FDA moves on prohormones

Discussion in 'Anything and Everything about dietary supplements' started by Bryan Haycock, Oct 7, 2004.

  1. xahrx

    xahrx New Member

    In this quote you quite clearly state your adherence to majority rule. Whether you agree with the action of the majority or not, whether you see it as reasonable or not, is irrelevant to the fact that the choices and rights of a minority will be quashed in favor of majority rule. Democracy by nature is tyrrany of the majority, aesthetic judgements about the nature and reasonableness of that tyrrany aside.

    There is no sense of a word other than it's true sense. Once more, whether or not any one person sees this or that abridgement of another's freedom as reasonable or agreeable in some way doesn't change the fact that it has been abridged.

    Oh, absolutely correct. America and no other country that I know of for that matter has ever truly been free. In America specifically there has always been a division between people with my ideology and people who believe in statism of some form and in whatever degree. People like me actually opposed the adoption of the constition of this country because they believed it essentially pave the way for massive government rule, and in the end they were right.

    True, but it's the nature of how they affect other people that is at issue. There's a disinguishable difference between actions people find unpleasant and those that actually harm them in some way.

    Freedom does not fit with democracy. As I said above in so many words, democracy is by nature totalitarian rule. The rights and choices of the minority will always be quashed in favor of those who manage to get a majority vote. I don't believe in democracy. A strictly limited democratic republic isn't too bad, and that's essentially what we're supposed to have in the US. Many like myself believe however it was doomed to fail from the start simply by nature.

    The government would be limited in power to enacting those laws only necessary to protect you, I, and any other people from pure agression on the part of others, and also to the enforcement of legal contracts. Personal choices would not be restricted arbitrarliy, wealth transfer be it from rich to poor, poor to rich, middle class to rich, etc., would not be undertaken.

    That's not unrealizable. Many people may find the basic idea that they can't get what they want merely by voting it out of the possession of someone else's hands and into their own. That's the challenge, to convince people that universal respect for all people's rights is the best path.

    As to why I feel this way, it's becauce I believe in freedom with a passion most reserve for religion. I would rather die by my own actions than live at the expense of someone else against their will. When I look in the mirror in the morning there's no greater comfort than knowing I'm fully responsible for all that's right and wrong in my life. I wouldn't give that up for anything. I can't.
     
  2. I have no doubt you know the process, and I am not totally disagreeing with you. Just making a point that it is not the President alone who weilds the mightiest of swords. This was the reason for our democracy and why we have differing branches of government so one man can not hold ALLthe power.

    Anyway I done here.

    Jeffw my friend, I wouldn't dwell on my Reagan Statement :D [​IMG] [​IMG] Believe me I'm not ;)
     
  3. jeffw

    jeffw New Member

    Just teasing you, Dan! I'm not, either!
     
  4. kid largo

    kid largo New Member

    Yeah ok. But I think it would turn ugly pretty quickly.

    Is that what you believe the most important quality a society can possess is tho? freedom?

    Don't get me wrong.. I'm not defending the U.S. democracy, I'm usually the one on the other end of this argument but I do like to be realistic.

    Adam.
     

Share This Page