Quote:
Quote by: Gods_Mercenary  Your rights are not given, you own them, if they are violated, they are still rights.
If the people choose Tyrranny, they have spoken, and Why bother attempting to give them republic? You can only "design" a democracy among a populace with the will power to sustain it.
Government by necessity involves some tyrranny, otherwise it can't protect anyone. My perfect democracy just balances that to the point where you're safe, but the government deals with you at a bare minimum. |
I have no idea where you plan to go next with this. You seem to be thinking inside a box and unaware that you've boxed yourself in.
RE: "Your rights are not given, you own them." You've resorted to meaningless minutia, here, I'm afraid.
Rights to your behavior are irrelevant if there is no where to exercise them. You can own a nice Ferrari parked in a garage, but if you open the garage door and there is nothing but jungle, no roads, what good is it? There needs to be a group for rights to mean anything, the group is willing or not to protect any given individual's behavioral rights ("rights are about behavior, after all) that makes sense within the context of that group. Killing another person at some whim is not, in some societies at least, a right, for instance. Pursuit of your own happiness at the expense of another's may not be a right.) What makes sense in context is what will define the rights. What the individual "owns" is the biological/cognitive features that make individual action and all the choice making possible. By the definition self actualization, that's responsibility. The social context is what creates or "gives" the potential for definable rights, and the group as a whole creates the context, which we can call society. The group can decide to protect these defined and acknowledged rights or not. They can set up mechanisms (legislatures, courts of law, police forces) to define and enforce protections. They aren't static concepts, they are defined by relationship of individual to the group so interpretation from definition becomes an ongoing issue. That's why legal professionals are hated, feared and sometimes respected. It's a position of power in society.
Who's doing this "giving" of a Republic in your mind? What is the nature of this world you imagine? Who's doing all this designing of societies if not the group? (Oh yes, the group can "accept" an authority as a designer, but in the end, it's behavior as a group is its choice as a result of the accumulated individual choices. It depends on how they want to recognize what they decide to do -- individually and as the individual decisions accumulate to become the group's agreed upon decision.)
The answers I can imagine do give me some implied sense of what you mean by a perfect democracy, so I'm satisfied.