From: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org (alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest) To: ammf-digest@smoe.org Subject: alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #151 Reply-To: ammf@smoe.org Sender: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ammf-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest Friday, July 24 1998 Volume 01 : Number 151 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: greetings from Alberta! ["MTKeener" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 23:40:06 -0400 From: "MTKeener" Subject: Re: greetings from Alberta! >> > it's a sad fact that many walks of american life have no representation >> in the >> > legislature, and therefore, your definition of democracy is not >> applicable. kinda goes without sayin' > >> Could we say that a legislative body represents its people if it does what >> the people as a majority want? remember that the purpose of a democracy is to protect the views of the minority... >Being a member of the curly haired engineering types whoohoo! Irregular hair RULES!!! > you should know that >polls and statistics can be bent in anyway to support any conclusion, so >having a senator that "follows the polls" you mean, "follows the money"... >doesn't mean a thing. Plus, its a >benefit to have an individual who has his own mind when making decisions upon >laws and doesn't get caught up in the heat of the moment per se. Like with >flag burning, a consitutional ammendment to prohibit it, come on. But if I >remember correctly there was a majority of people in the polls who favored >it. as you said before, there is a poll to support every opinion. > >> I would suggest that what we need is a legislative body which is only >> representative to a point. When we elect representatives, rather than >> running a direct democracy like the Greeks did, we assume that someone >> else can do a better job of legislating than we can. I suggest that we >> thoroughly read each candidate's platform, elect the person with whose >> platform we agree, and then let them do as they will for their term in >> office. If they fail to act as they stated they would, we vote them out >> of office. But while they're in office, it is their job to do what the >> rest of us cannot do: govern. They should be given the freedom to do so. > For sure! >And when they don't do what they were elected to do? Campaign reform, >anybody remember that little tid bit? Candidates past and previous have >promised the world and delievered little. You cannot judge by the platform >whether or not a candidate will govern or just take up space. I am totally >against leaving a legislators "alone" for their term. Allow them to govern, >yes, but let them do as they please, take bribes from big businesses and >special interest groups. I don't think so. > Right. That's why *real* campaign reform will never happen. >> > perhaps the basis of western law needs a bit of undermining, if it is >> comprised >> > of a small unrepresentative representative (how's that for an >> oxymoron??) body >> > that wishes to preach personal morality, while providing little to no >> example >> > of this morality. >> Please don't leave this to those who apply stickers (not just for records, but for TV and the Internet). As bad as it is, it could be worse. Left to some folks, just about everyone on this thread would be incarcerated. >> Again, in what sense is our legislative system unrepresentative? In a >> sense I agree with you that the system is unrepresentative (cf. Chomsky, >> and start with "Manufacturing Consent"), but I don't think you're being >> clear about how you think it is unrepresentative. >> >> Direct democracy is probably the only truly representative system -- the >> only one which represents each voice with 100% accuracy. But it comes >> with its own problems. If we commit to a representative democracy, we >> commit to its problems. The "price of doing business." >> One of these is that it does not represent all of >> its people clearly. When we take positions according to the beliefs of >> the majority, we exclude the minority. Can you suggest a way of >> simultaneously representing everyone and committing to representative >> democracy? I don't believe it's possible, but I'm open to suggestion. > In spite of all the faults, I can't knock DC -- checks and balances. The Supreme Court _frequently_ protects the minority in the face of an oppressive majority. The President _frequently_ vetoes the truly outrageous things that the "ridiculous " sends up; (with the notable exception of Reganomics). And Congress _usually_ overrides vetoes when the issue really counts (tho' I may be proven wrong shortly...) >Not to mention the logistical nightmare of attempting to get everyone to make >educated votes on some issues (or getting enough of the population to turn >out to get a decent representive). Heck, I don't think we break the 50% mark >for presidential ellections, what type of turnout would you get on raising >minimum wage or something like that. ( I was attempting to come up with >something that wasn't controversial or high visibility, unlike >raising/lowering the speed limit or drinking age..). > The Constitution guarantees us the right to vote for whomever we please without the requirement that we be educated. That might have been OK before this age of multi-million dollar campaigns that can only be won by broadcast saturation, but unfortunately people vote for who looks good on TV. An initiative to raise the minumum wage would surely lose, because the people against it have more money. However, "educated" is the key word here. People aren't, they don't have the time or energy for it. Apathy. Be honest, do you research the record of the municipal court judge you just voted for? (oy, I did!) My view of "unrepresentative" is that those who are running for office that represent even an approximation of my views are Independents (and therefore {unless you're in norrthern New England} unelectable). The ones *I* want (who even bother to run) never stand a chance coming out of the gate 'cause they don't have the $$$$$. >> > i don't understand the connection between the government instituting >> laws to >> > protect people from bodily harm, which is an objective thing, to >> legislation >> > about "morality", which is clearly subjective. >> >> Do you believe in minimalist government? Should the government only >> protect against physical harm between two people? This is weak protection >> indeed. Sexual harassment is a much more subtle crime, and much harder to >> prove than physical assault, but I think you would agree that the >> government has a right to legislative against harassment. Similarly, it >> has a right to restrict _some_ speech; Holmes and Brandeis, for instance, >> made it clear that even the most relaxed free speech laws would never >> permit someone to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. > >Oh no.. I won't go there either. But it's not the government's job to protect you from someone saying "f***k" (restraint, again) on a CD. If the record companies want to help inform parents (whether enlightened or not) about so-called vulgar language to cover their asses, so much the better. Better to know than not.... >> I don't know where this tangent began, and I regret if I've swerved off >> the road. This road goes everywhere, I think. I only know that it started in Alberta. >>However, I think there are some more fundamental questions of >> governance here than just free-speech laws. >> >> --Steve > >But free speach is where we started, it just seemed to suck in every other >topic under the sun Perhaps because it touches every subject. If we didn't have it, it'd never come up. >... Albertan black hole..... (and I've done more than my >fair share of wandering off the topic) > Topic? >"wild" Bill (has no nifty tag line today) > I disagree! This could be the thread that never dies because it encompasses all! Matt (lacking tagline as well) ------------------------------ End of alt.music.moxy-fruvous digest V1 #151 ********************************************