Wow....I actually agree with Mussolini on something.


Hitler proved this to be true by way of his humiliating defeat at the hands of his betters.

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

They would not have lost the war had their system not been inferior to our's. The only thing they were superior at was making excuses for their failures.

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

Doesn't matter for my point, does it? No matter how you define it, tyranny is tyranny regardless of who is commiting it. If you think paying taxes is tyranny it matters not one bit whether Hitler or the majority are making you. Same with being enslaved or anything else.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I agree with your point.

Then how can you ever have "tyranny of the majority"? From what you just said, there is no way to determine that. So how do you know it is even possible?


So the word "tyranny" is meaningless in your context. Becuase it can mean anything.

I suppose it would have probably killed you to actually answer a question directly. So I cant blame you for preserving your own life.

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

Hey, when I'm right I'm right. The fact the majority of people in 1652 thought slavery was just fine didn't make it so. Jim Crow laws were tyranny no matter how many people in Alabama thought they were just fine. But somehow a dictator doing it is bad, but the majority doing it is just fine. OK. Sure. Gotcha.

I did answer it. If you consider it tyranny does it matter who's doing it to you? It doesn't to me. It didn't to the Jews. And it didn't to the blacks. And it won't to anyone else.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Well, that's why democracy is considered to be the worse form of government, when all the rest are excluded.

I have no problem with democracy at all. Especially when it's set up under a Constitutional arrangement where it's far harder for the majority to run amok. Pure democracy would suck ass.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Do define your enemies, US rethorics is a bit loose on the subject :d



Let's not. I've seen just about as much blood as I can take.



Your interest in anything is mostly economic, so let's not bandy words.



Oh but we all elect our own leaders. Majority vote. If you don't like who we elect that's your own business. You can always say the elections were rigged, can't you


Why don't you then give "masses" the benefit of a doubt to choose their own government, and their own ideology, leave them to it and quit meddling? Maybe not everyone likes democracy your style, hm?

Pure democracy cannot be applied today. It is a relict of the past, and could function only in Greek polis (city-states), consisting of a few thousand people.