I guess it was only a matter of time... 26 replies

Please wait...

Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#21 11 years ago
WiseBoboMore people believing in something does not make it right.

Same applies to minority as well, but in general I see it more beneficial that a country is ruled through the will of the majority, not the will of the minority like is the case in undemocratic & corrupted US politics. Talking about "mob rule" is not just intellectually simplistic & one-sided but also rather dishonest in the case of developed democracies due to safeguards in the society like non-governmental institutions in addition to people themselves. I don't see night-watchman state as realistic nor desireable system of government.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#22 11 years ago
Relander;3867815Same applies to minority as well, but in general I see it more beneficial that a country is ruled through the will of the majority, not the will of the minority like is the case in undemocratic & corrupted US politics.

Like I said, the amount of people believing and voting for something does not make it inherently correct. You have not been following U.S. politics enough if you think the "corrupted minority" is doing all of the bad things: most of the time it's the elect majority running the show thanks to mob rule.

talking about "mob rule" is not just intellectually simplistic & one-sided but also rather dishonest in the case of developed democracies due to safeguards in the society like non-governmental institutions in addition to people themselves.

It's not dishonest. Here in my state the Democrats are trying to boss their bills and political agenda through not by partisanship but merely because they can. Representatives who are outspoken against them are routinely ignored and in a current instance attempted to be 'recalled' as a result of their views. Don't call me simplistic and one-sided when you have failed to grasp the situation.

You can talk about safeguards all you want but those safeguards can always be removed by the will of the people. It can happen anytime in a Democracy such as it does on a daily basis in the U.S. by slowing tearing at the Constitution.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#23 11 years ago
WiseBoboLike I said, the amount of people believing and voting for something does not make it inherently correct.

This is not a question about right or wrong, this is a question about whether the majority or minority of the people decide about issues, whether the majority or minority of the people are satisfied. Democracy is based on the rule of the majority and that's just fine: talking in generalized & vague form, I see it more beneficial that a majority is satisfied rather than a minority. Exception reinforces the rule.

Here in my state the Democrats are trying to boss their bills and political agenda through not by partisanship but merely because they can. Representatives who are outspoken against them are routinely ignored and in a current instance attempted to be 'recalled' as a result of their views.

The Democrats represent the plurality of the people who gave them the majority control and now they use that power, tough luck. When people get tired on the rule of the Democrats, they vote for the Republicans as they don’t know better. However having a poor political culture has little to do with the rule of the majority itself (which is based on plurality in the USA), looking into mirror may give an answer for many people. Whole right to recall elected representatives is just ridiculous if you ask me.

Don't call me simplistic and one-sided when you have failed to grasp the situation.

There's a clear difference in calling people by definitions than calling what they say by definitions, don't try to twist people’s meanings and turn the issue something it's not. You don’t have to lecture me about the US politics, I know more than enough to discuss about it and even more than some American voters themselves. I know very well that the US system is undemocratic & corrupt and that it needs reforms but luckily I don't live there.

You can talk about safeguards all you want but those safeguards can always be removed by the will of the people. It can happen anytime in a Democracy such as it does on a daily basis in the U.S. by slowing tearing at the Constitution.

Proper democracies don’t turn into dictatorships or shadow democracies “anytime”, it takes very exceptional situation and (un)favourable conditions to happen. It seems that you have little faith on your fellow people and on the concept itself, especially when we talk about developed western democracies here (at least I do). When you think about it, everything is possible when it comes to people but that’s the way it is. The other thing is if it actually happens or how propable it is.

As majority democracy doesn’t fit for you, what’s your own suggestion for the system of government? Ruling through consensus would get nothing done but if you would like to live in a night-watchman state, then the discussion gets into the point that I don’t see it meaningful to continue. However the fact is that it’s highly unlikely that such society will exist at least in next 50 years so you just have to grasp the reality and swallow it.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#24 11 years ago
Relander;3871341This is not a question about right or wrong, this is a question about whether the majority or minority of the people decide about issues, whether the majority or minority of the people are satisfied. Democracy is based on the rule of the majority and that's just fine: talking in generalized & vague form, I see it more beneficial that a majority is satisfied rather than a minority. Exception reinforces the rule.

