PDA

View Full Version : Do we need Representatives anymore?



sandsjames
06-18-2014, 12:23 PM
I was reading some comments on an article on CNN. One person brought up the point about local representatives and how they are no longer needed.

Before the information age, there was really no way for local communities to relay their thoughts and views to Washington. Now, with the push of a button (or voice command) everybody can make their opinion heard.

Is it time for an overhaul of Congress, as far as the make-up? Is there a need for representatives at the local level?

waveshaper2
06-18-2014, 01:03 PM
Yes and no. Federal level (Congress); To draft legislation/budgets etc = Yes. To pass legislation/budgets etc = maybe no. For co-equal government checks and balance = Yes. Declaration of war and stuff like that = Yes.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 01:36 PM
The point of being a representative democracy was supposed ot be to prevent the tyrany of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority.

Eliminating the representation and going ot straight democracy instutionalizes the tyranny of the majority instead of trying to prevent it.

So, yes, we still need representation.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 03:17 PM
We have the senate. The senate would not go away, so we would still have "congress". I just can't see the point of local representatives any more. I'm not saying we shouldn't have an input from local communities, just don't see why it has to be an elected official. Again, the point of local reps was because there were no communication channels from Hickville to Washington DC. That is no longer an issue.

That would scrap the electoral college and make 50% + 1 all that was needed to become president. Just seems outdated to me. I also don't think it helps with moving past a 2 party system.

If every vote counted, then we would actually here about the stats of those who voted for someone other than the "Big 2" parties. For now, all we get is all of California's votes going to the Democrat or all of Texas votes going to the Republican. It doesn't show the true outcome of an election.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 04:51 PM
Despite the writings from our Founding Fathers, where they point out that the primary reason for choosing a represntative democracy was to prevent a tyranny of the majority, you choose to claim that the only reason for a representative democracy was the inability to easily handle a pure democracy? Nothing wrong with assuming your position is inviolate and then basing defense of that position on that inviobility, right?

The Senate ALREADY "went away." Do you really want to trash the intent of the House, too?

In case you've forgotten, Congress was designed so that House of Representatives represented the interests of the population and the Senate represented the interests of the STATES. When we changed Senators from being appointed by state governments into being positions elected by the general population, we took huge leaps down the path of breaking how our government is SUPPOSED to function.

The Federal government was created to serve the STATES, not the general population. The Progressive's favorite clause in the Constitution doesn't say anything close to what they claim it does. The Welfare Clause charges the Federal government with seeing to the General Welfare of the STATES. It does not mention or suggest that the Federal government has a responsibility about the welfare of the citizenry at all, ever, anywhere in the document. Most of the Federal budget today is about providing things to the population.

As for 50%+1, that is the source of a tyranny of the majority. It is a really bad choice if you intend to have and protect freedoms for everyone. It is a really good choice if you can control and create that simple majority to serve your ends. You think things are bad in politics today?

As for the Electoral College gamesmanship - THAT is the fault of the State governments which each dictate the expectations upon their electors. All or nothing state electoral voting packages were created as gerrymandering by powerful parties while they held a controlling interest in that state. They demonstrate how people use majority authority to silence and over-ride those who disagree in exactly the same fashion as the passing of the ACA without the proimised review time for the general population did. We all know that people who are given power tend to abuse it, regardless of their positions and preferences as they seek power. A few resist, but they are the exceptions and tend to be honored as a result.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 05:40 PM
Despite the writings from our Founding Fathers, where they point out that the primary reason for choosing a represntative democracy was to prevent a tyranny of the majority, you choose to claim that the only reason for a representative democracy was the inability to easily handle a pure democracy? Nothing wrong with assuming your position is inviolate and then basing defense of that position on that inviobility, right? What I'm claiming is that the reason we had local representatives was because there would have been no other way for the voices of the people to be heard because of the lack of communication abilities during that time. We are in the middle of a communication age. All of our voices can now be heard...instead we choose to keep it where only the majority of voices are heard.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 05:52 PM
Well, the system IS DESIGNED to have only the voices of the representatives heard. That is because a direct democracy is inherently a tyranny of the majority. I'm curious why you keep refusing to address that truth.

