesnt matter if the president is a republican or a democrat.
911 should have been 'a reality check' for you americans, but it wasnt.
you lost your chance. and a website that says 'we are sorry' wont do it.
and rem saying 'vote (democrat)' wont do it either. actually, when i think
how democrats bought off many, many artists during the last elections...
brrrr, it gives me chills. and it seems america is more hopeless than i
could have ever imagined.
but hey... thats america. a joke!
np: killing joke - blood on your hands
.

User: "J Forbes"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 09:36:31 AM

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what he's
doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either. Thus your
next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways, even if
it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government. The
problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the job, are
the ones who you don't want for dictator.
Jim
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 10:18:36 AM

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around
the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what he's
doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either. Thus your
next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways, even if
it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush is
"fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I have lot's of
opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are good (in favor of
Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government. The
problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the job, are
the ones who you don't want for dictator.

I don't disagree with you, but the same can be said in a democracy. How many
elections have we had that everyone says "I'm choosing the lesser of two
evils?" It seems that anyone entering politics is not someone I would want
to elect. It's kind of a catch-22 I suppose. I think it really comes down to
greed. How do you ever know if the person you are voting for is being
honest? I am quite cynical and I believe that all politicians are in it for
the money.
I would almost be more willing to trust someone like Bill Gates who I know
is all about money. He makes no bones about it. He doesn't hide it or lie
about it. But if he said he just bought a country and he wants to do
everything right for the people but he has to become a dictator, I'd want to
hear what he has to say. And as long as he said hey I'm doing this for the
money and I want everyone in my country to be happy and live free, then why
not? At least he's being honest.
That's probably a bad example, but I just can't think of a better one right
now. But I think as long as a dictator didn't put restrictions on people and
they were free to come and go as they please, and he could demonstrate that
he was sincere... Who knows? I might want to give it a chance.
I'm sure your right though because people as a whole are very selfish. So
you would always be thinking -"what does he REALLY want? He couldn't
possibly really just want a free and happy society. Could he?"

Jim

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 12:14:45 PM

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what
he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either.
Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways, even
if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush is
"fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I have
lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are good (in
favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government. The
problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the job,
are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built into
the rules; violence is not required.

I would almost be more willing to trust someone like Bill Gates who I
know is all about money. He makes no bones about it. He doesn't hide
it or lie about it. But if he said he just bought a country and he
wants to do everything right for the people but he has to become a
dictator, I'd want to hear what he has to say. And as long as he said
hey I'm doing this for the money and I want everyone in my country to
be happy and live free, then why not? At least he's being honest.

That's probably a bad example, but I just can't think of a better one
right now. But I think as long as a dictator didn't put restrictions
on people and they were free to come and go as they please, and he
could demonstrate that he was sincere... Who knows? I might want to
give it a chance.

That pretty much contradicts the definition of a dictator.

I'm sure your right though because people as a whole are very selfish.
So you would always be thinking -"what does he REALLY want? He
couldn't possibly really just want a free and happy society. Could
he?"

Even if he does, his successor might not, and you don't get to pick the
successor without violence.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 01:10:54 PM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't what
he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done, either.
Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways, even
if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush is
"fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I have
lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are good (in
favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government. The
problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the job,
are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built into
the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled by one
party and have no paper trail?

That pretty much contradicts the definition of a dictator.

Even if he does, his successor might not, and you don't get to pick the
successor without violence.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 02:37:09 PM

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:3t64o19h4b3plss89cdkod6sugivctnu07@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't
what he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done,
either. Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways,
even if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush
is "fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I have
lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are good
(in favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government.
The problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the
job, are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built
into the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled by
one party and have no paper trail?

I trust them more than I trust voters with no ID required and ballots
that are "discovered" in a warehouse days after the first and second
recounts. I trust them more than I trust "pregnant chads".
Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled by
local election commissions.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 02:47:23 PM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:37:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97159F08A5A74fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:3t64o19h4b3plss89cdkod6sugivctnu07@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't
what he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done,
either. Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways,
even if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush
is "fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I have
lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are good
(in favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government.
The problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the
job, are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built
into the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled by
one party and have no paper trail?

I trust them more than I trust voters with no ID required and ballots
that are "discovered" in a warehouse days after the first and second
recounts. I trust them more than I trust "pregnant chads".

