Why the Invasion of Iraq couldn't have been justified:

I don't mean to sound rude, but do you know anything about American history? Our federal government didn't have the power to tax much, if at all. Our government was designed mostly for defense, to regulate imports, and for holding the states together (the had the right to secede early on, but Lincoln pretty much killed that freedom). We had the smallest, most peaceful, most admired country on earth, until the government started expanding. Visitors like Alexander de Tocqeville (misspelled) found this country to be "the greatest on earth" in the 1800s, before the civil war, and funny, but we didn't have any drug laws whatsoever, we had no gun control, and we didn't hand over 50-60% of our money to the federal government. I don't know if you have an equivalent system where you live, but right now, we have to pay government rent just to live on our own property, even if we've finished paying off our home loans and legally own our land. Does that seem right to anyone? That's like the British lords back in the middle ages who demanded food tribute for letting serfs live outside their walls. Its called tyranny, Jim. Its what people came to America to escape, and somehow we've become our own enemy.

As for elections, they're a joke. Seriously. The way it was supposed to work was that an electoral group (not voters) chose the candidates and voted them in to office, and the runner up got vice-president. That's nothing like how it works now. Plus, its a 2 party system now. Supposedly, if this was the "land of the free" all parties would have an equal shot at the White House. Now its just socialists and socialists who have a chance to win, er, pardon me, democrats and republicans who have a chance to win. Even the third party candidates, who are our only real hope left, are cowed by the system. You ever hear of a Presidential candidate at a function saying "if I'm elected I vow to repeal the majority of the laws passed since 1912, since most of them are unconstitutional anyway"? If you've heard someone say that, I'd like to know who.

Adrian

the house tax ur talkign about sounds pretty much like council tax and yeah we do pay it.

and u'll find most countries have 2 main party races. why is that?

because people vote for them and not the other parties so whats wrong with it?

What's wrong with it is that both parties are the same. Supposedly they're supposed to balance everything out, or at least that's the story. And just because more people vote for them, doesn't mean its right. Over here, the majority of the people have been voting lower taxes, smaller government for the past 25 years, and we now have a government that stands among the largest the planet has ever seen. The majority would like to see the arrest warrant that was supposedly at Waco, but that vanished. The majority of Californians want to legalize marijuanna. The majority, the voter doesn't matter any more. Its gotten to the point where the system can sustain itself and expand without our help, and its doing so at an amazing rate. Did any of us ask for the tyrannical Patriot/USA act or the Patriot 2 act? Did any citizen petition his Congressman to create either of these? No, they were drawn up without our consent, and passed before our "elected" "representatives" could, for the most part, even look at them. Then these acts were changed midway, and the revised copies weren't available for legislators to look at. Sound like democracy to you? Does this sound like the will of the majority? Does this sound anything like how our country was originally designed to operate?

Adrian

Just because a majority of the electorate want it doesn't necesarilly make it right. legalize marijauna, why exactly?

Lets face it u could go around most schemes in glasgow and get a massive majority of people sayign carrying knives should be allowed, does that make it a good idea or somethign we should do?

A democracy isn't every single person getting everythign they want, it's them electing a party who tries to represent as many peoples wishes as it can whilst making sure it's ok. u can't please everyone

Ok, Jim, in one breath you tell me that the majority rules, and in the next breath you tell me that the majority only has the power to elect people that rule over them like they're children. Last time I checked, democracy was for the people, of the people, and by the people. The politicians answered to us. I realize it may be different across the ocean, but here our "representatives" and government employees are supposed to be public servants. They never are, but it sounds good in theory. You're saying the people decide what they want, and then the politicians decide whether or not its "right". Tell me, who decides if what the politicans want is "right"? And why would people elect "representatives" who didn't act in their favor? Your concept of "democracy" makes no sense whatsoever. Its like Dark Ages peasants "electing" the lords that let them live outside his town walls. They pay taxes for the privilege of electing someone who won't listen to them, and who they can't control.

And yes, if the majority of people want to carry knives, then they should carry knives. Why not? If they're criminals they'll do it anyway, why shouldn't the law-abiding people get to do so legally. Knives at least afford a minimum of protection, especially if the criminals have knives. Now, I'm not saying everyone should walk around with a sword under their coat like in Highlander:The Series, and few people would want to, but if you're a law abiding citizen, who won't hurt anyone except in self-defense, what business is it of the government to take your ability to defend yourself away?

Adrian

Its called representative democracy. A government is elected in a democratic fashion to make decisions on behalf of the people it represents. It may not be a pure democracy, but to stage a referendum on every single matter of government would be insane.

However, you have to remember the fundamental problem with democracy - that just because the majority believe or want something doesn't make it true or right. The majority of people may not have wanted a war with Iraq (polls show this not to be the case btw), but that doesn't mean that the war was necessarily wrong. There are other factors that are independent of the minds of the democracy that dictate whether a decision is wrong or right.

Actually, to stage a referendum on every single issue would be kinda good, cause it'd tie up the government, prevent it from expanding very far, but that's just my weird opinion.

I'm definitely with you on the issue of just because the people want something doesn't make it right or true, but in a representative democracy, where the people elect representatives to carry out their wishes, a representative NOT listening to the wishes of the people is pretty close to tyranny, if not tyranny already. This country was set up so the people could decide for themselves what happened to them. Government was the agent of the people. Not something that looked out for them, but the instrument of the people's wishes. We managed pretty well up until the civil war, when Lincoln expanded the federal government beyond its intended size. Since then, its just gotten bigger, and bigger, and bigger, despite the fact that the people want it smaller, and have been voting for a decrease in its size every chance they got. There's no way to control it, much less stop it or reverse it. Take a look at the crime statistics from before and after about 1910. 90% (or thereabouts) of our laws have been passed in the last 90 years, despite the fact that beforehand, crime was extremely low, and all violent felonies were on the books. We've lost the power to decide the direction our country will take. We are at the mercy of our government. This is not, representative democracy, or democracy of any kind. This is like Iraqi elections. The same guy is elected year after year. We just happen to put a different face on it.

Adrian