Martillo and Logic
T C Wheeler
antisemitism. What I read him saying is that -
1. Hitler was elected to office.
2. Democracies hold elections.
3. Hitler was antisemetic.
4. Therefore, democracies are antisemetic.
Following Martillo is kind-of-like following the logic
of a Mexican Jumping Bean. He finally gets somewhere, but
he never takes a straight path. And, where he starts and where
he ends never have a logical relationship.
T. C. Wheeler
Yehoyaqim Martillo
democracies are antisemitic. There is a fundamental problem with
democracy which the Greeks notice over 2000 years ago. There is no
protection at all in a democracy if the majority wants to do something
rotten. This is a political triviality and has zero to do with
antisemitism .
The Germans had Hitler because they wanted him.
If Iran had had a democratic system, I am sure the Iranians would have
democratically elected him by large majority.
By the way when I am making a logical argument and am using modus ponens,
I usually state that I am doing so. I have had Phil 140.
Tobias D. Robison
Martillo notes that the Greeks discovered 2000 years ago, a problem
with democracy -- that if the majority wantto do something rotten, nothing
can be done about it.
This need not be true, and is not true in the democracy of the United
States. Many people share the misconception that Martillo stated.
Our government provides many checks and balances against majority
opinion. In particular, many things the majority might decide to do
are unconstitutional, and many other things could not be enacted into
law because our legilators are given sufficient means to prevent
enactment even when in the minority.
The bill of rights is the basis for much of our minority protection.
Some people have gone so far as to describe democracy as a form of
governemnt that gives too much power to all minorities.
- Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
allegra!eosp1!robison
decvax!ittvax!eosp1!robison
princeton!eosp1!robison
j...@ccieng5.uucp
antisemitism. A correlation between autocracy and antisemitism had been
discussed, and he was offering an example of an inverse correlation.
The logic is more:
1) There are lots of antisemites about.
2) Antisemites will like you for kicking jews.
3) (not mentioned by Martillo)
Prosemites and civil rights advocates will dislike you
for kicking jews.
4) In a country where you have more antisemites than
prosemites and civil rights advocates, you could get
elected by kicking jews.
The idea that autocracy may be less prone to antisemitism is not
outrageous. I would expect that a ruler with an elite upbringing
would feel less threatened by jews than a proletarian who notices
mostly that here are a people who refuse to mix with HIS kind.
Nasreddin Hodja
--
"Some people are eccentric, but I am just plain odd"
Reachable as
....allegra![rayssd,rlgvax]!ccieng5!jbf
Yehoyaqim Martillo
can repeal the bill of rights or alter the form of government.
The bill of rights did not protect American blacks until after
emanciptation. Even afterward the bill of rights was not effective in
their case for almost 100 years.
Raymond Chen
things, to help prevent a tyranny of the majority. However, the blacks
weren't able to do anything because they had no political power, not
being part of the recognized political society. In the U.S., due to
the political structure, a small group can wield an enormous amount of
"stopping power", but that group has to gather that power and that entails
being a recognized part of the political society, which blacks were not then,
and in some places, still are not.
--
The preceding message was brought to you by --
Ray Chen
princeton!tilt!chenr
abeles
The law attempts to be fair, but can't always be just. Thus there are
those who are incorrectly imprisoned, for example, who constitute a
minority who are essentially oppressed by a majority. Similarly the victims
of crimes are a minority of people whose rights are abridged partially due
to an inadequate check by society on the actions of criminals. I think that
minority rights are central to the quality of society. How about the minority
who are crippled by auto accidents? Are road safety laws adequate for them?
Or, on the flip side, what about the person who loses his auto license because
of excessive traffic tickets, and can no longer make a living because he needs
a car to go to work each day? Is driving a privilege or a right for such
a person? Maybe the tickets were mistakes.
Democracy, per se, may possibly encompass majority tyranny, but the real
problem for a well-intentioned society is to allow for maximum minority
income tax Code really be fair given its
complexity? At what level (how many dollar$) do we give up trying to match
a person's income tax to his fair share of the national expenses. This is
separate from questions of whether we feel it is best to carry out government
policies through income tax subsidies and increased taxes.
wma...@brl-vgr.uucp
> Martillo notes that the Greeks discovered 2000 years ago, a problem
> with democracy -- that if the majority want to do something rotten, nothing
> can be done about it.
>
> This need not be true, and is not true in the democracy of the United
> States. Many people share the misconception that Martillo stated.
>
> Our government provides many checks and balances against majority
> opinion. In particular, many things the majority might decide to do
> are unconstitutional, and many other things could not be enacted into
> law because our legislators are given sufficient means to prevent
> enactment even when in the minority.
>
> - Toby Robison (not Robinson!)
This is because we have a REPUBLIC, NOT a "democracy". This difference
is what gives us our "checks & balances". There is a common belief,
supported by fuzzy terminology, that "democracy" is a wonderful and
desirable system of government. It is not. It has the defects inherent
in rule by the mob, and the current discussion, on the net and elsewhere,
encouraging "participatory democracy" with electronic voting by all on
isssues of the day and other methods of rapid response to the "will of
the people" are leading to a degradation of the government by moving
it away from the republic and toward the democracy.
Remember that a responsive and quick-acting government is a terrible
threat. The "inaction" of the legislative branch, and the struggles
between it, the executive, and the judicial, are POSITIVE GOODS, not
"evils", of our system of government.
Will
John W Jobe
--
From the oftimes fiery but seldom understood keyboard of
the dark avenger
(...!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!davenger)
bpr...@bmcg.uucp
Robison (not Robinson!) is showing his lack of understanding of both Martillo
and of reality. Martillo is quite correct about the evils of democracy, even
if he is unenthusiastic in his condemnation. The misconception that's going on
here is the one that Robison repeats, the misconception that the political
system of the US is (or should be) a democracy. This dangerous belief is
fostered primarily by those powergrabbers who would then benefit from the name
of their party...
Luckily, as Robison points out, "many things the majority might decide to do
are unconstitutional.."--In other words, our "democracy" works because it is
not a democracy. Our "democracy" has a constitution, that a few people still
pay attention to; a legislature, representing geography; a special electoral
college, even though it's been hobbled dramatically; and a few other odds and
ends that makes it a little more difficult for "democrats" than they would
like.
I have learned, though, that when someone starts hollering "democracy" at me,
my most productive response is to duck: either the hollerer is a fool, as
Robison shows himself to be, or is a scoundrel, using the fools to give me the
shaft.
Even though this is not net.politics, here is a challenge for you: Name a
"democratic" program (i.e., either sponsored by the democrat party or justified
by an appeal to "democracy") that did (or would) not create a privileged class,
at the expense of the rest of us.
--
--Bill Price uucp: {decvax!ucbvax philabs}!sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice
arpa:? sdcsvax!bmcg!bprice@nosc