: My 'beef' with democracy is that its wrong in principle. Unlimited democracy is simply rule by force of the strongest mob (ie the most numbers). A dictatorship by majorities if you will. I see no 'good' in that.
: But your point, that in America (and most of the democractic world) democracy means a tenuous link between you and those in power, is true.
: If America was consistent in its application of the constitution and bill of rights then nearly every activity by todays government would be barred. It never was truly consistent and the cracks just keep getting wider.
Gee, i find your proposition that democracy is 'wrong in principle' a little hard to swallow.
The whole point of having a bill of rights in america is to protect minority interests when they are infringed by the tyranny of the majority.
The other point to be made here is that democracies give to the individual a realm of private activity that is free from coercion. Into such a private sphere the legislature is usually unwilling to venture. As such individuals are free from the majority rule in this sphere.
As to the lack of a link between parliamentary reps and the people, well that is unfortunately to a degree true. But if people were not so passive in their polotics then such things could not happen. Indeed there is no such thing as a 'passive' democracy; the price that one must pay is eternal vigilence.
But i digress, Gee if democracy (rule of the people by the people) is wrong in principle, what would you have in its place?