Occupy Wall Street Movement

[Thorne]

I very much doubt that - and don't think it's a sufficient reason to oppose democracy, either. Do you really think a majority of the population would vote against racial equality?

I didn't say I opposed democracy, only a direct democracy, with every citizen voting on every aspect of law. To be frank, most people, no matter how well educated, do not really understand law. Most think that it only applies to other people, not to them, and that what's good for them must be good for everyone. At least in a democratic republic, which is what the US is supposed to be, the people elect those who are, theoretically, well versed in law and rely on them to do what is right. Sadly, though, that ideal has been corrupted by mass media, among other things. We no longer elect the most qualified, but more often the most photogenic, or the most outspoken. And yes, sad to say that, given the situation as it was in the 50's and 60's, most Americans would probably have voted against the Civil Rights Act. After all, it didn't affect them, only those OTHERS!

Yes, maybe right now gay marriage would get voted down by the public in a lot of places; I'm not convinced bypassing that either by judicial fiat or political subterfuge is morally or strategically right.

How is preventing people from limiting or eliminating the rights of a whole group of people morally right? How is giving equal rights to gays any different than giving equal rights to blacks, or to Muslims, or to Catholics, or to anyone else you choose to name? Remember, the majority is not always right.

If you can't convince the electorate your agenda is right, how can you say it is?

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

of course, almost by definition the electorate is less prone to corruption than politicians.

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

[js207]

So if I can't convince a group of frightened people that it's not right to condemn someone just because they are Muslims, that makes it okay to shoot them on sight?

Not frightened people - the populace as a whole, and yes, that is actually pretty much the legal situation, with slight regional variations: if something would be perceived as a significant threat by normal people then the use of (deadly) force is legal. Before you hold up politicians as solving that problem, I should probably remind you Congress has done almost precisely that on multiple occasions in the past - and only admitted to the Census Bureau's rôle in the process in 2007.

No doubt a lot of voters would have voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1963, given the chance, just as a lot of politicians did each time - but considering that the facts that they did elect the President who pushed it, that the House Rules Committee blocked the bill until after JFK's assassination gave LBJ political leverage to pressure them, then had to use backdoor procedural trickery to squeeze it through the Senate with "only" two months of filibusters, after Congress had already rejected the core Title III proposal 3 and 6 years previously, can you really tell me you're sure the same electorate which voted JFK into office would have taken much longer than those six years to approve his proposal?

Only because there is less opportunity for it. How many would gladly change their vote for the price of a new television, or a mortgage payment?

No - because corrupt politicians are screwing over the general population for personal benefit. For the population to screw itself over for its own benefit is a contradictory. They could of course reverse the process, with the broader electorate screwing a smaller subset, but you'll have a hard job convincing those who pay most of the taxes and anyone in an unpopular industry (tobacco, alcohol, fast food, insurance, energy) that isn't what we have right now. When you promise financial benefits to most of the electorate ... well, that's how both the current and previous occupants of the White House got there, and I don't recall anyone calling that corruption yet.

The average newspaper in the US, as I remember, is written on a sixth grade level (about the comprehension of the average 10 or 11 year old) so that the average reader can understand them. Would you want to entrust the laws of your country to the whims of a group of 11 year olds?

Do you really think politicians are significantly better than that? How many of them have even bothered to read, let alone fully understand, the laws they vote on? Remember ObamaCare, with Pelosi's line "we have to pass the health care bill so that you can find out what is in it"? Obama's speech earlier this year, exhorting Congress to pass a bill that hadn't even been written yet?