I very much trust the system that is used in my town. It requires you to
mark the ballot with a marker that is provided. The ballots are
electronically scanned, but are also available for manual recount if
necessary. I think it is aweful that we stop any citizen from voting,
but I see no problem with requiring, and providing, if necessary, valid
identification.

Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled by
local election commissions.

Which, on a good day, are merely the two parties conspiring together.
Our State Election Board seems to think its job is to make consultants
richer, whether the consultants can do the job or not.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 03:27:55 PM

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:rcc4o1126u75g99g1b77mkr343st56a7g9@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:37:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97159F08A5A74fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:3t64o19h4b3plss89cdkod6sugivctnu07@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't
what he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done,
either. Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways,
even if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush
is "fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I
have lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are
good (in favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government.
The problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the
job, are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built
into the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled by
one party and have no paper trail?

I trust them more than I trust voters with no ID required and ballots
that are "discovered" in a warehouse days after the first and second
recounts. I trust them more than I trust "pregnant chads".

I very much trust the system that is used in my town. It requires you
to mark the ballot with a marker that is provided. The ballots are
electronically scanned, but are also available for manual recount if
necessary. I think it is aweful that we stop any citizen from voting,
but I see no problem with requiring, and providing, if necessary,
valid identification.

Having worked on mark/sense form reader programs I know how many
creative ways that people can find to screw them up. The computerized
machines won't let you screw up a ballot to the point where somebody has
to guess what the "voter's intent" was.

Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled by
local election commissions.

Which, on a good day, are merely the two parties conspiring together.
Our State Election Board seems to think its job is to make consultants
richer, whether the consultants can do the job or not.

At least with the two parties together they aren't likely to conspire to
throw the election one way or the other.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 04:23:48 PM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:27:55 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9715A7A42B08Efstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:rcc4o1126u75g99g1b77mkr343st56a7g9@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:37:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97159F08A5A74fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:3t64o19h4b3plss89cdkod6sugivctnu07@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running
around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't
what he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically done,
either. Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways,
even if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe Bush
is "fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the war. I
have lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of them are
good (in favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government.
The problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want the
job, are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is built
into the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled by
one party and have no paper trail?

I trust them more than I trust voters with no ID required and ballots
that are "discovered" in a warehouse days after the first and second
recounts. I trust them more than I trust "pregnant chads".

I very much trust the system that is used in my town. It requires you
to mark the ballot with a marker that is provided. The ballots are
electronically scanned, but are also available for manual recount if
necessary. I think it is aweful that we stop any citizen from voting,
but I see no problem with requiring, and providing, if necessary,
valid identification.

Ours kicks out any that don't scan properly. I wasn't aware than an
intent problem could arise.

Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled by
local election commissions.

Which, on a good day, are merely the two parties conspiring together.
Our State Election Board seems to think its job is to make consultants
richer, whether the consultants can do the job or not.

At least with the two parties together they aren't likely to conspire to
throw the election one way or the other.

No, they tend to conspire to maintain the status quo, which tends to
encourage corruption.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 05:45:56 PM

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:k5i4o19e002shl6u5v2lgqaasj6e3s9m9s@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:27:55 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9715A7A42B08Efstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:rcc4o1126u75g99g1b77mkr343st56a7g9@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:37:09 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97159F08A5A74fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:3t64o19h4b3plss89cdkod6sugivctnu07@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:14:45 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns971586DEB81D8fstone69@213.155.197.138>:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in
news:s5adnS29l4_CbhzenZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@comcast.com:

"J Forbes" <jforbspam@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:1132587391.048133.116140@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Katt wrote:

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@

My question has to do with types of government. GW is
running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

Wrong. Stop right there, sonny. 'Fighting for democracy' isn't
what he's doing, and it isn't what the US has historically
done, either. Thus your next question --

I agree....but still, we can answer the other question anyways,
even if it doesn't apply to what bush is doing

Sorry, I should have been more clear as I also do not believe
Bush is "fighting for democracy." I don't want to discuss the
war. I have lot's of opinions about Bush and the war and none of
them are good (in favor of Bush).

Is democracy truly the best form of government?

Some form of democracy is probably the best form of government.
The problem with dictators is that usually the folks who want
the job, are the ones who you don't want for dictator.

At least in a democracy the process of changing leadership is
built into the rules; violence is not required.