Those voices going all one way or another is because the local majority mandated that at one time. We can fix that bit (which supports the tyranny of the majority) without institutionalizing a direct tyranny of the majority as a replacement.

"All politics are local." Get involved and try to fix the things that previous power brokers "adjusted" to gain unreasonable advantages.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2014, 06:25 PM
How would a day in the life of Rusty Jones, Sandsjames, or hustonj change if we got rid of the House of Representatives?

Not one fucking bit. Well... bills might flow through Congress a bit faster, but that's about it.

I've questioned "democracy" so many times in recent years, and I truly believe that it's a facade of "equality" that's designed to keep the common people from knowing their place in society, thus making them less dangerous to the powers that be - lesson learned from the French Revolution, and The Russian Empire paid dearly in the 1910's for failing to learn that lesson themselves.

In the end... is there any significant difference in a day in the life of a Brit (the country we declared independance from) from a day in the life of an American, due to the differing forms of government? No.

I doubt that getting rid of Representives will make much of a difference. We'll likely always have it, because of tradition or the fact that we're too comfortable to change it... sort of like why our government won't get rid of pennies or paper $1 bills.

Smeghead
06-18-2014, 06:30 PM
The point of being a representative democracy was supposed ot be to prevent the tyrany of the majority from trampling the rights of the minority.

Eliminating the representation and going ot straight democracy instutionalizes the tyranny of the majority instead of trying to prevent it.

So, yes, we still need representation.

I thought it was the other way round? To prevent the tyrany of the minority (King George) trampling the rights of the majority (colonists). Not being a smart ass, genuinely asking. I'm a Brit, in history our teachers breezed over that whole 1776 thing, and got straight to the much more important Industrial Revolution, lol.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:03 PM
Well, the system IS DESIGNED to have only the voices of the representatives heard. That is because a direct democracy is inherently a tyranny of the majority. I'm curious why you keep refusing to address that truth. The truth is that we can represent ourselves. The issue we have right now is that we elect a representative and he/she votes down party lines for pretty much every single topic that comes up. If we were our own representatives then when it came to voting on bills, laws, etc, then it would have to pass with the same percentage vote of the people as it does for the current representatives. What it would improve is the partisan voting on every item.

hustonj
06-18-2014, 07:33 PM
I thought it was the other way round? To prevent the tyrany of the minority (King George) trampling the rights of the majority (colonists). Not being a smart ass, genuinely asking. I'm a Brit, in history our teachers breezed over that whole 1776 thing, and got straight to the much more important Industrial Revolution, lol.

The democracy part was chosen to prevent royal tyranny.

The representative part was chosen to help prevent the tyranny of the majority.

America's Founding Fathers pulled from an amazingly wide set of political theories and history to create a government designed to ATTEMPT to ensure the freedoms and rights of the governed as being more important than any aspect of governing. And, as suggested in an earlier post that I made, they saw the Federal government as governing the STATES and the STATES as governing the people. It has been a long, long time since ouf Federal government has pretended to recognize State Sovreignty. We don't seem to recognize the Sovreignty of foreign states either, though, so I guess there should be no surprise there . . ..


The truth is that we can represent ourselves. The issue we have right now is that we elect a representative and he/she votes down party lines for pretty much every single topic that comes up. If we were our own representatives then when it came to voting on bills, laws, etc, then it would have to pass with the same percentage vote of the people as it does for the current representatives. What it would improve is the partisan voting on every item.