This is where you are incorrect. It is inherently a question of right or wrong since society has always strived towards a system that is perfect. A majority is no more correct than a minority simply because the majority of people feel that they are 'satisfied'. I can come up with an infinite amount of situations where satisfying the 'majority' would lead to a bad result.

The Democrats represent the plurality of the people who gave them the majority control and now they use that power, tough luck.

This is the problem, Relander. You feel that since the 'majority' of the people elected the Democrats that their satisfaction is all that matters. It is a logical fallacy to believe that something is inherently right since more people believe it. Democrats being elected into the office and shutting their opponents up due to a majority vote does not make their actions tolerable.

When people get tired on the rule of the Democrats, they vote for the Republicans as they don’t know better. However having a poor political culture has little to do with the rule of the majority itself (which is based on plurality in the USA), looking into mirror may give an answer for many people. Whole right to recall elected representatives is just ridiculous if you ask me

Again your views are distorted. A poor political culture has everything to do with the rule of majority. It would only be irrelevant if certain people could not vote. Until that time occurs a poor political culture and rule en masse remains together.

There's a clear difference in calling people by definitions than calling what they say by definitions, don't try to twist people’s meanings and turn the issue something it's not.

I did not twist your words. Here they are:

Same applies to minority as well, but in general I see it more beneficial that a country is ruled through the will of the majority, not the will of the minority like is the case in undemocratic & corrupted US politics.

There is no "will of the minority" here in the United States, Relander. The party who controls the congress sets the gameplan on the federal level as well as the state. A Democrat/Republican president has almost no chance in passing anything (whether they be right or wrong) in a Republican/Democrat Congress thanks to mass rule. That scenario has played out many, many times repeatedly. It's not the 'minority' that gets corrupted, it's the majority.

Proper democracies don’t turn into dictatorships or shadow democracies “anytime”, it takes very exceptional situation and (un)favourable conditions to happen. It seems that you have little faith on your fellow people and on the concept itself, especially when we talk about developed western democracies here (at least I do). When you think about it, everything is possible when it comes to people but that’s the way it is. The other thing is if it actually happens or how propable it is.

Democracies get transformed into dictatorships by one of two ways. The first is a huge and dramatic change in events such as a war or climatic event which upsets the way of life considerable. The second is done, whether by proxy or not, the people through voting. I do not have little faith in my fellow people. I have little faith in the elected representatives. I see the same discourse in the European Union passing their restrictive legislation into socialism as I do here in the United States. The thing here is Relander that we have a completely different constitution that is supposed to limit how powerful the government can be in regards to privacy, right to keep and bear arms, habeas corpus, etc. These rights are slowly disappearing in the name of 'progression' and I don't like it at all.

As majority democracy doesn’t fit for you, what’s your own suggestion for the system of government? Ruling through consensus would get nothing done but if you would like to live in a night-watchman state, then the discussion gets into the point that I don’t see it meaningful to continue. However the fact is that it’s highly unlikely that such society will exist at least in next 50 years so you just have to grasp the reality and swallow it.

I have no problem with Democracy that has a strict set of rules that must be followed, ergo the Constitution here for the U.S.A. The problem is when the government, elected 'by the people', decides to change that said Constitution. That's where the problems begin. I believe in a small government with limited power and less involvement in the lives of its constituents. I also believe in the merit of some social service programs too. However, the current state of affairs here stateside is a bloated mess that needs to be wiped clean. I have no problem with Democracy. The thing is Relander that a larger group of body should not reserve the right to rule over a smaller one simply because their views share larger numbers. I believe some things are inherently right and some are inherently wrong. On those issues that's where I believe a set of rules should draw the line, like the Supreme Court.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#25 11 years ago
WiseBoboThis is where you are incorrect. It is inherently a question of right or wrong since society has always strived towards a system that is perfect. A majority is no more correct than a minority simply because the majority of people feel that they are 'satisfied'.