It all depends. Do you trust voting machines that are controlled
by one party and have no paper trail?

I trust them more than I trust voters with no ID required and
ballots that are "discovered" in a warehouse days after the first
and second recounts. I trust them more than I trust "pregnant
chads".

I very much trust the system that is used in my town. It requires
you to mark the ballot with a marker that is provided. The ballots
are electronically scanned, but are also available for manual
recount if necessary. I think it is aweful that we stop any citizen
from voting, but I see no problem with requiring, and providing, if
necessary, valid identification.

Ours kicks out any that don't scan properly. I wasn't aware than an
intent problem could arise.

Do they scan them with the voter present to correct glitches? If not,
then the manual recount has to account for things like marks for both
candidates, etcetera.

Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled
by local election commissions.

Which, on a good day, are merely the two parties conspiring
together. Our State Election Board seems to think its job is to make
consultants richer, whether the consultants can do the job or not.

At least with the two parties together they aren't likely to conspire
to throw the election one way or the other.

No, they tend to conspire to maintain the status quo, which tends to
encourage corruption.

ala gerrymandering.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"I actually think what we learned during the inspection
made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than,
in fact, we thought it was even before the war." -- David Kay
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=6075
.

User: "David Jensen"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 07:37:24 PM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 23:45:56 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9715BF0BAB04Cfstone69@213.155.197.138>:

David Jensen <david@dajensen-family.com> wrote in
news:k5i4o19e002shl6u5v2lgqaasj6e3s9m9s@4ax.com:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 21:27:55 +0000 (UTC), in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns9715A7A42B08Efstone69@213.155.197.138>:

....

Ours kicks out any that don't scan properly. I wasn't aware than an
intent problem could arise.

Do they scan them with the voter present to correct glitches? If not,
then the manual recount has to account for things like marks for both
candidates, etcetera.

You put it in a scanner when you have filled it in. If the voting marks
are valid it will accept it (in the primary, all votes must be in one
party or the other, for all votes there must be either zero or one mark
for any office or proposition), if not, it kicks it out, the ballot is
defaced by the election workers if the error cannot be corrected by the
voter and a new ballot is issued to the voter.

Oh, and they're not controlled by either party. They're controlled
by local election commissions.

Which, on a good day, are merely the two parties conspiring
together. Our State Election Board seems to think its job is to make
consultants richer, whether the consultants can do the job or not.

At least with the two parties together they aren't likely to conspire
to throw the election one way or the other.

No, they tend to conspire to maintain the status quo, which tends to
encourage corruption.

ala gerrymandering.

Sadly.
.

User: "Mark K. Bilbo"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 10:13:31 AM

In <weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Troy"
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:

GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy

Begs the question.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C
Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C
http://www.nola.com
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 10:24:23 AM

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:yKOdnY10srCsbxzenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@megapath.net...

In <weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, "Troy"
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:

GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy

Begs the question.

You're right. My apologies. I didn't clarify my point. The "fighting for
democracy" part was just my initial reason for the thought because of an
article I read about Bush this morning. I don't agree with it.

--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Forgotten Already
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H1233272C

Feds are treating Louisiana like enemy
"...it may be that they may have written us off."
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O21E51C1C

http://www.nola.com

User: "chibiabos"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 09:58:22 AM

In article <weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Troy
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:
[some snippage]

I'm sure this thread will turn into an argument over open
mindedness anyway.

The theory of thread-drift dictates that very soon the main topic of
conversation in this thread will be the linux operating system and/or
literative allusions in "The Princess Bride."
-chib
--
Member of SMASH
Sarcastic Middla Aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
.

User: "Khartoum"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 12:15:26 PM

chibiabos <chibiabos@nospam.com> wrote in news:211120050758221490%
chibiabos@nospam.com:

In article <weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com>, Troy
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:

[some snippage]

I'm sure this thread will turn into an argument over open
mindedness anyway.

The theory of thread-drift dictates that very soon the main topic of
conversation in this thread will be the linux operating system and/or
literative allusions in "The Princess Bride."

