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"