But zoning doesn't really equate to government planning of the economy. It's doing what governments are supposed to do: manage growth. It helps them plan roads and infrastructure and what not to ensure adequate transportation, power, schools, green space, etc.

I have a problem when zoning laws are abused, as they can be. But not with the basic concept itself.

__________________
Man up.

ROTFLMAO. So 2+2=4 is wrong in this case?????


Thanks for removing any doubt that you're a moron. That may be the absolute dumbest slip up I've ever seen on a forum.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

He's definitely coming out of the closet. His economic views on the role of government put him to the left of Hillary Clinton... He seems to think the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants. The same argument Wilson, FDR, LBJ and others used to keep expanding and growing government.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

If I'm to take a guess, I believe what he means is that in the end even mathematics is defined by a consensus of people. The bum is correct but if enough people disagreed he would be wrong, because at that point we would have redefined our numbers.

It makes sense to an extent...
That's why I think postmodernism is dangerous when it is combined with a mob rules mentality. It is true that each of us defines reality for ourselves... but it is dangerous to allow the majority to enforce a reality upon others.

I think this weird little thing has been hinted at on other threads over the past day. Now the Republicans are advocating democratic mob rule and the Democrats are sticking up for individual rights... Expect this to switch around a few more times before these two parties come to an end.
The neo-cons took advantage of the mob rule idea to spark up the social cons... and the likelihood is they will be consumed by the monster they've created or switch sides to contain it.
There seems to be a very big turn toward people who share a common reality and want to make sure that you share it with them.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

In Historical and Political Science contexts, Democracy by itself generally refers to Direct or Pure Democracy. For most of history, this has been the "only" meaning of the word. As you may notice, the Founding Fathers NEVER interchanged the words democracy and republic, and there are many US Federal documents throughout the history of the US that specifically state that we are NOT a Democracy. This is because the word democracy only refered to what we now call Pure Democracy. So in this context, the US does not and never has practiced Democracy (or Pure Democracy, as we now call it) at the federal level. It is often practiced at the local level, but not federal. Federally, the US is what is now called a Liberal Democracy.

In the early stages of the "Reign of the Democrats", they took many actions to ensure that they would stay in power. One of these actions was to "re-define" the word democracy to help make a positive association with their name (remember that democracy was historically frowned upon because it referred ony to pure democracy). So anyway, the Democrats began referring to the US as a democracy, changing US documents to refer to it as such. Their new meaning of the word came to refer to any form of government in which the people are the source of power, even if quite indirectly. For differentiation purposes, this is called Liberal Democracy. The new meaning spread (and stuck) so now when people say 'democracy' they are usually referring to Liberal Democracy. The criteria for a Liberal Democracy can be found in pretty much any Political Science book, and you will see that we quite easily fit the definition. So while it is true that we are a Republic, we are also a Democracy (in the contemporary, Liberal Democracy sense).

I've seen this before, with folks trying to hang on to the old meaning of democracy. In my experience, it has been conservatives trying to lend extra weight to the ideas of states rights and such, using the fact that we are a republic as support. Yes, we are a Republic, but we are a Democracy too.

And this Sadistic Savior character: what are you, in junior high? Anybody with even a modest amount of education understands that your average pocket dictionary (or online version thereof) lacks the depth and refinement in it's definitions to use as the basis for any sort of meaningful discussions.

My guess is that he doesn't know 2+2=4

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

I would say he's 16...MAYBE. Remember, in the public fool system, you're likely to be incredibly politically ignorant all the way through graduation.

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

Likewise, the majority can also destroy liberty. Look, I see where you're coming from, but I don't think you truly want pure democracy. For example, do you want people to literally be able to create a referendum for any purpose? Should the majority have the right to set tax rates? Do you think the majority should be able to impose a 100% tax rate? To legalize murder? To confiscate property?

__________________
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Schopenhauer

"I actually support movement towards pure democracy, which sets me apart from most libertarians, I daresay."

As a "little l" libertarian, I have to disagree. To begin with, the only contry that I know of that practices Pure Democracy is Switzerland. While it does seem to be working out pretty well for them, they are a very different country from the US. They are much smaller and MUCH more internalized. I don't think it would be very pretty in the US.

As the recent past illustrates, the American people are very easy to mislead and manipulate. Combine this with mob rule, and I would wager that things would become very very opressive with a quickness.

This isn't to say I don't think our form of government needs updating. While the Founding Fathers did create the greatest implementation of government known to man at the time, that was 230 years ago, and the US (and the world in general) has changed a lot since then. The US form of government is now outdated. I just don't think that moving toward a Pure Democracy is the way to do it. Maybe some things like proportional representation would be more appropriate to put some more of the power into the hands of the people without substantially raising the risk of mob rule.

It isnt something I have exactly made a secret about on this forum. It is common knowledge.

I see the founding fathers as proto-American versions of us. Just as the ape-like proto-humans were the precursors to real humans. They had some good qualities considering the times they lived in, but they were morally inferior to modern Americans in virtually every way.

That is not a typical Neo-con belief. It is something that is (as far as I know) unique to me. I do not kneel and worship at the alter of the Founding Fathers. They had many belief's that are morally repugnant to me.

Honesty about our beliefs is the reason Neo-cons are dangerous to people like you. Because our honesty is part of the reason we appeal to the masses.

Who (living now) gets to define their intent?

Irrelevant even if true, because we are discussing the current use of the word "democracy". Not what the Founding Father's believed democracy was.

We did not start out as a democracy (using our current definition) but we are a democracy now. We evolved into one.

We have that. I have already said that the terms are not mutually exclusive. We fit the definition of a Republic as well.

Case in point. Note my emphasis. Even if we voted on every issue DIRECTLY we would still be a Republic by definition. YOUR definition.

Again, note my emphasis. This is YOUR definition. We fit the definition of a democracy as well.

The words are not mutually exclusive. Even in this case.

The fact that he might be right in that one instance does not make him a final authority on Mathematics. It is sad that this needs to be explained to you.

As I already explained however, your analogy is flawed. Because Math is an exact science, not a subjective opinion. Morality (politics) by contrast, IS based on subjective opinion. You really dont see a difference?

Why is it so important to you for me to be wrong?

I've been out for a while now.

If you believe that, then you do not understand my economic views.

With the People's consent, yes.

You make the assumption that Neo-cons are using it only as a tool...that we do not really believe in the concept that the masses should be able to change any laws they want to. Your assumption is wrong.

This monster was created with deliberate intent.

There's an easy way to tell that I am older than 16:

1) I dont use petty insults.

2) I dont use pointlessly excessive punctuation.

Those are things commonly used by teenagers.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?