__________________
Calling Grace She'll Never Fall Again Love Remains In Her Calling Grace
She Will Rise Again Sacrifice The Saints Still Love Remains
I'm A Tart! What! You Want Some Of This!
I would Tarja...among other things...

That's still pretty dangerous. Suppose the will of the majority wants to just declare the national debt null and void because they don't want to pay the $450,000 that their family owes on it. Imagine what would happen, but do you think that the people would still want it if they knew? Whenever you talk about the "will of the people" or whatnot, you usually find yourself supporting a totalitarian form of government. It's much better for government to have its power based on the people, but still have individuals making the decisions (which, if the people don't like, they can vote out of office).

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

A government has to at least be legitimate in the eyes of the majority. That doesn't mean it has to carry out every action that the mode wants... but it's manner of making decisions must meet the approval of not only a majority... but a large majority of the population.
If it fails to do this, it fails to be legitimate and it will not function without resorting to totalitarianism (which, I suppose in some loose sense can still carry out the purpose... for practical reasons, fear can equal legitimacy- I don't think it's sustainable and it certainly isn't any system I want to live under).

That is why populist movements tend to grow strongest not just due to widespread relative poverty, but due to the sense that powerful elite interests have taken legitimacy out of government.
The movements that status quo kiss-ups dismiss as the neediness of the poor are actually a response to the loss in faith in government due to the power of certain interests believed to hold more clout than theirs.
Are they mutually exclusive? No.
Are the fears of elite rule always true? Not necessarily.
But the fact remains that government has to remain legitimate in the eyes of the masses or it will fall. So in that sense, the government certainly must carry out the will of the majority.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Yes, exactly. Just like Hitler thought that the Weimar government was controlled by monied interest Jews and that he had to mobilize the German people to over throw them and put him, the voice of the people, into power.

This is exactly the kind of thing conservatives want to prevent, and that is exactly why that kind of "majority rules" only is dangerous.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

Conservatives do not try to prevent populist movements from emerging. They ignore the warning signs both real and imagined, then do whatever is in their power to quell them.
Unfortunately this is the political equivalent to the government attempting to prevent all recessions.

Dismissing the people's fears that elite interests are holding too much of the power is counterproductive and only leads to the festering of the wound. Especially when there is a fragment of truth in the populists' fears... as their usually is.
Conservative governance seems to be about ignoring these fears and attempting to gloss them over.

Unfortunately much of modern liberal governance seems to be about capitalizing off of those fears. I can't say that's any more noble.
The fact of the matter is that these things must be addressed, the truth seperated from the fiction and action taking place that helps to restore legitimacy- preferably through fixing the real part of the fear... not through propaganda and oppression.
The right-wing has only been pretending that all populist fears are delusional, countering it with propaganda, and allowing business to go as usual. That is not preventing anything.

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

I don't know about 'government', but I'll tell you one thing:

I think every individual has the right to the full product of their labor. This cannot happen until wage-labor capitalism is overthrown and socialism established. Only in socialism can individual rights be thus safeguarded, because the right of an individual not be exploited in the greatest right of all!

What the hell is the "full product of their labor"?

__________________
Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket?

So you're against income and sales tax?

__________________
"It's never over... BOY!"
The Tall Man, Phantasm III

Well I spose so, but that really avoids my point, doesn't it.

In socialist society their is not 'taxation' because you provide the product of your labor (whatever it is) to the community, and in exchange the community provides it's product back to you.

Money and currency economics distort the relationships between labor and value, for example if money equals value (as capitalists claim it does) then how can a CEO individually own the labor to which he is actually incapable of doing because it is so much value (millions of dollars). The conclusion is simple, that money is not an accurate representation of value in society.

Socialism posits removing this distorting barrier from the exchange of value in society, and replacing it with a free and open economic relationship.

Sorry if it sounds like I am ranting, but I get the impression on these forums that socialism is not understood and as a result right-wingers etc basically exploit this ignorance.

I get what I produce, you get what you produce. This does not mean hording, that wouldn't make sense if we kept the products we produced, it is natural we exchange the products we produce. My criticism however is that money is not an accurate value of labor.

Just think about it like this; I make available to the community the products I make, and in return the community makes all it's products available too. That is the most undistorted view on social exchange.