-chib

Inconceivable!
--
***********************************************
Khartoum aa#2110
EAC Director of Subversive Horticulture
Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without
having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
~Douglas Adams
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 12:27:13 PM

In the end any government is done by humans. And humans are not
perfect, no matter what political wing or viewpoint they come from.
Thus one can never expect a government whether it is in form of a
democracy or a dictatorship to be the ultimate or the best form of
government. They can never solve 'everything' and will make errors.
Democracy however is the "least bad" of these two options. It enables
the general public to question the errors and to turn policy into a
more favourable direction. In the example of the US, the democracy
enables their population to turn against the increasing militarism and
conservatism. If there was a dictatorship they would not have that
ability.
Follow the leader, the F=FChrer and don't question him or you'd be
betraying your country. That is dictatorship no matter what form it
takes and is unacceptable. The errors the dictator makes cannot be
questionned, nor can the direction he or she takes be altered except
with revolution and violence.
So democracy is the least bad of these two form. However democracy does
have the perticular habbit of destroying itself every now and again.
Why? Because even a deomcratic government cannot solve everything in
our lives yet we expect them to. And that leads to frustration and
ultimately the election of dictatorial but charismatic people every now
and then.
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 05:13:54 PM

<tervicz2003@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132597633.586176.252330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
In the end any government is done by humans. And humans are not
perfect, no matter what political wing or viewpoint they come from.
Thus one can never expect a government whether it is in form of a
democracy or a dictatorship to be the ultimate or the best form of
government. They can never solve 'everything' and will make errors.
Democracy however is the "least bad" of these two options. It enables
the general public to question the errors and to turn policy into a
more favourable direction. In the example of the US, the democracy
enables their population to turn against the increasing militarism and
conservatism. If there was a dictatorship they would not have that
ability.
Follow the leader, the F�hrer and don't question him or you'd be
betraying your country. That is dictatorship no matter what form it
takes and is unacceptable. The errors the dictator makes cannot be
questionned, nor can the direction he or she takes be altered except
with revolution and violence.
So democracy is the least bad of these two form. However democracy does
have the perticular habbit of destroying itself every now and again.
Why? Because even a deomcratic government cannot solve everything in
our lives yet we expect them to. And that leads to frustration and
ultimately the election of dictatorial but charismatic people every now
and then.
================================
My apologies for this response. For some reason it's not marking the
previous response.
For the most part, I agree with you. Perhaps dictatorship is too a strong
word and has negative connotations. What I'm wondering is if the
"dictatorship" could be set up with checks and balances. Overall, the
government is small and does not affect the day to day lives of the citizens
and the dictator is just the final decision maker. It might require a whole
new system of government.
Overall, of the available choices, democracy is probably the best. I'm just
pondering the possibilities. I'm all for small government. No govt
intervention at all. The US govt has grown almost out of control and I'm
beginning to wonder if it's even possible to fix it.
.

User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 05:18:04 PM

"Troy" <troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tbidnfIZ_ZQryR_eRVn-pA@comcast.com...

<tervicz2003@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132597633.586176.252330@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

<snip>

Follow the leader, the F�hrer and don't question him or you'd be

<snip>

================================
My apologies for this response. For some reason it's not marking the
previous response.

(Just commenting on that: I believe it was caused by the umlauts
above and a bug/misfeature of IE6.)
--
rb #2187
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 04:38:12 PM

Majority rule is the best way to go. Dictatorships of any sort are bad
news; even if the leader is a benevolent genius, the transfer of power
once he/she are gone will unavoidably lead to violence and upheaval. No
thanks. And I'm one who thinks the majority are out of their minds (how
else do I explain the popularity of Celine Dion, Elton John, or Reality
TV?).
The big problem with dictators is that there is no peaceful way to
remove them. And you may think you're benevolent now, but power has a
way of corrupting people.
.

User: "Troy"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 06:17:18 PM

"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1132612692.756248.218170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

For the most part I agree with you. It's just where does that actually leave
the minorities? Wouldn't it be nice if, for example, that the homosexual
population could do what they wanted and be free of persecution from the
majority? Why does the majority always feel the need to change the minority.
I would personally like to live in a society free of all religion, but what
am I gonna do. The religious right in the US seem to be (for the most part)
calling the shots.

The big problem with dictators is that there is no peaceful way to
remove them. And you may think you're benevolent now, but power has a
way of corrupting people.

Historically, you are correct. But, could it not be possible if the right
type of power removal system was in place?
.