I guess here we just have to agree to disagree. I don't see democracy as a question of right or wrong but what is actually practical, what actually works and what is best from bad options when determining the basic structure of decision-making in a society. Like I said, talking in generalized & vague form I see it more beneficial that a majority is satisfied rather than a minority. Naturally there are situations where the majority is wrong and the minority is right but this applies another way too.

This is the problem, Relander. You feel that since the 'majority' of the people elected the Democrats that their satisfaction is all that matters.

Again you twist the meaning of other people's sayings or then clearly misunderstood my point. Nowhere I said that the will of the majority is only thing that matters, I just pointed out that democracy is based on satisfying the will of the majority and its the majority that makes the decisions, whether the majority is right or wrong. However either you rule through the will of the majority, will of the minority or through consensus, there's no middle-ground that you're seeking for and there will no be such but you have to choose one of the three options whether you like it or not and try to make best of it.

A poor political culture has everything to do with the rule of majority.

Seems that you have somewhat poor understanding about which issues contribute to concept "political culture". The level of political culture depends about a variety of issues, like the amount of corruption & bureaucracy, dirty campaigning & mud-slinging, back-stabbing, transparency of government & decision-making, how the political discussion is carried out, how well different groups of people are represented, how many elections there are and how often & how fair, how much people trust on politicians, how much an individual vote counts & how many of those goes "wasted" and especially, how many people from eligible actually vote in elections.

People's lack of political knowledge, thrive for individual profit but first and foremost, the two-party system in the USA is essentially the reason why there's a poor political culture and why Americans are so politically apathetic. What we see today in the US politics is bitter rivalry & partisanship between the two parties, many dirty tricks & a lot of mud-slinging, "all means permitted"-attitude, corruption, overly huge parties where the party elite rules the day & minority opinions get disregarded, deliberate & direct oppression of smaller parties, voting frauds & voter disdaining, and it's always the election season: there's less time for actual planning, preparations and decision-making in politics when the elections are already near. It's continuous gathering of points from here and there, continuous campaigning & political circus into the point where people are full of it and are too stressed to care enough about it.

Every two years there are elections for city councillors, mayors, state representatives, state senators, governors, Congressmen and Senators: only seven elections every two year and at best ten elections when we include elections for judges, sheriffs and president, in addition to possible referendums and recalls. The system also promotes the power of money as with it you get maximum visibility in the media and may get those necessary few votes from the opponent for yourself to achieve majority position.

In principle, more or less in practice, the American politics is about the will of the minority through undemocratic election system called "first-past-the-post" creating & maintaining the two-party system, supported with legislation effectively eliminating the chances of other parties to get national influence. Whole country is divided into congressional districts that don't follow even the county lines, and which can be changed every ten years according to will of the ruling party to maintain their power: the result has been that incumbents get unfair advantage in Congressional elections and just some 10% congressional seats are up for real competition in the whole country.

In heavily Democratic or Republican districts, even states, the supporters of opposing parties have not much incentive to vote as it won't change a thing: a candidate with most votes get elected, rest of the votes getting wasted straight away. This is especially the case in presidential elections where a couple of "swing states" call the outcome and candidates don't tour "safe states" as it's not necessary.

Example of the FPTP system: there are six candidates in congressional district X and only one of them is elected to the Congress. Five of the candidates get 16,5% of the votes each but the candidate Z gets 17,5% of the votes: candidate Z gets into Congress while 82,5% of the votes are wasted, those 82,5% of the people aren't represented nor heard. USA, beacon of democracy?

Though this is just an extreme example and very unlikely scenario, it's a possible situation in the FPTP election system: frequently candidates with minority of the votes get elected, even though they merely represent "lesser of two evils" for many people when it comes to Republican & Democrat candidates. For example both times Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the votes but thanks to plurality and obsolete electoral college, he got elected and represented a minority as there's no such concept as second round/second choice in the US presidential elections, further strenghtening the two-party system.

