"From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions."
-James Madison, Federalist Paper #10

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

I am of the opinion, that in our form of representative democracy, we would be able to vote on our public ethics and morals. There is no reason to allow those who, merely represent us, to decide what our public ethics and morals should be; especially, at the local level.

Maybe the in the road with a goat thing would be covered by other laws such as traffic obstruction or cruelty to animals.

I don't that being a conformist, for the sake of public safety, is necessarily a bad thing.

Fully agree on both the above points.

Wow, this is a ridiculous policy I must say - the airline sucks IMHO.

Actually, this only holds true in the US and the West - in Asia, it's not looked upon as something so strange. In the West they'd say it was gay or something, in Asia, it's not looked upon as something that strange.

I see absolutely NOTHING wrong with that at all.

It ain't just you. Look at all of us here on US Politics Online.

Sage advice you give. Cheers!

It is not possible to vote upon ethics and morals, except for some common ones (like walking stark naked through a mall) - everyone has different morals.

Not that I have a problem with someone walking stark naked through a mall.

Tut, tut. Are we to shun everyone whose preferences we don't necessarily agree with?

Homosexuals and interracials might choose to shun you, for all you know.

I tend to agree with the position that private Morals are too subjective and often based on religious values, obtained from religious sources.

What about public ethics? Ethics are more objective and are not restricted by individual religious, based sources.

In a more democratic form of representative republic, all local public ethics, would be voted on by the local populace involved.

They are often obtained from religous sources yes.

Public ethics, you mean stuff like standing in line, driving on the right side of the road, etc?

Is that what you mean? If not, provide an example if I'm wrong ...

My response to this would depend upon if I interpreted what you said in the second paragraph correctly.

exactly. you're on my brainwave length.

I think, standing in line, driving on the appropriate side of the road, etc., are examples of conformity, for the sake of the domestic tranquility and safety.

Ethics, are similar to Morals, but are not dependent on Religion as a source of authority.

In my example of a populace of any locality, being able to choose their public ethics; it might be said, that a more ethical democracy, would allow for the people to determine what is socially acceptable in a free state.

So your saying an example of a public ethic is the right to determine whats socially acceptable?

This won't work - it's too closely linked to morals (people use morals to determine whats socially acceptable).

That's the other half of freedom/civil rights. I'm not going to get all pissy because someone chooses not to be around me. It's their preference. You can't throw rocks and expect none to come flying back.

__________________
"The great issues of the day are decided not by fine speeches and majority votes but by blood and iron." -Otto von Bismarck

"Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs." -Murphy's Law

So, you believe in shunning homosexuals? Why?

Do you think it is a very open minded approach to take?

Homosexuality is against my religion, that's why. I'm not butchering them or even verbally abusing them, I just choose not to be around that sort of thing. That's my choice. Open-minded or not I don't care.

__________________
"The great issues of the day are decided not by fine speeches and majority votes but by blood and iron." -Otto von Bismarck

"Professional soldiers are predictable, but the world is full of amateurs." -Murphy's Law