[DanDaMan]

If "the people" in a republic are sovereign, there's no "rule of law", there's "rule of people".

I believe that when the people make a law and the government enforces it equally upon all, you call it the rule of law. This of course means we use courts and jury's that convict only on 100% jury agreement. if it were "social" or people law it would be more democratic and conviction with only majority agreement over the minority jurists, IMO.

[CreamDream]

Rule of law is a figure of speech. Of course people are the ones that are maintaining and enforcing the law. The term refers to a consistent application of the law by the people.

Yep. That is the political definition of rule of law. It exists in both democratic societies and as well in republics. The main difference between the two is that in true democracies it is in fact as simple as a majority to pass law, or pass judgment. In a republic citizens still retain control of the government, elections for example, however, there is a sufficient check and balance system enforced to protect the minority from the majority. This is a crucial reason as to why the founding fathers created a republic rather than a direct democratic system. I personally believe that republics in the long run are far more stable and far more centrist than direct democracies, which given their nature, are actually more susceptible to tyranny.

[Meggido]

What kind of "democracy" is it that you don't have control of things of your everyday life? Are you satisfied with where the economy is headed? Banks are creating eternal debt with high interest rates, and they are the only ones not losing anything. If you can't pay your house mortgage you will loose the house to the bank. Does the bank ever looses the money lent? No, and we all pay it. They are 100% profit, all the time.

The rich elite of the world never looses because they have made a monetary system where the rest of the pyramid works to pay them - constantly and everyday. We are their money slaves.

Competition among us is getting stronger by the day and eventually it will collapse. As a result our society is getting more violent, our free time is reduced, our freedom and our true happiness are gone. Again the elite promotes scarcity so that we have to pay more for a given product... take oil for example. And then they create wars that we must fight, and not to defend our country, but their monopoly corporations.

We all live in a modern dictatorship, not a classic one with an evil looking dictator, but one that totally controls us by the monetary system, perpetuated by the religious institutions, corrupt mainstream media and poor educational system. Control through ignorance. Are you happy with voting every 4 years for an elite puppet clown that will essentially keep things as they were? Do you call that democracy?

I certainly don't. Democracy is an utopia. It's time for society to respond violently.

[inquisitu]

First and foremost - without a free and fair media .. there is no Democracy.

(the media being the means by which most of the raging masses make their decisions)

2) People who can not distinguish the difference between "having a belief" .. "and forcing that belief on someone else" should not be allowed to vote. Most do not get this distinction. ..

This above premise is more complicated than it seems (say there is a referendum tomorrow on banning alcohol .. what will the rational of many people voting be ? For example ( I don't like alcohol .. so I vote yes .. or God does not like alcohol .. so I vote yes)

Wrong .. on both accounts: The referendum is not about whether or not you personally like alcohol .. the question is ... do you think you are justified in forcing your belief .. using state sanctioned violence if necessary .. on others ? Who cares if you like it or not.

Second: The question is Not .. does your God like alcohol .. Aside from the fact that "no human speaks for God" .. Not the Imam's.. not the fundies .. and certianly not the Pope .. most of these folks making this claim would agree to the counter claim " you should not force your religion on other people"

Now if you were to come up with a justification such as: Alcohol leads to drunk drivers .. at least you would be on the right track .. you have actually come up with a "justification" that is directed at the question at hand .. this is probably a more intelligent response than most voters .. but you are still "likely" Wrong ... just because someone drinks .. does not mean they will drive .. do we want to punish responsible citizens .. for the deeds of the irresponsible as a general premise. (if the answer is no .. then this arguement fails)

Democracy is complicated business .. and the raging masses are simple

[DubiousDan]

First and foremost - without a free and fair media .. there is no Democracy

That depends on the type of democracy that you have. However for modern liberal democracies, I would say that was a reasonably valid statement. Since the media in the United States is neither free nor fair, that is just another reason why the United States in not a democracy.
Just curious, what democracy are you discussing?

[Headache]

I like democracy in theory, dislike it in practice. The general public is too dumb and uninformed to be relied upon to make a sound decision on anything. Just like people voting for Dubya because of his Christianity or Obama because he's black. Stupid way of determining which political platform will be used for the next 4 years. Besides, most people forfeit their vote because they couldn't give two shits anyway which is disheartening.

[inquisitu]

Just curious, what democracy are you discussing?

My comments were related to Democracy in US

[name_xox]

" Why Democracy Is Great ? "

A opposte post above to heading below on amazon .co.uk Politics Forum ( which I found out later you have to purchase something to post your comment , so I'm posting it here.)

" The ideal Government ? "

Kicking Out > Cabinet Government ( The 1 Christ figure and his 12 Devotes ie; BLair or Bush )

Having A < Public Government ( A plain speaker putting foward his or her proposal to be questioned, scruntinised and voted upon Consisting of Public Reprentives M P 's, Public professional in specialised fields ie: Education, Policeing, Military, Science, Health, Food, Housing, Law , etc. and the thinking public. )

All housed in Goverment building like the uk House of Commons, with departments and chambers areas. And if they cant find a place big enough to house them Bucking Place will do.

[Il Duce]

Beauty of democracy is that i have the freedom not to listen to idiots.

[name_xox]

Mr Headache.
You should be careful in regards saying ; " The general public is too dumb and uninformed to be relied upon to make a sound decision on anything."

When people are governed and have no choice with this so called updated 20/21st century democracy, the christ ego figure and his cabinet government to solve the problems of which when the general public get "Pissed Off "
Like the example with the above picture of Mussolini, an Italian elected democractic christ ego figure, the people will in time make a very, very sound decision.
and with Mussolini case, they hanged him, cut off his head and kicked it around like a football.
When general public make the sound decision of " Enough is Enough ".
And you can find more examples of past general public sound decisions throughout human history in Franch, England and Russia etc.