Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Communism
Message-ID: <1455@looking.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 88 01:07:13 GMT
References: <1988Feb24.140628.28040@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1433@looking.UUCP> <1988Feb26.225840.21116@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> <1437@looking.UUCP> <303@brambo.UUCP> <5484@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <5486@watdragon.waterloo.edu> <1453@looking.UUCP> <5529@watdragon.wat
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Distribution: ont
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd.
Lines: 28

In article <5529@watdragon.waterloo.edu> hwarkentyne@watdragon.waterloo.edu (Kenneth Warkentyne) writes:

>Well Brad, how could a welfare system work if citizens could opt out
>if they so chose?

	And then in the next sentence:

>Since there appears to be a consensus in support
>of the current system...

To which I say, if you think citizens would opt out in vast numbers if they
could, I don't know how you claim that there "appears to be" a concenus.

>Might doesn't make right but sometimes you have to make a choice that
>does not allow for every minority to be accommodated.  This is part of
>democracy too.

And this is the real point I was making.  Democracy is a system where
might (numbers) makes right (the law) except where it's expressly
forbidden in a constitution.  Don't sugar coat it.  Democracy is an
oppressive system.  It's just a bit better than other existing ones.
Churchill realized this long ago when he called it "the worst" system,
except for all the others he had seen.

I've been told to lump it, change it within the system, or leave the country?
That's fine for any given law, but what if you don't like the *system*?
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473