User: "Neil Kelsey"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	22 Nov 2005 10:49:27 AM

"For the most part I agree with you. It's just where does that actually
leave
the minorities? Wouldn't it be nice if, for example, that the
homosexual
population could do what they wanted and be free of persecution from
the
majority? Why does the majority always feel the need to change the
minority."
[You're American, right? Look at your country, for example. A couple of
hundred years ago black people were slaves, and now they are a big part
of the fabric of your country. Forty years ago no one dared to be
openly gay. Now they're getting married. If the majority rules in the
US then I'd say there's been a lot of progress in protecting the rights
of minorities, despite the protestations from the religious right. The
last thing the US needs is a dictatorship.]
"> The big problem with dictators is that there is no peaceful way to

remove them. And you may think you're benevolent now, but power has a
way of corrupting people.

Historically, you are correct. But, could it not be possible if the
right
type of power removal system was in place?"
[I think the right type of power removal system IS in place, they're
called "elections." Dictators have a history of ignoring elections once
they attain power (hello Hitler).
.

User: "Liz"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	22 Nov 2005 06:43:55 AM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:05:39 -0600, "Troy"
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> in news message
<weudnZBm14PbfxzenZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@comcast.com> wrote:
[------]

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy, but is a democracy truly the best form of
government? It seems that it is very easy for the various politicians to
become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists and forget what
the people really want. Basically, in a democracy it appears that money is
the key to getting what you want.

My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could ever be
good for the general population?

A dictatorship is unworkable unless you have a strong loyal military
to "protect" the dictator and his policies. Otherwise you would lose
power to someone else who decided he wanted to be dictator.

My thought is with the right dictator life could be pretty good for the
general population.

Someone will always disagree with your policies. I, too, think I
would make a wonderful benevolent dictator. Well, there you go. I am
your first dissenting voice and you haven't even started your reign.
Americans have a social contract in our current government that even
though we may disagree with the results of an election and even though
we may disagree with the policies of an administration, we accept the
results and work through legal and political means to change the
current status. There was no rioting in the streets after the
prolonged vote debacle in Florida in 2000. Even though many people
were unhappy and disgusted at the means by which the election was
decided, GWB was accepted as our duly elected President. This only
happened because Americans as a whole agree that the Constitution is
more important than any one person who may become President. In a
dictatorship, the loyalty must be to the dictator and not the form of
government.

Of course I can't actually predict how having the power
of a dictator would affect me, but right now I think I could be a pretty
good dictator. Basically I would have just one law; don't physically,
mentally or financially harm anyone else. I wouldn't even care if you did
drugs as long as you were not a burden on society. I wouldn't live in a huge
palace while the people lived in shacks. The government would truly be for
the people; to protect them from others that would do them harm. I really
think it could be possible to have a place that would be so nice that no one
would want to do crime just because they would be afraid of being banished.

Still you would have people who believed that their religion should be
established in your government, that certain people should have more
rights than others, and that you, as dictator, were usurping the power
that should rightfully be theirs. To ensure that your policies were
continued, you would need government officials who also were beyond
corruption who would not give favors to groups or individuals in
exchange for money or other compensation. You couldn't personally
supervise everything and everyone. Hell, we can't even do that in a
representative republic.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject? It really doesn't make any
difference because there's really no way to start a new government. I just
saw a report of Bush praising Mongolia for pushing democracy and it just got
me thinking. I'm sure this thread will turn into an argument over open
mindedness anyway.

Have a nice day.

Liz #658 BAAWA
Religion may in most of its forms be defined as the
belief that the gods are on the side of the government.
-- Bertrand Russell
.

User: "John Baker"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	22 Nov 2005 07:54:23 AM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:05:39 -0600, "Troy"
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:
<snipped for brevity>

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy, but is a democracy truly the best form of
government? It seems that it is very easy for the various politicians to
become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists and forget what
the people really want. Basically, in a democracy it appears that money is
the key to getting what you want.

My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could ever be
good for the general population?

Coincidentally enough, I've often thought about this, and I'd have to
answer yes. It sounds paradoxical, but I believe it's possible for the
average citizen to enjoy more freedom under a benevolent dictatorship
than he/she does now in our so-called "democracy."