No wonder why Americans have become so distanced from politics and why they are so desperate for change.

I did not twist your words. Here they are:

Seems that you have problems in keeping up what yourself say. You claimed that I called you simplistic & one-sided and on which claim I replied but now you take it right on the other direction.

A Democrat/Republican president has almost no chance in passing anything (whether they be right or wrong) in a Republican/Democrat Congress thanks to mass rule. That scenario has played out many, many times repeatedly.

Check & balances created by the mighty Founding Fathers isn't that great concept after all? However a Democrat/Republican Congress can't pass anything either if the president just have most of his party behind him, a case which can be seen very clearly today when reading news from Washington D.C.

It's not the 'minority' that gets corrupted, it's the majority.

Both sides may get corrupted depending of amount of power and the whole political system, corruption doesn't just look who's in charge.

The second is done, whether by proxy or not, the people through voting.

Though that's mostly the people themselves to blame, not the majority system. However this doesn't change the fact that democracies don't turn into dictatorships "anytime", it takes very exceptional & (un)favourable conditions to happen.

I have little faith in the elected representatives.

And the people elect those representatives, "mob rule" as you call it.

The thing here is Relander that we have a completely different constitution that is supposed to limit how powerful the government can be in regards to privacy, right to keep and bear arms, habeas corpus, etc.

Completely different from what constitution? Our constitution sets clear set of rules about people's rights etc. too and which is not a political tool due to its strict wording and safeguards.

The problem is when the government, elected 'by the people', decides to change that said Constitution.

Everything is possible when people are concerned and like you said yourself: "You can talk about safeguards all you want but those safeguards can always be removed by the will of the people". The other thing is how easy it is to change the constitution, what kind of safeguards there are and how politically aware the people & media are.

The thing is Relander that a larger group of body should not reserve the right to rule over a smaller one simply because their views share larger numbers. I believe some things are inherently right and some are inherently wrong. On those issues that's where I believe a set of rules should draw the line, like the Supreme Court.

However the beliefs differ from person to person. What would your suggestion, "a larger group of body should not reserve the right to rule over a smaller one simply because their views share larger numbers", mean in practice? Majority is always a majority, whether passing laws takes 2/3, 3/4 or even 5/6 of the votes and consensus is simply impossible if you actually want something done. By the way concepts of democracy and majority rule don't define the size of government.

The only solution to minimize the "mob rule" would be a night-watchman state where the government takes care just of police, military, fire department and road building. But here the structure of decision-making comes a question too: majority, minority or consensus rule? I don't think anyone here actually argues for anarchism but you simply don't have that many choices in how the decisions are carried out in a society.




WiseBobo

Most loved forum member.

50 XP

9th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,668 Posts

0 Threads

#26 11 years ago
Relander;3876203I guess here we just have to agree to disagree. I don't see democracy as a question of right or wrong but what is actually practical, what actually works and what is best from bad options when determining the basic structure of decision-making in a society. Like I said, talking in generalized & vague form I see it more beneficial that a majority is satisfied rather than a minority. Naturally there are situations where the majority is wrong and the minority is right but this applies another way too.

It's not a matter of practicality it is a matter of right or wrong here. I agree, anything other than Democracy (at least a constitutional one) is impractical. My whole argument has been Relander that simply because the majority of people vote for something does not make it right. That's it.

Again you twist the meaning of other people's sayings or then clearly misunderstood my point. Nowhere I said that the will of the majority is only thing that matters, I just pointed out that democracy is based on satisfying the will of the majority and its the majority that makes the decisions, whether the majority is right or wrong. However either you rule through the will of the majority, will of the minority or through consensus, there's no middle-ground that you're seeking for and there will no be such but you have to choose one of the three options whether you like it or not and try to make best of it.

