1.what is a 'right'?

it's a much used word, too often used as an unsubstantiated base for the writer's assertion.

i propose to use it to mean 'power': i can do-, therefore i have the right to-. there is a use for both words, powers long held become legitimate through custom and finally custom upholds rights for a while even when the power is removed.

it is important to distinguish between 'right' and 'privilege'. people who live in parliamentary societies can have long established privileges which may appear to be rights. the difference will manifest itself when the power holder withdraws the privilege without the need for discussion or any political convulsion. the case of david hicks is a good example, it demonstrated the hollowness of assertions about "the rule of law , not of men", in australia.

2.what is 'democracy'?

i propose to reestablish the original meaning: a society ruled by it's members who equally decide it's rules and actions by discussion and majority vote.

in the modern world, a democracy will be characterized by direct election of officers, and public conduct of public affairs. the fundamental laws will be set by the electorate through citizen initiated referenda.

why not accept the near universal corruption of the word? because it's pure doublethink, a device to alienate ordinary people from the conduct of their society. by alienating them from power, they are also
encouraged to retreat from social engagement. as it's not sensible to waste time informing yourself about matters you can not control, oligarchies are self reinforcing, turning citizens into cattle.

the rights of citizens are not gifts from god, neither are are they the gifts of some special class of judges. gifts may be withheld, or retrieved by the giver. but rights are the immanent quality of democratic citizens- powers shared with others equally for the benefit of all.

3.what is a 'citizen'?

a citizen is a member of the electorate of a democracy.

there are not many real citizens, perhaps they are all and only swiss.
lets begin to change that.

Democracy this gives the rich the right to screw the poor and less fortunate people of our society. Communism gives the rich and the poor the right to screw the rich poor and the less fortunate people of society

carreyn, i hope the level of replies rises above yours. people who believe,as i do, that democracy is the only defense of human rights must accept that some people will participate who seem to have no understanding of the situation, and may indeed be drunk, or drugged. even so, you came to the discussion, and answered, so there may be hope for you.

think about this: i suggest that rights and power are bound together. when political power is diffused equally throughout the electorate, so will rights be more equal. i do not argue that paradise will kiss the earth, but i am confident that life will be better for most people.

You speak of a world that would be great to live in but can it ever be?
It would take the death of self interest and that is a very powerful thing.
No party I know of in the western world can rule out self interest from those who control power.
In time we can hope we will learn to care for every one as much as we care about ourselves.
I however think it will need the support of a movement or party to gain ground.
What a great country this would be if we could each vote on issues like water recycling and our involvement in Iraq, without having to take policy's like workchoices as part of the deal.
Interesting.

Carreyn 1

Although I agree with what you say about the elites in both the Communist and Democratic societies granting themselves a luxurious life while the people under them still struggle. Democracy is still the best because at least the people do have some power through the ballet box. They couldnt stop troops being sent to Iraq but they can still kick the offending politicians now that they can see that it was not a good decision. In communist countries this would not be possible.

Sorry, meant to write "kick the offending politicians out"

DEMOS: The case of David Hicks demonstrates the hollowness of assertions about "the rule of law not of men" in
Australia.

Once again I admire your wonderfully articulate way of saying things.

I have put it more crudely in the past saying dont rely on law courts, because countries (including Australia) were taken at the point of a gun and are still held at the point of a gun) or the men in command of the army.

I dont however agree with you about David Hicks.

belly, inform yourself about the history and political customs of switzerland. not only is democracy possible, it's real. the swiss are human, with their share of sociopaths in big suits and ruthless corporations. but, by an accident of history, ordinary people there are masters of their society through the use of citizen initiated referenda at local, cantonal, and national level.

can australians strive for democracy? sure. not even hard. but you have to know what it is, and want it. ozzies don't know what democracy is, because there is none, nor ever has been, here or in england. it is not in the hands of political parties, for their whole purpose is to take decision making power away from people.

yes, you need a social movement. it might be as simple as this:

establish a register of names on the web, of people who pledge one another to vote only for persons who have agreed to empower the australian electorate with an accessible and effective citizen initiated referendum. if there is no such person on the ballot, vote informally by writing "democracy" on the ballot.

there may be one or two elections when you have to forgo the thrill of choosing tweedledum over tweedledee. but don't despair: back when the labor party wasn't run by soulless hacks, they had cir on their policy paper. if they lose two elections and 'x' thousand ballots have only "democracy" written on them, they'll get the message. or the greens will, or the family firsters, or...

ozzies can have democracy, if enough of them show some determination.

DEMOS you raise some interesting questions. I'm glad such things as 'right' is challenged, and that the challenge is linked to 'power'.

Not that I see such an arrangement as ideal for society, but looking around, it sure is the reality. Might is right by and large, and rule of law is more the rule of the mighty, keeping the many in order so they can go about their business of becoming mightier.

Only when we have a higher source for our moral foundations can we genuinely speak of 'rights' rather than privileges. Anything granted by men is a privilege, what is granted by God is a right.

The idea that there are such things as 'Human Rights' is ludicrous apart from the divinely granted rights. Secular human rights can only ever be so by agreement, and remain so as long as that agreement is in force. As soon as one party departs from agreement, the whole issue is challenged.

Hence, I often refer to the 'make_it_up_as_you_go' crowd, where todays agreement is tomorrows disagreement.

I can't even speak of 'rights'... but more of 'duties' and responsibilities.
1/ Love God with all our hearts.
2/ Love our neighbour as ourselves.

Only "1" above makes "2" a duty and responsibility. Secularism will only give us 'ought' or 'should' but can give no abiding reason for such behavior. (apart from some convoluted mental gymnastics which usually end up being nothing more than cultural ethno centrism about how people should act).

So, I leave this post with the Lords words "By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another"

boaz, to paraphrase stalin: "how many divisions has god got?"

there's no use talking to people who say they believe in god. i just wish they did believe, instead of using god's will as a pretext to get what they want.

Democracy can also involve plurality rule, not just majority rule:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/electoral-reform/electoral-reform.html