Again, you demand the textbook implementation of tyranny of the majority, and refuse to even note the risk inherent in such a choice. Why? The tyranny of the majority is a different problem, certainly, but you have a long row to hoe if the goal is to convince me it is a preferable problem. Preventable problems are not preferable.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 07:39 PM
Again, you demand the textbook implementation of tyranny of the majority, and refuse to even note the risk inherent in such a choice. Why? The tyranny of the majority is a different problem, certainly, but you have a long row to hoe if the goal is to convince me it is a preferable problem. Preventable problems are not preferable.You keep using the word tyranny. I'm not sure what tyranny would come from us playing a larger part in the government. As a matter of fact, I think it would make senators far more accountable and would probably stop the "lifers" in office because if we actually held them accountable to what we wanted (as individuals) then they would be far more likely to listen to what he have to say.

We've already got the tyranny you keep talking about. The tyranny has been there for a couple decades, at least.

I really can't see the inherent risk. If it takes 2/3rds of the voters as it does for the House then how does the risk increase?

hustonj
06-18-2014, 08:22 PM
Please spend some time researching an learning about what the tyranny of the majority means, and why our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent it. Here's a hint, though: White Privelege as complained about is NOTHING by comparison to the privelege the majority woul dclaim.

I could try to elucidate, but previous internet disucssions have taught me that people will both refuse to accept my descriptions and refuse to seek out others. I've stopped trying to provide the normally refused service.

If you prefer to not learn enough about the topic to consider the position, well, that would say something.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:31 PM
Please spend some time researching an learning about what the tyranny of the majority means, and why our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent it. Here's a hint, though: White Privelege as complained about is NOTHING by comparison to the privelege the majority woul dclaim.

I could try to elucidate, but previous internet disucssions have taught me that people will both refuse to accept my descriptions and refuse to seek out others. I've stopped trying to provide the normally refused service.

If you prefer to not learn enough about the topic to consider the position, well, that would say something.

What you are failing to accept is that the when the Founding Fathers set up the government it was based in the times they were living in. They could not have forseen the changes that have taken place.

But please, elucidate, because right now your point is not lucid at all. There is no real majority anymore. You have all races and all sexes with varying political ideas. We're past the point of the tyrannical majority being a realistic outcome. We are at the point of a tyrannical representative government and it's not going to get any better.

Absinthe Anecdote
06-18-2014, 08:42 PM
What you are failing to accept is that the when the Founding Fathers set up the government it was based in the times they were living in. They could not have forseen the changes that have taken place.

But please, elucidate, because right now your point is not lucid at all. There is no real majority anymore. You have all races and all sexes with varying political ideas. We're past the point of the tyrannical majority being a realistic outcome. We are at the point of a tyrannical representative government and it's not going to get any better.

Tread lightly my little friend!

That is exactly the rationale the ultra left uses to say the constitution is no longer valid.

No more 2nd Amendment means no more private ownership of guns.

sandsjames
06-18-2014, 08:56 PM
Tread lightly my little friend!

That is exactly the rationale the ultra left uses to say the constitution is no longer valid.

No more 2nd Amendment means no more private ownership of guns.

No need to tread lightly. I'm all for a rewrite of the Constitution. The only problem I would have is I don't feel that the people who would be writing it today would have the best interest of the country at heart. I do believe that the Founding Fathers, for the most part, did.

I have little doubt that if it was written by the same people in the current era it wouldn't even closely resemble what it does today.

edit: In addition, if it was happening in this day and age it wouldn't happen because we would be perfectly happy to stay under British rule and no revolution would take place.

Stalwart
06-19-2014, 01:46 AM
In the end... is there any significant difference in a day in the life of a Brit (the country we declared independance from) from a day in the life of an American, due to the differing forms of government? No.

Really, REALLY good point. I had read a while ago that the term "American Revolution" incorrectly describes our War of Independence, that in the big picture we really didn't inherently change that much in the way the British government worked and the federal system that was established by the Constitution; monarchy and nobility were out, land owners were in, House of Commons & House of Lords was out, House of Representatives & the Senate was in.

