It doesn't matter that we have representatives rather than direct vote for all the things we're talking about. Representatives just provide another step in the process, so the whether or not we are a direct democracy or a representative democracy is merely a red herring.
If the people want a theocracy they elect representatives that want a theocracy that then perform a constitutional amendment to implement a theocracy, and that's how it's supposed to work. It's probably not what the founders would have hoped for, but their point was to let the people decide, and that includes the power to change the very structure of government.
What you're advocating is that some people's beliefs as to how government and society should run because you, armchair politician, decide so. Whether you think (or even scientific studies indicate) that theocracies don't work is irrelevant. If the people want a theocracy, they will have a theocracy, either by the ballot or by the gun. And it is their right. You can't decide for them unless you want to suppress them with military force.
It sounds like you don't really want a democracy. You want an oligarchy of those with scientific values and "correctly" liberal viewpoints on the freedoms you value. Only people of the correct beliefs should be able to influence things. Sounds a lot like the very thing you're arguing against.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2008-07-15 05:20 pm (UTC)If the people want a theocracy they elect representatives that want a theocracy that then perform a constitutional amendment to implement a theocracy, and that's how it's supposed to work. It's probably not what the founders would have hoped for, but their point was to let the people decide, and that includes the power to change the very structure of government.
What you're advocating is that some people's beliefs as to how government and society should run because you, armchair politician, decide so. Whether you think (or even scientific studies indicate) that theocracies don't work is irrelevant. If the people want a theocracy, they will have a theocracy, either by the ballot or by the gun. And it is their right. You can't decide for them unless you want to suppress them with military force.
It sounds like you don't really want a democracy. You want an oligarchy of those with scientific values and "correctly" liberal viewpoints on the freedoms you value. Only people of the correct beliefs should be able to influence things. Sounds a lot like the very thing you're arguing against.