I inherently know this Relander but you still do not understand my point. I understand that Democracy is one of the best options, you don't need to school me on that. My entire point has been that sometimes the will of the people is for some things that are inherently flawed and flat-out wrong: anyone can grasp this concept. This is the whole basis for a Constitution and why I point out that there are problems when people break the rules even though it is the "will of the people".

Seems that you have somewhat poor understanding about which issues contribute to concept "political culture". The level of political culture depends about a variety of issues, like the amount of corruption & bureaucracy, dirty campaigning & mud-slinging, back-stabbing, transparency of government & decision-making, how the political discussion is carried out, how well different groups of people are represented, how many elections there are and how often & how fair, how much people trust on politicians, how much an individual vote counts & how many of those goes "wasted" and especially, how many people from eligible actually vote in elections. People's lack of political knowledge, thrive for individual profit but first and foremost, the two-party system in the USA is essentially the reason why there's a poor political culture and why Americans are so politically apathetic. What we see today in the US politics is bitter rivalry & partisanship between the two parties, many dirty tricks & a lot of mud-slinging, "all means permitted"-attitude, corruption, overly huge parties where the party elite rules the day & minority opinions get disregarded, deliberate & direct oppression of smaller parties, voting frauds & voter disdaining, and it's always the election season: there's less time for actual planning, preparations and decision-making in politics when the elections are already near. It's continuous gathering of points from here and there, continuous campaigning & political circus into the point where people are full of it and are too stressed to care enough about it. Every two years there are elections for city councillors, mayors, state representatives, state senators, governors, Congressmen and Senators: only seven elections every two year and at best ten elections when we include elections for judges, sheriffs and president, in addition to possible referendums and recalls. The system also promotes the power of money as with it you get maximum visibility in the media and may get those necessary few votes from the opponent for yourself to achieve majority position. In principle, more or less in practice, the American politics is about the will of the minority through undemocratic election system called "first-past-the-post" creating & maintaining the two-party system, supported with legislation effectively eliminating the chances of other parties to get national influence. Whole country is divided into congressional districts that don't follow even the county lines, and which can be changed every ten years according to will of the ruling party to maintain their power: the result has been that incumbents get unfair advantage in Congressional elections and just some 10% congressional seats are up for real competition in the whole country. In heavily Democratic or Republican districts, even states, the supporters of opposing parties have not much incentive to vote as it won't change a thing: a candidate with most votes get elected, rest of the votes getting wasted straight away. This is especially the case in presidential elections where a couple of "swing states" call the outcome and candidates don't tour "safe states" as it's not necessary. Example of the FPTP system: there are six candidates in congressional district X and only one of them is elected to the Congress. Five of the candidates get 16,5% of the votes each but the candidate Z gets 17,5% of the votes: candidate Z gets into Congress while 82,5% of the votes are wasted, those 82,5% of the people aren't represented nor heard. USA, beacon of democracy? Though this is just an extreme example and very unlikely scenario, it's a possible situation in the FPTP election system: frequently candidates with minority of the votes get elected, even though they merely represent "lesser of two evils" for many people when it comes to Republican & Democrat candidates. For example both times Bill Clinton got less than 50% of the votes but thanks to plurality and obsolete electoral college, he got elected and represented a minority as there's no such concept as second round/second choice in the US presidential elections, further strenghtening the two-party system. No wonder why Americans have become so distanced from politics and why they are so desperate for change.

You do not need to school me on the politics on the United States or how the system works. I already know that based on my own research and my own residence here in the country. Further this entire portion of your post insinuates that I believe the "majority" has literally everything to do with the political culture here in the United States. You misinterpreted what I said and took it as a literal part of speech; I am sure that there are some phrases over in Finland where I would make the same mistake.

Seems that you have problems in keeping up what yourself say. You claimed that I called you simplistic & one-sided and on which claim I replied but now you take it right on the other direction.

I have no problem in keeping up to what I have said. My argument has never twisted or contorted. You have only used strawmans for claims I never made and argued against arguments I never stated.

