Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybreaker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On May 14, 8:44?pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >On May 14, 1:40?pm, Bob LeChevalier <loj...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> >> Pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Not really. ? They still have representation. ?They can still call
>> >their congressman and ask for help.
>>
>> He wouldn't be THEIR Congressman. ?With no vote, he is not answerable
>> to them and hence has no obligation to represent them.
>
>This is nonsense. A congressman represents everyone in his
>district.
Says who? Nothing to that effect in the Constitution or otherwise.
>This includes people who voted for him, people who
>did not/do not vote, and even people who voted for his opponent!
>They are all represented.
Those who were not allowed to vote are not represented.
>> People have rights because they are people. ?They get to have a say in
>> government because they are adult citizens. ?
>
>Why is it that everyone talks about rights, but noone talks
>about *responsibility*??
Because the Constitution talks about rights and doesn't talk about
responsibility.
>People also have a *responsibility* to
>be sufficiently informed so that can exercize those rights in an
>intelligent manner. From what I see, most people are failing
>in this responsibility.
How informed were the often illiterate voters of 1800?
>Democracy works well when its citizenry is well educated. It works
>poorly when people get to make decisions about issues that they
>do not understand.
At the time of the founding of the country, the issues were just as
complex, much less well understood by the knowledgeable, and only
minimally understood by most of the electorate. Still we managed to
muddle along a lot better than any alternative to democracy.
>I do not agree with the idea that rights are granted solely on the
>basis of being an adult citizen.
Then find another country, because that is the way it is here whether
you agree or not.
>I believe that before such rights
>are granted people need to demonstrate that they can exercize
>them in at least a semi-intelligent manner and not simply cater
>to the latest sound-bite of some emotion-provoking politician.
Compared to the early history of this country, the electorate is much
more aware and involved.
>This means that people need to educate themselves and learn
>critical thinking skills.
i.e. they need to agree with you as all right-thinkers do, eh?
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
