JamesHackerMP

Despite my aversion to always using Wikipedia as a source, this article does have a good summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10 I just realized Altai, I seem to have misinterpreted your statement about saying what you want does not mean the government is not a dictatorship. I think I read that wrong, sorry. I'd have to disagree with you then. If you can say what you want the government is not likely a dictatorship. People disappear in the middle of the night for saying what they want in a dictatorship, typically.

I have to disagree with that, in part but not in whole. Democracy might aim to prevent injustice--as you put it, and with which I agree--but it does not always succeed. Therefore saying that "unjust moves are dictatorial" misses the point that there is still a "democratic elite" in some democracies, which try to promote their interests above everyone else's. No one has invented a form of government that stops all injustice. Therefore, it's incorrect to call a government a dictatorship because it has done unjust things; because democracies do do unjust things. It's part of human nature. That's why Winston Churchill said (or is thought to have said) "democracy is the worst form of government...except for all the other ones that have been tried." The point of democracy is to minimize injustice. No one's invented a form of government yet that has successfully eliminated it yet. James Madison in his famous Federalist No. 10 spoke about "the violence of faction." What he was talking about was precisely that: elites governing for themselves. Today, we would call Madison's "faction" a special interest. His belief was that, in an extended republic, there are too many elites for any one of them to gain the upper hand for any extended period of time. (Oops.) I totally agree with this statement. People vote based on their perception, which doesn't always match up with the facts--in fact, it frequently doesn't match up with facts. This is one of the reasons that injustices occur in democracies. Many people vote out of ignorance, and it's impossible for anyone--even for a person who is well-informed--to be armed with all the facts before they check the box inside the voting booth. (For this reason we have republics instead of direct democracies.) And of course, it is human nature to not truly understand what it's like for someone else until you've walked a mile in his shoes. It's not possible to walk a mile in everyone else's shoes before going into the polling booth. I totally agree with this statement as well! In western democracies, libel or slander--especially when the slanderer is attempting to ruin you--is not legal. True, that in the USA, the first amendment protects free speech and press, but not actual libel. (Of course it's actually hard in the United States to stop someone libeling you once they've done it: you have to be able to prove the slanderer's intent in court. Otherwise the person libeling you can just claim "oops, i was wrong.") There's also the expression "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater." You certainly cannot. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to start a stampede for the fire exit when there's no fire. Well, politicians do seem to have a special talent for shifting blame onto their colleagues. The proverb that seems most applicable would be "Victory has a thousand fathers; defeat is an orphan." That's why the framers of the American constitution created a one-man executive (he might have assistants, but they're not equal to him in authority): because if there were a council of chief executives they'd spend their entire time shifting blame onto each other. It's hard for a president to totally escape blame for some sort of screw-up: he's the most visible member of the regime and the most powerful, so the egg will land squarely on his face. (Hopefully.) Pretty good debate so far!

"Anything includes injustice". OK. So anything "unjust" is also "dictatorial"? Alexander Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury for Pres. George Washington, co-author of The Federalist Papers) said that "if men were angels, government would not be necessary." And I think Voltaire said something to the effect of "government requires both shepherds and butchers." There seems to be this belief that a democratic government should automatically do what its people want, and perfectly protect their liberty. If this were true, then bills of rights and written constitutions would not be necessary. The fact of the matter is that, in a democracy, you get less infringement of rights than in a dictatorship--there is never a complete absence of infringement of liberties. Why? Because men and women--especially those in power--have the propensity to abuse their positions at the expense of others. Democracy simply minimizes this, it does not 100% eliminate it. That's why I have trouble with the assertion that the United States is a dictatorship of some sort because its government performs unjust actions. Is the US government unjust--even cruel--at times? Certainly. But on the whole, I wouldn't call it a dictatorship. America's far from perfect, I admit. But you can still say so out loud and not disappear in the middle of the night, never to be heard from again. It never ceases to amaze me how people go around thinking that a democracy can ever be some sort of perfectly just society. It just isn't true. OK, but that aside, what sort of dictatorial acts were you looking for? I agree that we can find plenty, but I need a starting point to google.

First, may I ask what you mean by "dictatorial moves by the US"? Are you speaking of internal US politics, or American international relations policy?

If you're going to give us links to articles and videos, is it too much to ask that they're in English (or in French)? This is a message board iin Canada, and most people speak English. You're probably (I venture to guess) the only one on here who speaks Turkish.

The link is in Turkish. How can we share anything if the vast majority of us won't be able to understand it?

Omni, please, can we stick to space exploration?

was about to say we do, but then I misread that.

Anyone play? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_(game)

And it was widely criticized, for both its human and monetary effects, wasn't it? And that's a bit of a red herring, by the way.

Again, that would be expensive. You're right, a colony requires people. But you're still talking about a tiny tiny number of humans.

Well, that's the problem: it can't. But of course, Mars is closer. As far as the outer planets, what would you do with human astronauts that you weren't able to do with Voyager or Cassini-Huygens, etc.?

It would have to be enough humans to justify the effort. In other words, more than 600/7.5 billion. Especially considering you're selling it to the taxpayers.

I agree! But very little of the human race will be able to without some sort of better option than chemical rockets. I mentioned before a space elevator. That's about the only thing that will allow any kind of regular arrivals to/departures from Earth.

I'm sorry, I don't understand you. What do you mean?

Probably there will be. And probably the same thing will happen to the Mars program that happened to Apollo: it will be axed before it's complete.

That is a lot of money for just 600 people. Your mention of the majority of humans have ever flown is not relevant because there are a lot of humans who have flown, a much larger amount than 600. And even if we had a lunar base and started exploring Mars and the outer planets--personally, with humans rather than robotic probes--it would still be a handful of people who would enjoy the experience. How would you justify the cost for so few?

yes, and the apollo program was killed after No. 17, for that very reason. The space shuttle was horribly expensive, and that was only one part of several planned components of the "Space Transportation System", the others were vetoed by Nixon for the same reason, the cost. Since Yuri Gagarin orbited the Earth, rough 600 humans have been in space.

it's just the cost would be extremely prohibitive. In "2001" the USS Discovery takes five humans to the outer planets to explore them. What do you think the actual spaceship would have cost to send as few as five people? And we did the same thing, on an even grander scale, with the two Voyager probes, but without the humans. Humans were and still are able to explore space--just as if these automated spacecraft were extensions of our very brains or limbs.

with chemical rockets launching people into space it will still end up being only a fraction of the human race who will ever get to participate in that.

I didn't know about that. Still, why would you explore the solar system with human beings when robotic probes can do the same thing at a fraction of the cost?

so to get the discussion back on topic, do you think there is a point to a lunar base, other than to simply have one?

I think you just dodged squid's question, Altai. by the way, you don't have me on ignore, do you? I"ve been wondering about that. I know this is a very emotionally-charged discussion, especially for someone who lives in the middle east, but you don't need to drop red herrings like that.

guys, let's get back on topic. This seems to have turned into a "Canada v. USA" thread.

oh boy...