Check & balances created by the mighty Founding Fathers isn't that great concept after all? However a Democrat/Republican Congress can't pass anything either if the president just have most of his party behind him, a case which can be seen very clearly today when reading news from Washington D.C.

I never said it's not a great concept. However in practicality it does not work all the time, nor does any system.

Both sides may get corrupted depending of amount of power and the whole political system, corruption doesn't just look who's in charge.

Corruption takes place for whatever is popular. You will never see any major lobbyists vouching for a small canidate with a good platform, such as Ron Paul. It mostly takes place with the majority of the canidates since the majority are the ones running the show. There is more lobbying done to win a vote that suits your needs. The NRA would not waste millions of dollars in the congress if there was no way to pass or block a specific item.

Though that's mostly the people themselves to blame, not the majority system. However this doesn't change the fact that democracies don't turn into dictatorships "anytime", it takes very exceptional & (un)favourable conditions to happen.

You cannot seperate the system that enables the people to vote for voting for a dictatorship; to do otherwise is illogical.

And the people elect those representatives, "mob rule" as you call it.

I never said I am against the people. Don't argue against statements that I have not made.

Completely different from what constitution? Our constitution sets clear set of rules about people's rights etc. too and which is not a political tool due to its strict wording and safeguards.

Different from Democratic systems that feature no Constitution at all but are just composed of simple rule. Finland's Constitution and the USA's are not the same word for word but you get the gist of my point.

Everything is possible when people are concerned and like you said yourself: "You can talk about safeguards all you want but those safeguards can always be removed by the will of the people". The other thing is how easy it is to change the constitution, what kind of safeguards there are and how politically aware the people & media are.

This is of course the problem with Democracy here in the United States. Whenever I say the "will of the people" it's almost always tongue-in-cheek: the majority of the people in this country do not vote. I agree with your statement.

However the beliefs differ from person to person. What would your suggestion, "a larger group of body should not reserve the right to rule over a smaller one simply because their views share larger numbers", mean in practice? Majority is always a majority, whether passing laws takes 2/3, 3/4 or even 5/6 of the votes and consensus is simply impossible if you actually want something done. By the way concepts of democracy and majority rule don't define the size of government.

It's not a matter of practice but of principle. I never said my views are practical (as if most governments are). All I am pointing out by this state is that might does not make right. This is the whole reason why I believe that certain rules need to be set for the ballgame. I never said Democracy and Majority rule define the size of government.

The only solution to minimize the "mob rule" would be a night-watchman state where the government takes care just of police, military, fire department and road building. But here the structure of decision-making comes a question too: majority, minority or consensus rule? I don't think anyone here actually argues for anarchism but you simply don't have that many choices in how the decisions are carried out in a society.

Not necessarily. A Constitutional Democracy/Republic (for larger countries or ordnances of government) that has rules set in stone removes a majority of these issues. When things are 'reinterpreted" or 'changed' the majority wins even though they may be wrong in principle. I am not saying that the rules are always correct but there are certain laws that should never be changed.




Relander

Ambassador

50 XP

8th April 2005

0 Uploads

2,538 Posts

0 Threads

#27 11 years ago
WiseBoboMy whole argument has been Relander that simply because the majority of people vote for something does not make it right. That's it.[/quote]
My entire point has been that sometimes the will of the people is for some things that are inherently flawed and flat-out wrong
So we have reached an agreement.
You do not need to school me on the politics on the United States or how the system works. I already know that based on my own research and my own residence here in the country. Further this entire portion of your post insinuates that I believe the "majority" has literally everything to do with the political culture here in the United States. You misinterpreted what I said and took it as a literal part of speech; I am sure that there are some phrases over in Finland where I would make the same mistake.

Agreed, I seemingly misunderstood your point though it strongly seemed to me that by underlining word "everything" you meant that majority rule, from which basis democracies work, is by itself the biggest reason for political corruption if not virtually only reason.

