On Tue, Oct 29, 2002 at 10:30:15AM +0100, M J Macpherson wrote:
> Although this is a scientific list, you do not make
> a substantial point about the topic, democracy. Also it seems
> that you falsely interpret what I wrote. I do not propose
> replacing indirect democracy with direct democracy but to
> complement the former with elements of the latter. Do you have
> arguments against that? I would be happy to discuss in a civil
> manner.
I suspected (and I still do) that you have fallen into the
fallacy (too common in the Czech republic), that ``quality of
democracy'' is directly correlated to its directness, i.e., that
more direct democracy is better it is. This is the thing
I strongly disagree with. I am not sure, whether there is any
situation when a referendum would be certainly more appropriat
than vote by elected representatives. It may be so for the
decision about an entry of a country into the European
Communities or approval of new constitution, but I would have
problems to go any step further.
And I did not make a substantial point about democracy
intentionally, because I am afraid that it is so wague and wide
term, that we cannot discuss it to any substantial level on
a email list.
Talking about a civil manner (and I am not sure how civil it is
to teach manners anyone who disagree with you on the email list),
I would propose you to read ``Federalist papers'' or ``Democracy
in America'', where most of my arguments are considered to the
very substantial depth.
Have a very nice day,
Matej
--
Matej Cepl, [log in to unmask], PGP ID# D96484AC
138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488
If Patrick Henry thought that taxation without representation was
bad, he should see how bad it is with representation.
|