[Todd D.]

System means heirarchy. In a democracy there is equality of power. You're talking outside that concept so I'm afraid you're being irrelevant.

No there's not. Whichever side loses the vote has no power, no protection of their rights. In the left handed example, what recourse would lefties have? They are very clearly being oppressed by right handers, I want to know what you would do if that situation sprung up.

Also, people can hold whatever views that want. You say a majoraty of Americans are opposed to gay marriage. But what about civil unions? And plus, remember, therre hasn't been a national referendum, so you can only make judgements based on polls and state referendums.

And last time I looked a majoraty of Americans are in favour of civil unions.

Way to skirt the issue.

The question is what do you do when the will of the majority is to violate the rights of the minority? How can you honestly say that there is "equal" power when the ONLY power is among the people who are within the majority?

[redcarpet]

Well, you can't have democracy in a society where individuals will persue persecuton as a national activity. In my opinion. So, if a minority of individuals violate the decision of the majoraty to discriminate, let's say on race, then that's both their decision and they should be punished for it.

If the majoraty decide, for example, that all black skinned people be executed, then that's unjust. But, there are options. Like all those black people fleeing for their lives and establishing their own society.

[Ombrageux]

Paradigm has it right. Freedom is nothing more than weaker government (whether or not more freedom and less gov is good is an open question). Democracy is quite quite different from freedom.

Note the numerous illiberal democracies that have existed, from Turkish democracy (in which 80% Turks oppresses the 20% of Kurds), Southern US democracy and others. These are known as illiberal democracy, for good reason.

Liberalism (classical) must be enforced, regardless of the will of the 51%. The rights of the minority cannot be stripped by the majority!

[redcarpet]

Like the wealth of 1% of the American population? Where's the justice in minority rule?

[Ombrageux]

Liberal democracy is not minority rule.

Let me explain what liberalism is. If their were a referendum tomorow asking: "Would you agree to have all Jews exterminated?"

Even if 51% vote YES, in a LIBERAL democracy, that is not allowed. Its undemocratic to not kill the Jews in this case, but that's what liberal democracy entails. The rule of the majority, the rights of the minority. Even if that's undemocratic, because it serves freedom.

[redcarpet]

It depends on the views on the society.

[Ombrageux]

What depends? The holocaust is perfectly democratic if 51% of the nation believe they should be exterminated.

Its not *liberal* democratic, but its still democratic.

[redcarpet]

You have to think beyond the views, but asess other factors as well.

[Ombrageux]

I beg your pardon?

[Attila The Nun]

Like the wealth of 1% of the American population? Where's the justice in minority rule?

Well, first of all, where's the liberty in majority rule?

And that 1% is constantly changing due to how people run their businesses, do in their businesses ete. Take someone like Donald Trump. He may be rich now, but he is losing money every singple day. By the time he dies he might be very poor indeed. Also, the Hiltons will have a hard time finding a heir to their hotel chains with the incompetent Paris as their daughter. Meanwhile someone like Bill Gates, who was not rich as a child, is one of the richest men in the world. Why? Because he made great business decisions. That 1% is not a solid class.

[Eauz]

Meanwhile someone like Bill Gates, who was not rich as a child, is one of the richest men in the world. Why? Because he made great business decisions

At the cost and labour of who?

The whole problem with Capitalism, is between Theory and History. In theory, the capitalist has to provide a wage which can ensure that person can survive (an adequate wage for survival)

History reveils the opposite, as workers often recieve below subsistence wages, and it was capitalism which created this problem. It kicked off many people from their land, creating a glut of workers, who would usually not take below subsistence wages, but are forced to survive somehow, thus wages are depressed.

You can only look back on history and think, resistence to Capitalism is bound to happen, because people are tired of being exploited against. I think we need to bring about a revolution to our thinking that "We have the good life, and others have jobs at least"

Todd, as for "democracy" I think we can look at some successful Co-ops around the world, such as the Mondragon in Spain. The employees are the owners and control the product, working in a capitalist system. More often then not, they are "less" alienated from their work, because they are the ones making decisions, not Mr. Big up in his office of hierarchy.

[Ombrageux]

Social democracy solves your problem Fauz.

[Attila The Nun]

At the cost and labour of who?

The whole problem with Capitalism, is between Theory and History. In theory, the capitalist has to provide a wage which can ensure that person can survive (an adequate wage for survival)

History reveils the opposite, as workers often recieve below subsistence wages, and it was capitalism which created this problem. It kicked off many people from their land, creating a glut of workers, who would usually not take below subsistence wages, but are forced to survive somehow, thus wages are depressed.

You can only look back on history and think, resistence to Capitalism is bound to happen, because people are tired of being exploited against. I think we need to bring about a revolution to our thinking that "We have the good life, and others have jobs at least"

If they are being exploited, they are doing it willingly? You hate your job? Suck it up or leave. And, yes, they have to be forced to give a living wage, give me one case where this is not the case.

And people can't exploited, because exploitation implies unwillingness. You don't have to work one factory. There are many choices in capitalism.

[Eauz]

And people can't exploited, because exploitation implies unwillingness. You don't have to work one factory. There are many choices in capitalism.

You just answered your question, just think about it, and think about it in more of a non-West ideology.

Social democracy solves your problem Fauz.

I'm not sure who Fauz is, and I couldn't tell you if it would solve their problem.

[Ombrageux]

Sorry, typo. Social democracy means no one is starving. You literally hand-out cash to the lazy, I hardly call that exploitation.

[graymouser]

Sorry, typo. Social democracy means no one is starving. You literally hand-out cash to the lazy, I hardly call that exploitation.

It's exploitation. Essentially, an entire segment of the population is marginalized and kept at a bare subsistence level, to keep them from open revolt. (It has little to do with laziness; that's just right-wing propaganda.) Social democracy, in action, is almost always enacted to pacify the population and keep it from acting against the continual oppression it faces. In many places, social democracy has been the only thing which has saved capitalism from a socialist revolution; therefore, in the long run, it's ultimately the ideology of absolute exploitation.

-Wayne

[Attila The Nun]

If you're opressed, quit. Seriously. It's tha simple. get other people to quit too. Infact, I hear that's how a lot of people got better conditions, workers' unions.

[Ombrageux]

A person which does not contribute economically *at all* to society is not exploited.

That's the position of so called 'marginalized' groups. Capitalism ensures that there is more wealth produced than otherwise possible. Sure its spread out unevenly, but its better to be unevenly rich than equally poor.

There is a consensus in Western societies that the capitalist model, though imperfect, will create wealth and answer the needs of the people far better than other models.

[Eauz]

Mr. Nun, your argument resembles a strawman. You are viewing exploitation, as if it relates to Western countries. If I think I'm being exploited at a job, sure, I'd quit, and find myself another job, but you don't look outside of your box. In other parts of the world, people could quit a job working in a clothing industry, and find another job which has pretty much the same style of exploitation. Often, these people who quit are also hunted down. Now explain to me, how is this "capitalism" ensuring that people stay out of poverty, and encourage them to earn a living? These jobs though are often exploitive on the people. You say that Capitalism lets people accumulate wealth, but often, people are sold into a form of labour, or given away by their parents, just so their parents can survive. Add onto this the fact that people are kidnapped, and it doesn't look so great. Your idea is only of a job in a western society. You are not looking at the picture of how the western society is being supported on.

[Attila The Nun]

By the way, what do you veiw as exploitation? Be specific, don't give me some idealist obtuse answer.