I wrote the description of US politics more as a general text for those people who support "first-past-the-post" election system and dominance of two parties which I see inherently flawed & corrupted, even against the principles of democracy. It can be said that it's quite hypocritical for the US government and some individuals to describe the USA as "champion/beacon of democracy" when country's own democratic system isn't that convincing. Nevertheless, it's natural that a person who speaks english as his first language and a person who speaks it as second will face some misunderstandings, I have ran into these situations earlier as well.

I have no problem in keeping up to what I have said. My argument has never twisted or contorted. You have only used strawmans for claims I never made and argued against arguments I never stated.

May I remind you about how this specific issue progressed, emphasizing some portions of the text:

meTalking about "mob rule" is not just intellectually simplistic & one-sided but also rather dishonest in the case of developed democracies due to safeguards in the society...[/quote] [quote=you]...Representatives who are outspoken against them are routinely ignored and in a current instance attempted to be 'recalled' as a result of their views. Don't call me simplistic and one-sided when you have failed to grasp the situation
So you claimed that I called you simplistic & one-sided, to which claim I answerred: [quote=me]There's a clear difference in calling people by definitions than calling what they say by definitions, don't try to twist people’s meanings and turn the issue something it's not...

I called your statement simplistic & one-sided but you took it as I would have called you simplistic & one-sided which is not the case, I draw clear distinction between these two. However this is rather minor issue in the overall discussion so I leave it to that and hope you understood my point.

I never said it's not a great concept. However in practicality it does not work all the time, nor does any system.

It just seems for me that most Americans regard the Founding Fathers as some infallible holy beings who made a flawless document, the Constitution and that their will & statements are the highest authority that applies when the Constitution was written over 230 years ago in whole different conditions than today.

But as a side-note, what do you think: could the Senate be taken out from the "middle" between President and House of Representatives to decrease bureaucracy and increase administrative efficiency? Half of the representatives would be elected based on population and other half based on equal state representation?

Corruption takes place for whatever is popular. You will never see any major lobbyists vouching for a small canidate with a good platform, such as Ron Paul. It mostly takes place with the majority of the canidates since the majority are the ones running the show.

Lobbyists throw money at the people & organizations that have influence which is not always achieved through gaining majority.

You cannot seperate the system that enables the people to vote for voting for a dictatorship; to do otherwise is illogical.

Sure people can eventually get into dictatorship through voting but the point is how easy & propable this is to happen and what safeguards there are to stop this from happening. Like said: it takes very exceptional & (un)favourable conditions to happen (change to dictatorship). The word "anytime" confused the point to some extent.

I never said I am against the people. Don't argue against statements that I have not made.

The point is that if you don't trust on the elected representatives, it's also the people to blame who voted them to office in the first place.

the majority of the people in this country do not vote.

Which is really a shame though I understand their motives. But if the people aren't content with Democratic or Republican candidates, why not vote for independents and third party candidates if not for other reason than stating a protest while supporting the idea of voting in principle.

It's not a matter of practice but of principle.

I respect your principle, it has its merits though I'm strictly pragmatist and realist myself, and that is why I asked your suggestion how to implement your principle in reality.

I never said Democracy and Majority rule define the size of government.

I wrote from the basis that you support a night-watchman state. Guess I was wrong.

Not necessarily. A Constitutional Democracy/Republic (for larger countries or ordnances of government) that has rules set in stone removes a majority of these issues.

But if we talk from what's practical and realistic, what can be done, then a night-watchman state (which may be a Constitutional Democracy/Republic) is the only solution if we want to minimize majority rule, "mob rule" (as consensus wouldn't work and will of the minority would be even worse) and government interference as a whole on people's lives while maintaining the law & order.

When things are 'reinterpreted" or 'changed' the majority wins even though they may be wrong in principle. I am not saying that the rules are always correct but there are certain laws that should never be changed.

Some permanent principles, laws would be a good thing but in practice it's not actually possible to create such due to many issues it would arise: who would set the permanent rules, what would be set and whether such permanent rules would be even legal or fair for future generations.