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.