let's hope hard that no one chooses the last option. As Demokrat.in you can not press. One has to accept it, even if someone think that way. As Demokrat.in one has to accept even if democracy will be abolished, because the majority wants it.
who is "right"?
There is no fundamental democratic right of Demokrat.inn.en to democracy. And it's only, if they are the majority in the state. The idea is somewhat abstract. It is not obvious immediately. Therefore, it is easy to overlook that any other point of view ends in contradiction. Abstract It is because in the story always had a very specific problem. Where there was no democracy, no one asked what the majority wants. The majority therefore had to give most other hearing.
RIGHT AND WRONG: THE POWER OF TWIN CHILDREN
featured in earlier times, the rulers regularly deaf. That to them at the end did not get well. They were simply swept away by history. The bill paid for it all. The rulers and the ruled. With blood, suffering and death. With the time we got to do. If in the end, democracy is, you can be blood, suffering and death as well be spared. Even as their enemy should not be overlooked that. In the recent past, some of them recognized the signs of time, before it was too late for them. The peaceful transition to democracy had been discovered. In the long run, a minority, the majority does not rule them against their will. Not even in the future. The goal determines end up getting the majority. However, if the road is gone in peace, or whether it leads through a sea of blood, is ultimately the reason of all. But most of all to those who have no right to have more power. Or no power to "their" right. You can see it as you like.
THE MIGHTY HAVE ALWAYS RIGHT
Clearly, it shows the example of the collapse of communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe. Gorbachev had understood. The Soviet nomenklatura, not just once. They learned it but shortly after that. For those who were particularly slow-witted, an unpleasant learning process. By the end of Soviet bondage, the despots in the former satellite states lost their balance. They were suddenly very few, and many subjects had enough of being subjects. Three countries, three different potential of learning ability. In Hungary, we understood immediately. The East German nomenklatura had the same problem as understanding their Soviet comrades. With very similar results. Ceausescu did not understand at all. That will change any more. Unless you yourself in hell sometimes quiet reflection.
DEMOCRACY: ALL JUST MAKES?
The power of the majority is the true law of democracy. And it is their foundation. Because it is the majority would have it, there are free elections, democratic rights, universal human rights. Voting is not over. No one needs to vote as long as it is clear how the vote will turn out. But the law of the majority of the ideal society? What about the minority? The minority has only those rights they are granted by the majority? Had it in this case of any rights, or it would be mere concessions? But if it should be in a democracy for all questions the right of the minority, why it occurred? And how is it expressed? The right to vote but it certainly can not be. This reduction would be a contradiction in terms. It would be for the minority, that being right is not to get right.
All these questions might arise in connection with the new POPISTAN survey. I wonder in the meantime, if it is to me at least succeeded at the third attempt to formulate response options that allow reasonably consistent results.
