Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!mhuxn!houxm!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!hao!seismo!mcvax!steven From: steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: US weapons in Europe Message-ID: <6219@mcvax.UUCP> Date: Mon, 3-Dec-84 17:08:15 EST Article-I.D.: mcvax.6219 Posted: Mon Dec 3 17:08:15 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 05:30:21 EST References: <470@utcsrgv.UUCP> <116@talcott.UUCP> <6190@mcvax.UUCP> <125@talcott.UUCP> <6198@mcvax.UUCP> <436@fisher.UUCP> Reply-To: steven@mcvax.UUCP (Steven Pemberton) Organization: CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 24 In article <436@fisher.UUCP> david@fisher.UUCP (Dave Rubin) writes: > Steve Pemberton argues that since the majority of Dutch (and Britons) > would rather not have Cruise missiles, they should go. After all, > these are democracies, right? > > Steve misses the distinction between REPRESENTATIVE democracy and > DIRECT democracy. His arguments imply the latter is to be preferred, > as it is the most direct and efficient way of carrying out popular > will. I, however, believe the partial isulation of national policy > from popular (and often fleeting) passion is the wisest move modern > democracies have made. Dave quotes me out of context here. I'm quite aware of the distinction, and in the case in point, which of the two I support doesn't matter. I made the remark in reply to someone who used exactly the same argument to support Cruise missiles in Europe, and I just threw the argument back. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, I do support direct democracy, as a buffer against individuals' often fleeting passions. I personally feel that a chance every 5 (or so) years to influence who it is who decides for me what I should think, is a pretty weak form of democracy. Steven Pemberton, Amsterdam; steven@mcvax.