We didn't really change things ... we tweaked them. The French Revolution by comparison resulted in new money systems, a new calendar, new measurements of weight and even time ... they really changed things.

Both fought to overthrow a "tyrannical monarch", but at the outset of the War of Independence the colonies were very willing to negotiate with Britain and remain subject to the crown, this was never the intent of the French.

BT BT

As far as the original post: eliminating the lower chamber of Congress, personally I don't think it is a good idea for some of the reasons already stated: checks and balances within government, appropriations purposes etc. From my experience in working on Capitol Hill I will say that our government is working more "as designed" than might be percieved (excluding the fact that we seem to gone some time with an approved federal budget etc.)

-In the House, the majority rules ... plain and simple. As long as you control the majority (really a majority of the majority) you control the floor of the House: what bills come up for debate, what bills come up for a vote etc. In the House it is entirely possible to propose a bill in the morning session and have the bill voted on and sent to the Senate before dinner.

-In the Senate, you will nearly always have to compromise because of the rules to achieve cloture. To pass most laws (in the Senate) you only need a majority, but to achieve cloture is where the 2/3 requirement comes up. I many times saw a Senator vote yes for cloture but no on the bill, out of respect for the process. This is also seen in the committee process, where each side proposed their version of a bill, which is usually a party-line vote but once the (majority) version is approved, many in the minority voted to forward the committee's version to the floor for a vote, again ... our of respect for the process.

As designed, the Senate is a deliberative body and yes, many in the House describe the Senate as the place where bills go to die, but that is purposeful in the design ... to allow debate and earnest thought. The cloture rule results in a requirement for compromise. The hold or objection rule is another and truly manifests the difference in power of an individual Representative vs. a Senator ... one rank and file Representative can do very little; but as a coalition or a part of the majority can do alot. One Senator can literally stop a whole lot on the Hill.

Personally, I kind of like that it is so hard to get a law passed and signed (not talking about laws renaming a post office or park ... but substantive laws.) It shouldn't be easy, it should be hard to ensure that the law in question is truly the right law. Yes, there are procedural gimmicks that can help circumnavigate the process but both the right and left are guilty of using them, lauding the need for expedited processes when they do it and bemoaning the other when they do it.

Stalwart
06-19-2014, 02:14 AM
What you are failing to accept is that the when the Founding Fathers set up the government it was based in the times they were living in. They could not have forseen the changes that have taken place.

I don't disagree with you on that point. The founding fathers also left in the framework of the Constitution the method to change Constitution, they did make it purposefully hard to do but it is there. If the change is something that is truly wanted & needed it will get done but the labor-intensive process is intended to prevent the 'good idea fairy' from undermining the whole government.

sandsjames
06-19-2014, 04:05 PM
Personally, I kind of like that it is so hard to get a law passed and signed (not talking about laws renaming a post office or park ... but substantive laws.) It shouldn't be easy, it should be hard to ensure that the law in question is truly the right law. Yes, there are procedural gimmicks that can help circumnavigate the process but both the right and left are guilty of using them, lauding the need for expedited processes when they do it and bemoaning the other when they do it.The problem is that the only time anything is going to get changed with laws, etc, is if it benefits the pockets of those currently in charge of making those changes. It's not about what's best for the people, it's about what's best for re-election.

If the HoR were to be disolved and that power placed with the votes of the people, we would be much more likely to hold the Senators responsible, instead of re-electing them for the rest of their lives.

Either way, I'm not sure it matters as it seems that it's quite common place for the Supreme court to take anything the people actually vote for and overturn it.

hustonj
06-19-2014, 04:12 PM
What you are failing to accept is that the when the Founding Fathers set up the government it was based in the times they were living in. They could not have forseen the changes that have taken place.

