Sure, they are reasonable constructions for 'citizens.' My only qualm is that they are owned, managed and patrolled by a bureaucracy.
This is why majority rule, exersized by citizens, is essential. The bureaucracy needs to represent the citizens.
Immigration policy only exists because of public spaces and forced integration laws. Both of these are creations of the government. Suppose all land was privately owned. Would we have any 'immigration policy?' Of course not. Each landowner would decide for themselves who to allow on their property. This goes back to what I was saying earlier. The government has created a situation where once someone is inside the country, they can roam and live anywhere they please with practically no scrutiny whatsoever.
Allowing landowners complete control over what happens on their property, and having the country have nothing to do with it, undermines the definition of a democracy. A democracy can't govern people who don't give their rights to the government to deal with in the first place. The resolution only deals with democratic ideals.
You have no 'right to vote.' This 'right' is tantamount to saying that you have a right to rule other people.
The people have a constitutional right to elect officials.
'National security' is a crock. There is no such thing as 'national security.' There are only private interests, and each private interest should decide on how to protect itself.
Presumably, our private interests are best protected in a democracy. This doesn't matter, because private interests of US citizens are not directly involved with the resolution.
Whose law? Not mine. I live by my own moral code and everyone else should do the same.
This isn't consistent with democratic ideals. The resolution pertains to consistency with democratic ideals.
Then let's do away with both. Majority rule is an absurd and dangerous concept to begin with.
How can a lack of national security AND a lack of majority rule be compatible with democratic ideals more so than having them is compatible.
Why can't defense be managed like a business? The ingenuity of mankind requires a bureaucracy for the production of defense? To that I say: poppycock.
?But there are prices we cannot afford to pay for meeting it exactly. One is the abandonment of democratic control. Another is the loss of a war.?
This is why majority rule, exersized by citizens, is essential. The bureaucracy needs to represent the citizens.
Immigration policy only exists because of public spaces and forced integration laws. Both of these are creations of the government. Suppose all land was privately owned. Would we have any 'immigration policy?' Of course not. Each landowner would decide for themselves who to allow on their property. This goes back to what I was saying earlier. The government has created a situation where once someone is inside the country, they can roam and live anywhere they please with practically no scrutiny whatsoever.
Allowing landowners complete control over what happens on their property, and having the country have nothing to do with it, undermines the definition of a democracy. A democracy can't govern people who don't give their rights to the government to deal with in the first place. The resolution only deals with democratic ideals.
You have no 'right to vote.' This 'right' is tantamount to saying that you have a right to rule other people.
The people have a constitutional right to elect officials.
'National security' is a crock. There is no such thing as 'national security.' There are only private interests, and each private interest should decide on how to protect itself.
Presumably, our private interests are best protected in a democracy. This doesn't matter, because private interests of US citizens are not directly involved with the resolution.
Whose law? Not mine. I live by my own moral code and everyone else should do the same.
This isn't consistent with democratic ideals. The resolution pertains to consistency with democratic ideals.
Then let's do away with both. Majority rule is an absurd and dangerous concept to begin with.
How can a lack of national security AND a lack of majority rule be compatible with democratic ideals more so than having them is compatible.
Why can't defense be managed like a business? The ingenuity of mankind requires a bureaucracy for the production of defense? To that I say: poppycock.
?But there are prices we cannot afford to pay for meeting it exactly. One is the abandonment of democratic control. Another is the loss of a war.?
Facebook
Twitter