A system of actual proxies is worse than straight democracy, because verifying the proxies is, in a practical sense, impossible.
Who shall keep the register? Without such a register how can I rescind my proxy? What if I refuse to give a proxy? Am I refused a say in the "thing" or do I get to vote for myself?
And those who have large proxy counts would become powerful beyond reason, and the targets of all sorts of less than savory suasion. Duke Cunningham represented one of the smallest groups we have (because our representatives are not evenly apportioned, Wyoming voters equal something like seven California voters) and he was offered, and took, large bribes.
How much more tempting the man who holds unequal power, because he has more proxies.
Demagogues become players. Lyndon LaRouche and the Aryan Nation would both be guaranteed seats at the table.
The Post, for all you disagree with them, is not a defect of democracy. They don't get to impose that difference; with proxies they might (the "will of the people" when applied as you use it isn't all that honest either. Have you taken a referendum, and so measured the will of those people? Or is it a case of the bench making a ruling because a small group [in this case six people] has brought a case, and the interpretation of the law happens to co-incide with your prejudice? Absent a clear statement from "the people" either is a claim which can be asserted. Since the legislative body which decides on the laws of The District is the House of Representatives, there are lots of flaws to be ascribed to pretty much any piece of legislation; not the least of which it isn't the will of those people; even by proxy, since they don't get to elect a single one of those who decide; that is done by the rest of us).
So too is your use of Darfur a red herring, since the cases aren't parallel. If we were there, and the cause was doomed, and they were saying, "Stay the course, lets just toss some more troops in, and see if that fixes it" then you would be right.
But peacekeeping is a different thing (and we have a model which works, as well as the likelihood of both a passsed UN resoltion, and allies), which means they are apples and oranges.
Pickett almost certainly knew the odds of success were slim. Skorzeny, not so much; because he was a low-level operative. But both of those cases are also different in kind, because they were actually in the thick of things, they had their necks on the line (and Skorzeny ended up with his in the noose, so to speak [sense he was shot]). None of these bloggers has been willing to enlist, and when those who are supportive, and eligible, have been asked, they turn out to have, "other priorities."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Insufficient information to conclude "these bloggers believe isn't..."
Date: 2007-03-11 02:22 am (UTC)Who shall keep the register? Without such a register how can I rescind my proxy? What if I refuse to give a proxy? Am I refused a say in the "thing" or do I get to vote for myself?
And those who have large proxy counts would become powerful beyond reason, and the targets of all sorts of less than savory suasion. Duke Cunningham represented one of the smallest groups we have (because our representatives are not evenly apportioned, Wyoming voters equal something like seven California voters) and he was offered, and took, large bribes.
How much more tempting the man who holds unequal power, because he has more proxies.
Demagogues become players. Lyndon LaRouche and the Aryan Nation would both be guaranteed seats at the table.
The Post, for all you disagree with them, is not a defect of democracy. They don't get to impose that difference; with proxies they might (the "will of the people" when applied as you use it isn't all that honest either. Have you taken a referendum, and so measured the will of those people? Or is it a case of the bench making a ruling because a small group [in this case six people] has brought a case, and the interpretation of the law happens to co-incide with your prejudice? Absent a clear statement from "the people" either is a claim which can be asserted. Since the legislative body which decides on the laws of The District is the House of Representatives, there are lots of flaws to be ascribed to pretty much any piece of legislation; not the least of which it isn't the will of those people; even by proxy, since they don't get to elect a single one of those who decide; that is done by the rest of us).
So too is your use of Darfur a red herring, since the cases aren't parallel. If we were there, and the cause was doomed, and they were saying, "Stay the course, lets just toss some more troops in, and see if that fixes it" then you would be right.
But peacekeeping is a different thing (and we have a model which works, as well as the likelihood of both a passsed UN resoltion, and allies), which means they are apples and oranges.
Pickett almost certainly knew the odds of success were slim. Skorzeny, not so much; because he was a low-level operative. But both of those cases are also different in kind, because they were actually in the thick of things, they had their necks on the line (and Skorzeny ended up with his in the noose, so to speak [sense he was shot]). None of these bloggers has been willing to enlist, and when those who are supportive, and eligible, have been asked, they turn out to have, "other priorities."
TK