I just realized something

[Petr]

Again and again, we see the argument that the democratic "rule of the law" is superior compared to despotic totalitarianism.

But if you think about it, you will find out that the "rule of the law" actually deeply contradicts the concept of democracy, for in any consistent democracy, the electorate can make laws and break laws at will, for democracy is truly just the dictatorship of the majority.

Only in theocracy can we speak about genuine RULE OF THE LAW that neither the elite nor the masses are allowed to tamper with.


Petr

[daisy]

thanks petr so that's what democracy is
democracy is truly just the dictatorship of the majority.

[Excorcism]

Again and again, we see the argument that the democratic "rule of the law" is superior compared to despotic totalitarianism.

But if you think about it, you will find out that the "rule of the law" actually deeply contradicts the concept of democracy, for in any consistent democracy, the electorate can make laws and break laws at will, for democracy is truly just the dictatorship of the majority.

Only in theocracy can we speak about genuine RULE OF THE LAW that neither the elite nor the masses are allowed to tamper with.


Petr

Ya, well it's the best we've got at the damn moment. You think I'd let the damn masses control law? you're freaking kidding me if I'd let Joe-Sixpack from nowhere with no education try to make a policy he knows nothing about or the circumstances surrounding it.

[sugartits]

Democracy is not the dictatorship of the majority. There is no majority. The public is permitted to choose between a number of different political parties and politicians and Democracy says that this is the voice of the "majority". It's a dictatorship by the system rather than an individual. People are just easily tricked by something so simple as voting, by being allowed more choices -but you can't choose a non-democracy, just like a dictator doesn't allow competition.

[raven]

Exactly democracy is pretty much a joke in its current state as there is no real party in Canada that I believe really matters. Which is why I'll probably end up voting Green or something. I believe that someone should start up an Anarchist party in Canada. :D If the country can have two communist parties I don't see why not. That way this will actually give Canadians a chance not to choose democracy (or Communism *shudders*).

[infoterror]

But if you think about it, you will find out that the "rule of the law" actually deeply contradicts the concept of democracy, for in any consistent democracy, the electorate can make laws and break laws at will, for democracy is truly just the dictatorship of the majority.

Only in theocracy can we speak about genuine RULE OF THE LAW that neither the elite nor the masses are allowed to tamper with.

I agree with the first paragraph.

The second is incorrect in that it specifies only theocracy; any philosophical system will do, provided it is sufficiently externalized.

[Fade the Butcher]

Only in theocracy can we speak about genuine RULE OF THE LAW that neither the elite nor the masses are allowed to tamper with.I don't see how natural law is inextricably linked to theocracy.

[Petr]

I don't see how natural law is inextricably linked to theocracy.
Many theocrats are hostile to the very concept of "natural law". I am studying the issue.


Petr

[jcs]

Only in theocracy can we speak about genuine RULE OF THE LAW that neither the elite nor the masses are allowed to tamper with.
Interpretation is the study of manipulation. A theocrat can deliberately misinterpret scripture or theology and try to pass off his misinterpretation as correct for political purposes just as easily as the masses can protest to get their way or a dictator can create a law to exploit his people. Politically--that is, in terms of who has power, how they use the power they have, and so forth--a theocracy just establishes a priest-elite. Of course, this is only true if we look at a theocracy solely in political terms--but you can be damn sure that those who lack power will do this at some point, and that those who have power might do so as well, even if they do so with good intentions.

Laws are useless and undergo unending flux. A theocracy can be unjust, as can a democracy; injustice always occurs more often in the latter, and usually only by accident in the former, but inherent in any legal system is some form of injustice. Laws are politics, power-dynamics: push for legislation that will help some and one necessarily must hurt others. There is no utopia.

Apply reason to your emotions to define your own ethics, or find an already existing ethical code you find suitable; live ethically, adhering to, breaking, or working to change the laws as you see fit; do not lose focus of those things in life of greater importance than ethics and politics.
Quit focusing on politics; start rendering unto Caesar.

[Fade the Butcher]

Many theocrats are hostile to the very concept of "natural law". I am studying the issue.Do you dislike Aquinas?

[infoterror]

in any consistent democracy, the electorate can make laws and break laws at will, for democracy is truly just the dictatorship of the majority.

Sometimes, despite my suspicions that you have a Slav in the woodpile, I could just hug you.

Democracy is dictatorship of the lowest common denominator. It is why Indo-European societies have weakened from within, or rather a manifestation of what has weakened them: revolt by the masses overpowering their wiser leaders.

<3 <3 <3