Dear sonofgolin,

You wrote “So my premise is that a democratically elected government of the persuasions I mentioned can and would strip the personal freedoms such as religious choice and freedom of association from the 49% that did not vote for them.”

It seems a little hackneyed now but Churchill's quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." holds a truth.

We know that like with anything we need to guard against the excesses of democracy. We do this through maintaining a robust and separate judicial systems, a constitution, and for some, a Bill of Rights.

In Lebanon the offices of President and Prime Minister are shared between a Muslim and a Christian and in Iran representation of the Christian and Jewish communities in parliament are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefore I'm not sure the benevolent dictator is necessarily the only recourse.

If we value our democracy, and we should, then we should strive to be accommodating of the institution and make every effort to see that it works for us all. We can do this by not accepting that a simple majority is its only prerequisite.

Dear Lexi,

Nice post earlier on freedoms. Reminded me of Watkin Tench, an officer with the First Fleet who wrote; “The first step in every community which wishes to preserve honesty should be to set the people above want.”

democracy under a society based on Christian values worked extremely well. Crimmnals knew that they deserved punishment, children respected and mostly obeyed parents, people treated family and marriage seriously and by and large society was healthy. Under secularism minority groups infiltrated every part of society with their total lack of moral compass. Mental health, abortion and suicide are just a part of the abundant fruit produced by such immoral thinking. Intellectualism excuses every abomination, supports the crimminal above the victim, encourages the destruction of the family unit and champions anything anti Christian. It must be right because the UN report says so according to the socialist. The ' éxperts' love to demonise the policy makers of the past but are happy to see our youth full of alcholol and drugs, full of promiscurity and full of self. They are then dumb enough to ask why!

Does democracy ever represent the will of the people in first world countries?

Why I mention this is due to the U.N. protocols and mandates that our government signs on our behalf. Many of these protocols require a law change, or a new set of laws in the nation adopting them.

So on that basis does democracy represent the will of the nation? We are being directly governed by a body that we did not vote for.

Csteele>>Churchill's quote that "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." holds a truth.<<

That is a truism, as is another of Winston’s pearlers:

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Runner>> democracy under a society based on Christian values worked extremely well. Crimmnals knew that they deserved punishment, children respected and mostly obeyed parents, people treated family and marriage seriously and by and large society was healthy. Under secularism minority groups infiltrated every part of society with their total lack of moral compass. Mental health, abortion and suicide are just a part of the abundant fruit produced by such immoral thinking. Intellectualism excuses every abomination, supports the crimminal above the victim, encourages the destruction of the family unit and champions anything anti Christian. It must be right because the UN report says so according to the socialist. The ' éxperts' love to demonise the policy makers of the past but are happy to see our youth full of alcholol and drugs, full of promiscurity and full of self. They are then dumb enough to ask why!<<


I agree with all of that Runner, there is an ongoing agenda of social reforms that is certainly socialist based. The "internationalle" brotherhood of workers has morphed into an internationalle of social engineers and left wing acolytes.

Dear sonofgolin,

You wrote;
“Does democracy ever represent the will of the people in first world countries?”

I am interested in why the distinction of first world countries? Second and third world countries sign these accords too. The Millennia Goals adopted by Bangladesh have had an enormous impact of the birth rate and poverty levels within that nation and they have been embraced by the populace.

A more direct question for you is what do you expect from your democracy? Perhaps for some of us our expectations do not sit well with the capacity of the institution.

For instance to me a democracy performs well when everyone feels they have at least had a chance to put their case or have their say if they so desire, when minorities are protected, and when the powerful do not get an inordinately greater voice than the rest of us.

Dear CSteele ,

You wrote: “I am interested in why the distinction of first world countries? Second and third world countries sign these accords too”

Not necessarily.

There appears to be quite a number of accords/conventions that the non-developed world (that being the latest buzz word) did not sign or if they did sign they either received,or gave themselves, special dispensation.Take the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I distinctly remember when all our careerist politicians were rushing in to sign provisions that may come back to bite us badly in the future. The Indian representative statesmanly-like declaring: “All Indians are indigenous”

And when India did eventually sign it made it very clear the provisions were not going to apply to India:

“ Indian representative Mr. Ajai Malhotra, stated that India 'had consistently favoured the promotion and protection of indigenous peoples’ rights'. In the case of the right to self-determination, however, he noted that this would only apply to people under 'foreign domination' and not those living in sovereign independent states.2 In other words, the indigenous peoples’ right to self-determination would not apply to India” .
http://www.iwgia.org/iwgia_files_publications_files/IA_3-08_India.pdf

Another case in point is the signing of the Kyoto protocol (and related AGW 419 scams). There is a world of difference between what it means for Australia to sign up to one of these & what it means for a non-developed nation to sign up.For Australia it means a big pay out. For the non-developed nation it means a big pay cheque

As for: “The Millennia Goals adopted by Bangladesh have had an enormous impact...”
Bangladesh's biggest achievement has been growing from 100 million to 150 million mouths-to-feed in just over two decades:
http://tinyurl.com/ar5fagx

But don't fret, when they hit the inevitable pot hole in the road all they need do is cry: "Its AGW whats done it" --and thanks to all those wonderful accords --the money will roll in!