Same here. I'd let the Bill of Rights be my guide, and I'd assume that
the men who founded this country were intelligent enough to say what
they meant. To hell with "interpretations" from biased judges with an
agenda.
For example, freedom of religion means that you as a citizen have the
right to believe anything that makes you happy, and you have the right
to live your life in accordance with those beliefs, within reason. You
do *not* have the right to try to force your beliefs onto anyone else
through legislation or any other means. Remember that everyone else
has the same rights you have, and that includes the right to not
believe what you believe.
As for freedom of speech, I'd allow *true* freedom. There'd be no
"political correctness" or "hate speech" laws in my country. A
hateful, racist, sexist bigot has the right to be a hateful, racist,
sexist bigot, and the rest of us have the right to think he's an
idiot. You can't eliminate ignorance by suppressing the free
expression of it. That only opens the door for the morons to claim
you're afraid of what they're saying, and makes it look as though they
have a valid point in so claiming. Let them rant to their heart's
content and show everyone what fools they are. Evil grows in darkness
and dies in the light.
What about criticism of me and my government? Go for it. I won't
guarantee I'll listen, but you have the right to say it.
As for the Second Amendment, sorry, gun-grabbers, but, references to
militias aside, what part of "the right of **the people**" don't you
understand?
Of course, all of the good stuff like presumption of innocence, right
to a jury trial, protection from unwarranted harrassment by law
enforcement, etc. stays.

Basically I would have just one law; don't physically,
mentally or financially harm anyone else.

Absolutely. As long as you harm no one, how you choose to live your
life is none of anyone's business, including the state. If you don't
agree with someone else's choices, you have the right to disapprove.
You don't have the right to interfere.

I wouldn't even care if you did
drugs as long as you were not a burden on society.

Wholeheartedly agreed. Legalize drugs and tax them. Turn them into a
source of revenue rather than wasting billions of dollars a year (not
to mention lives and manpower) trying to stop something that can't be
stopped. And just to add a bit of fuel to the fires of controversy,
under my rule, if you operate a motor vehicle while under the
influence of drugs or alcohol, you have not committed a crime unless
you actually harm someone or damage property (in which case, you're in
*very* deep doo-doo), or unless you are so seriously impaired that
it's a pretty safe bet that something bad *will* happen if you aren't
stopped. This doesn't mean I condone driving while impaired. I don't.
But I do believe that in a civilized society, people should be
punished for the actual harm they do, not for the potential harm
someone is afraid they might do.
Simply put, my approach would be no harm, no crime. If you (editorial
"you") are one of those pansy-***** whiners who want the government to
"protect" them from anything and everything that could possibly
happen, or if you're one of those who believe that anything you don't
personally approve of should be outlawed, perhaps you should consider
relocating. <G>

I wouldn't live in a huge
palace while the people lived in shacks. The government would truly be for
the people; to protect them from others that would do them harm. I really
think it could be possible to have a place that would be so nice that no one
would want to do crime just because they would be afraid of being banished.

Sounds like you and I aren't very far apart. But, as Doug Berry
pointed out, eventually the good ruler is going to be gone, and who
knows what would happen then? And as you point out, it probably
couldn't be done anyway.

User: "stoney"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	23 Nov 2005 01:07:51 PM

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 09:05:39 -0600, "Troy"
<troyh_NOSPAM_709@comcast.net> wrote:
[]

My question has to do with types of government. GW is running around the
world and fighting for democracy,

No, he isn't. He's fascist empire building.

but is a democracy truly the best form of
government? It seems that it is very easy for the various politicians to
become corrupted by special interest groups and lobbyists and forget what
the people really want. Basically, in a democracy it appears that money is
the key to getting what you want.
My question is: Do you believe that any form of a dictatorship could ever be
good for the general population?

As always, things depend on people. The right people in the right
places can make a lousy system work, and vice versa.

My thought is with the right dictator life could be pretty good for the
general population. Of course I can't actually predict how having the power
of a dictator would affect me, but right now I think I could be a pretty
good dictator. Basically I would have just one law; don't physically,
mentally or financially harm anyone else. I wouldn't even care if you did
drugs as long as you were not a burden on society. I wouldn't live in a huge
palace while the people lived in shacks. The government would truly be for
the people; to protect them from others that would do them harm.
I really
think it could be possible to have a place that would be so nice that no one
would want to do crime just because they would be afraid of being banished.

I don't see that being possible that no one would want to do crime.
Generally, things have a tendency to shift to focus on smaller things
when the larger things are equal.

--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.

User: "Chris H. Fleming"
Title: Re: OT Question for atheists	21 Nov 2005 03:10:23 PM

Troy wrote: