On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 8:28:21 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:

[s nip]

> ....But he _barely_ beat Biden.
>

Biden / Trump
306 232
51.26% 46.8 %

> And if Mother Theresa ran as a Republican you'd live in terror of her.

Well, yeah, `cause ZOMBIE CANDIDATE!

--
Kevin R

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:23:58 AM UTC-5, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 21:59:27 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
> <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> >On Friday, January 28, 2022 at 8:35:42 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, Quadi, but in a democracy you don't make the rules.
> >
> >There are clearly a number of difficulties here.
> >
> >One of them is the meaning of the word "democracy". You use it,
> >apparently, to mean mob rule.
> Yes, because that's what it is.
> >While I agree that mob rule is a bad
> >system, if a specific safeguard, such as the Electoral College, leads
> >to outcomes _worse_ than the preference of the majority, then clearly
> >it isn't, at least at present, performing a useful function.
> The solution is to undemocratize the electoral college and let it do
> its job, finding the best-qualified President.
> >I use the term "democracy" to describe just about any system where
> >the people have... the final say.
> In other words you use it to define a system in which lawmaking is by
> referendum.
> >Not just _a_ say, because that could
> >mean a partial say that could be overridden - but the ability, if they
> >wish, to swap out their representatives who are only temporarily
> >empowered to make decisions on their behalf.
> That's not "the final say". If those elected officials do something
> the people don't like, swapping them out doesn't mean it gets undone.
> The elected officials are still the ones with the "say".
> >But respecting the rights of all is also an essential condition of anything
> >I would call a democracy.
> Well then you are changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself.
> >And I have no problem with claiming it right and just to take self-government
> >away from any population which would oppress a minority among it -
> So you favor democracy only as long as it agrees with you. I'm pretty
> sure Stalin favored it with the same caveat. If it is allowed to do
> only what the dictator thinks is right it's not democracy.
> >because this isn't about _my_ whims, _my_ choices, or _my_ preferences.
> >I was not the one who said, this is just, and this is unjust, before the beginning
> >of time.
> You have documents from before the beginning of time? Do tell.

The US did not have political parties as we now know them at its founding.
The Great Britain barely had the Whigs and Tories. Madison warned against
"faction."

The Federalists vs Republican-Democrats emerged as the "First
Party System, - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Party_System .

The roots of the first system was the divide between those who
supported keeping the Articles of Confederation, perhaps with some
amendments, and those supporting the 1789 Constitution. That
reduced to the Adams/Jefferson rivalry during the 2nd Washington
Presidential term, the Anglophile/Francophile partisans.

Our Great Republic was designed to have what Aristotle called a "mixed
constitution"* - it has monarchical, aristocratic and democratic elements.
Among other things, that's supposed to avoid the trampling of the rights
of minorities: leaving race out of it, think of the city v the countryside, the
farmer v the merchant, those who work for a living (farmers, sailors,
mechanics) v those living on inherited wealth.

Now, you might want to excise the monarchical, aristocrat or, nowadays,
meritocratic elements, but good luck defending a correct, if minority point
of view in a polity like that! Take your claim to a civil right to the
Supreme Court? Sorry, everybody there now puts their wet finger too the
political winds and votes as the majority would have it. That's the job of
Congress' lower house.

* See also Polybius.

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/polybius-origins-separation-powers

[/rant ]

--
Kevin R

On 2022-01-29 6:23 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:

>> But respecting the rights of all is also an essential condition of anything
>> I would call a democracy.
>
> Well then you are changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself.

No. He isn't. The application of "democracy" to elected legislatures
dates back a good 200 years to Jeffersonian democracy. It is only in
about the 30 years, that people in the United States who vote against
the Democrats have decided to narrow the definition of "democracy" to
delegitimize the term and by extension the Democratic Party.

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 1:50:23 PM UTC-7, The Horny Goat wrote:

> You're making the false assumption that in a modern multi-cultural
> multi-ethnic state (just for starters like the US Canada and UK) that
> there is only a single mob.

This reminds me.

I am of the belief that except under near-ideal circumstances -
of economic well-being for nearly everyone, and no highly
contentious and controversial issues - a polity consisting of
people of multiple ethnicities, races, religions, languages or
cultures is likely to be a disaster waiting to happen under *any*
form of representative or democratic government.

The solution I recommend is quite simple: any state in such
a condition should be partitioned, if possible, into multiple
mono-ethnic states, so that the people of each group are free
to govern themselves as they please without stepping on the toes
of people from other groups.

Unfortunately, of course, this isn't always practical, since not
all multi-ethnic states are composed of geographically
localized ethnic groups.

Basically, I expect no more than a bare minimum in the way
of a spirit of tolerance and accomodation from people, having
observed the historical behavior of the human race. Thus, as
I really do want peace and happiness for everyone, I see the
most likely way to achieve it is by avoiding obvious obstacles
thereto. (I'm happy to make _badly behaved_ people miserable,
but I also very much prefer not to subject people, innocent at
present, to such stress that one can only expect that a few of
them will behave badly.)

John Savard

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 4:59:45 PM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> So to which group do you allocate the land with oil under it, and to
> which group the rich farmland, and to which the badlands?

Partitioning is only possible when the groups are geographically
localized, and so it would be the luck of the draw, wherever they
already happen to be. So that isn't really a serious enough
objection.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 6:23:58 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:

> You have documents from before the beginning of time? Do tell.

You have actually called my attention to some weaknesses in my
line of argument.

At this point, the standard reply would be:

"Don't you KNOW the difference between Right and Wrong?"

For one thing, of course, that's a low-down dirty _ad hominem_
argument, which shows things are going South badly.

But there is something else lurking in the shadows: a _non
sequitur_ of truly Galactic proportions. There was a _reason_
that KNOW was in all caps.

One possible reason an individual might not go around pilfering
his neighbor's silverware is because of having grown up in a
loving family, he has a well-developed and fully functional limbic
system. He might _care_ about how other people feel. He might
have _empathy_.

And that means that the premise I would have had to rely upon
for the next step of the argument is not true:

if
a person doesn't go around lying, cheating, and stealing and so on,
then
that person must have had a personal experience of the Fabric of
the Universe in which it was revealed to him what the true nature of
Right and Wrong was.

Clearly, if that premise _were_ true, we could, for example, go around,
find a bunch of honest men, and then after talking to them for a while,
we would obtain enough accurate knowledge of proper ethics to be
able to come up with a mass of Revealed Truth that would outshine
all the world's great religions.

No doubt it would also be very useful for other projects of logical
inference - but then, the mathematicians will tell you that false statements
often do permit the most marvelous conclusions to be drawn from them.

John Savard

On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:08:51 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:28:21 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>
> > So you're saying that the US should go into Belarus to punish their
> > government, not to defend them from Russia?
> No, at this time for the U.S. to go into Belarus would risk starting
> a global thermonuclear war, so I am not saying that the U.S. should
> invade Belarus at this time.
> What I had said was that U.S. forces should be stationed in territory
> controlled by the government of the Ukraine, with that government's
> permission, at the borders between the Ukraine and
> - Russia
> - Russian-held areas of the Ukraine
> - Belarus
>
> I hope this is clear now. Note, for example, how Hitler invaded
> France: by going through Belgium instead of through the Maginot
> Line. Thus, it would be a mistake to exclude the border with Belarus.
> > >Permission would be sought from the government of the Ukraine.
>
> > When it is received get back to us.
> I would expect that Biden would contact the leadership of the
> Ukraine, say by telephone, and start moving troops immediately
> upon recieving permission. *Without giving Russia time to react
> before U.S. troops are in place.*
>
> After all, the whole point of the operation is to *prevent Russia
> from invading*, not to *provoke Russia into invading*.

I am not sure how one goes about _linking_ to a USENET post,
but I do know how to "necro" one.

John Savard

On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:05:32 PM UTC, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-01-29 6:23 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>
> >> But respecting the rights of all is also an essential condition of anything
> >> I would call a democracy.
> >
> > Well then you are changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself.
> No. He isn't. The application of "democracy" to elected legislatures
> dates back a good 200 years to Jeffersonian democracy. It is only in
> about the 30 years, that people in the United States who vote against
> the Democrats have decided to narrow the definition of "democracy" to
> delegitimize the term and by extension the Democratic Party.

It would be inaccurate to accuse anybody of deligitimising a term which was not historically regarded with the sort of worship that it is today - had it been, the world would not have spent so long as a collection of kingdoms.. Here are some chunks from one of my favourite historic books - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10827/10827-h/10827-h.htm

I say, as has been said before by many who have written of Governments, that of these there are three forms, known by the names Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and that those who give its institutions to a State have recourse to one or other of these three, according as it suits their purpose. Other, and, as many have thought, wiser teachers, will have it, that there are altogether six forms of government, three of them utterly bad, the other three good in themselves, but so readily corrupted that they too are apt to become hurtful. The good are the three above named; the bad, three others dependent upon these, and each so like that to which it is related, that it is easy to pass imperceptibly from the one to the other. For a Monarchy readily becomes a Tyranny, an Aristocracy an Oligarchy, while a Democracy tends to degenerate into Anarchy. So that if the founder of a State should establish any one of these three forms of Government, he establishes it for a short time only, since no precaution he may take can prevent it from sliding into its contrary, by reason of the close resemblance which, in this case, the virtue bears to the vice.
....
For this is the circle revolving within which all States are and have been governed; although in the same State the same forms of Government rarely repeat themselves, because hardly any State can have such vitality as to pass through such a cycle more than once, and still together. For it may be expected that in some sea of disaster, when a State must always be wanting prudent counsels and in strength, it will become subject to some neighbouring and better-governed State; though assuming this not to happen, it might well pass for an indefinite period from one of these forms of government to another.

I say, then, that all these six forms of government are pernicious—the three good kinds, from their brief duration the three bad, from their inherent badness. Wise legislators therefore, knowing these defects, and avoiding each of these forms in its simplicity, have made choice of a form which shares in the qualities of all the first three, and which they judge to be more stable and lasting than any of these separately. For where we have a monarchy, an aristocracy, and a democracy existing together in the same city, each of the three serves as a check upon the other.

On Tue, 17 May 2022 20:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 7:08:51 AM UTC-7, Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 27, 2022 at 6:28:21 AM UTC-7, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> > So you're saying that the US should go into Belarus to punish their
>> > government, not to defend them from Russia?
>> No, at this time for the U.S. to go into Belarus would risk starting
>> a global thermonuclear war, so I am not saying that the U.S. should
>> invade Belarus at this time.
>> What I had said was that U.S. forces should be stationed in territory
>> controlled by the government of the Ukraine, with that government's
>> permission, at the borders between the Ukraine and
>> - Russia
>> - Russian-held areas of the Ukraine
>> - Belarus
>>
>> I hope this is clear now. Note, for example, how Hitler invaded
>> France: by going through Belgium instead of through the Maginot
>> Line. Thus, it would be a mistake to exclude the border with Belarus.
>> > >Permission would be sought from the government of the Ukraine.
>>
>> > When it is received get back to us.
>> I would expect that Biden would contact the leadership of the
>> Ukraine, say by telephone, and start moving troops immediately
>> upon recieving permission. *Without giving Russia time to react
>> before U.S. troops are in place.*
>>
>> After all, the whole point of the operation is to *prevent Russia
>> from invading*, not to *provoke Russia into invading*.
>
>I am not sure how one goes about _linking_ to a USENET post,
>but I do know how to "necro" one.

Google Groups is one option.