Inaccurate statement. I acknowledge and accept the frst sentence. I believe the second is a gross exaggeration of the truth, however, used to justify ignoring resterictions on our government as a matter of convenience. You know, little things like the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict an individual's movements or take their posessions without due process. The Constituion is written so that restriction applies to the government in all things and at all times. We love to have our government ignore such restrictions when doing so makes us feel safer, though, don't we? In order to justify ignoring it, you ave to either remove that restriction from the government, or explain why a specific situation could never have been foreseen by our Founding Fathers.


But please, elucidate, because right now your point is not lucid at all. There is no real majority anymore. You have all races and all sexes with varying political ideas. We're past the point of the tyrannical majority being a realistic outcome. We are at the point of a tyrannical representative government and it's not going to get any better.

We have passed the point where the simple majority of Americans are subsidized by the Federal government (either directly or through laws imposed on the States to have them do so). People who receive the fruits of other peoples' labor is an existing simple majority in the USA. Direct democracy would reduce the restrictions on how fast that demographic can grow, and their existing majority would prevent anybody from being able to stop their (predicted hundreds if not thousands of years ago) efforts to take more and more away from those who actually generate wealth within the nation.

I'm not talking Federal emloyees or retirees, as they are (in theory) receiving the fruits of their own labors, even though their own labors do nothing to increase the available wealth of the nation. They are at least (or did) provide services in exchange for their benefits. The new subsidized majority are, by definition, NOT.

As for more detail about what the Tyranny of the Majority means, here, let me provide the first few hits for the phrase from Google (in order), since you, as expected, aren't willing to bother to put in even that much effort. I doubt you will read any of these links, or look for others, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyranny-of-the-majority

The Senate filibuster, which recent rule changes allowed a simple majority to stop or prevent, was instituted in order to prevent a Tyranny of the Majority within the Senate. Nobody has figured out how to institute a process which actually prevents the power of a majority within a democracy, but our Federal government has been the best at holding out against said power. That hold is already failing. You're calling to eliminate the protections provided against it! Your demands that the concern is unimportant are overwhelemd by the stature of thinkers who warn us against the dangers you want to ignore.

sandsjames
06-19-2014, 04:17 PM
Inaccurate statement. I acknowledge and accept the frst sentence. I believe the second is a gross exaggeration of the truth, however, used to justify ignoring resterictions on our government as a matter of convenience. You know, little things like the fact that the government is not allowed to restrict an individual's movements or take their posessions without due process. The Constituion is written so that restriction applies to the government in all things and at all times. We love to have our government ignore such restrictions when doing so makes us feel safer, though, don't we? In order to justify ignoring it, you ave to either remove that restriction from the government, or explain why a specific situation could never have been foreseen by our Founding Fathers.



We have passed the point where the simple majority of Americans are subsidized by the Federal government (either directly or through laws imposed on the States to have them do so). People who receive the fruits of other peoples' labor is an existing simple majority in the USA. Direct democracy would reduce the restrictions on how fast that demographic can grow, and their existing majority would prevent anybody from being able to stop their (predicted hundreds if not thousands of years ago) efforts to take more and more away from those who actually generate wealth within the nation.

I'm not talking Federal emloyees or retirees, as they are (in theory) receiving the fruits of their own labors, even though their own labors do nothing to increase the available wealth of the nation. They are at least (or did) provide services in exchange for their benefits. The new subsidized majority are, by definition, NOT.

As for more detail about what the Tyranny of the Majority means, here, let me provide the first few hits for the phrase from Google (in order), since you, as expected, aren't willing to bother to put in even that much effort. I doubt you will read any of these links, or look for others, either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php
http://www.answers.com/topic/tyranny-of-the-majority

The Senate filibuster, which recent rule changes allowed a simple majority to stop or prevent, was instituted in order to prevent a Tyranny of the Majority within the Senate. Nobody has figured out how to institute a process which actually prevents the power of a majority within a democracy, but our Federal government has been the best at holding out against said power. That hold is already failing. You're calling to eliminate the protections provided against it! