<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>What seems to be the problem here?</title>
		<description>Discuss What seems to be the problem here?</description>
		<link>http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/Create-an-account.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 01:05:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/component/option,com_jcomments/format,raw/limit,10/object_group,com_content/object_id,201/task,rss/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Benjamin Jakobus says:</title>
			<link>http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/Create-an-account.html#comment-17</link>
			<description><![CDATA[1) True. But please note that I only used slavery as a drastic example to illustrate the notion of the minority suffering for the benefit of the majority. 2) Just as their move into despotism was short-lived, so was their democratic status as a whole. Germany for example, has not been a democracy for long before it moved towards extremist tendencies. If using time-span as an argument, then one should look at ancient times: Roman and Greek democracy. Both of which did not last very long. 3) I completely agree with the separation of the powers. My aim was not to dispute this. Also, I didn\'t mean to come across as a extreme opponent of democracy - currently it works fine. However in the essay I conclude that our current politcal stance won\'t last and that, in order to secure ourselves, the power of governments need to be limited even further - including those of democracies.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Benjamin Jakobus</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 04:50:12 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/Create-an-account.html#comment-17</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Guest says:</title>
			<link>http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/Create-an-account.html#comment-16</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Enjoyed the article. I have just a few thoughts. 1. You assert that democracies are based on utilitarian grounds, and although I have no objection to the footnote, I don\'t agree with the assertion. One of the roles of a Constitution is to protect the people from the government (meaning the executive usually). So a constitution that protects the usual human rights, coupled with an independent judiciary, means that a minority cannot become slaves to a majority. Democracy usually means majority voting plus basic human rights. 2. The choice of democracy moving on to despotism is based on only 3 cases, in Iran, Serbia and Germany, and all were short lived. Not sure that it is bound to happen. 3. A small state, as promoted by Nozick is fine, but it too would require the seperation of powers into the legislature, executive and judiciary to work well. The legislature would still need to be elected, given that a country would need to have the right to raise taxes if only to defend itself against attack, so it is still a type of democracy. And any true democrat can promote their way of thinking, as you promote the Nozick approach, but would respect the views of others. Thus, if you end up with a democracy with a large government then so be it, the people have spoken.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Guest</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:29:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.humanrightsdefence.org/Create-an-account.html#comment-16</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