On 2022-05-17 10:22 p.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
> On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:05:32 PM UTC, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-01-29 6:23 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> But respecting the rights of all is also an essential condition of anything
>>>> I would call a democracy.
>>>
>>> Well then you are changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself.
>> No. He isn't. The application of "democracy" to elected legislatures
>> dates back a good 200 years to Jeffersonian democracy. It is only in
>> about the last 30 years, that people in the United States who vote against
>> the Democrats have decided to narrow the definition of "democracy" to
>> delegitimize the term and by extension the Democratic Party.
>
> It would be inaccurate to accuse anybody of deligitimising a term which was not historically regarded with the sort of worship that it is today - had it been, the world would not have spent so long as a collection of kingdoms. Here are some chunks from one of my favourite historic books - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10827/10827-h/10827-h.htm
>
> I say, as has been said before by many who have written of Governments, that of these there are three forms, known by the names Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and that those who give its institutions to a State have recourse to one or other of these three, according as it suits their purpose. Other, and, as many have thought, wiser teachers, will have it, that there are altogether six forms of government, three of them utterly bad, the other three good in themselves, but so readily corrupted that they too are apt to become hurtful. The good are the three above named; the bad, three others dependent upon these, and each so like that to which it is related, that it is easy to pass imperceptibly from the one to the other. For a Monarchy readily becomes a Tyranny, an Aristocracy an Oligarchy, while a Democracy tends to degenerate into Anarchy.

Whoever that was, he's full of crap. Every monarchy is a tyranny.
Every "aristocracy" is an oligarchy. And the failure mode of democracy
is almost always to become a tyranny. And the reason why the world was
a collection of kingdoms is because democracy only works on all but the
smallest scale after the advent of widespread literacy and mass media.

On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 4:43:50 PM UTC-4, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-17 10:22 p.m., Andrew McDowell wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 29, 2022 at 8:05:32 PM UTC, David Johnston wrote:
> >> On 2022-01-29 6:23 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> >>
> >>>> But respecting the rights of all is also an essential condition of anything
> >>>> I would call a democracy.
> >>>
> >>> Well then you are changing the meaning of the word to suit yourself.
> >> No. He isn't. The application of "democracy" to elected legislatures
> >> dates back a good 200 years to Jeffersonian democracy. It is only in
> >> about the last 30 years, that people in the United States who vote against
> >> the Democrats have decided to narrow the definition of "democracy" to
> >> delegitimize the term and by extension the Democratic Party.
> >
> > It would be inaccurate to accuse anybody of deligitimising a term which was not historically regarded with the sort of worship that it is today - had it been, the world would not have spent so long as a collection of kingdoms. Here are some chunks from one of my favourite historic books - https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10827/10827-h/10827-h.htm
> >
> > I say, as has been said before by many who have written of Governments, that of these there are three forms, known by the names Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, and that those who give its institutions to a State have recourse to one or other of these three, according as it suits their purpose. Other, and, as many have thought, wiser teachers, will have it, that there are altogether six forms of government, three of them utterly bad, the other three good in themselves, but so readily corrupted that they too are apt to become hurtful. The good are the three above named; the bad, three others dependent upon these, and each so like that to which it is related, that it is easy to pass imperceptibly from the one to the other. For a Monarchy readily becomes a Tyranny, an Aristocracy an Oligarchy, while a Democracy tends to degenerate into Anarchy.
> Whoever that was,

Aristotle.

he's full of crap. Every monarchy is a tyranny.

The problem is that this is not well translated into English. It may not be possible to translate correctly without a lot of footnotes.

For example the Greeks of his day had reason for using separate words for monarchy and tyranny, aristocracy and oligarchy. Monarchs and aristocrats were restrained by law and custom in a way that Tyrants and Oligarchs were not.

> Every "aristocracy" is an oligarchy. And the failure mode of democracy
> is almost always to become a tyranny.

As I recall democracy - by which he means the full participation of citizens (male, free) in government, i.e. everybody votes on everything important, many offices of state assigned by lot, degenerates into polity, which is what we now call democracy - indirect participation by citizens through elections held every few years. I don't recall his saying that democracy decays to anarchy.

Nor would he be saying that these are the only outcomes, only the common ones. He would be aware of aristocratic rule becoming tyranny (Corinth, IIRC) and democracy becoming oligarchy (Athens, in his day, though democracy made
a comeback). And anarchy is always a possibility, though not generally for long.

Monarchy was the best of the three uncorruped forms, but as all forms were corrupted, he preferred what we call democracy, which he felt was the best of the corrupted forms.

It's impossible to summarize a long work in a couple of paragraphs. He drew his conclusions from a study of several hundred states and their governments. He really wasn't making this up as he went along.

William Hyde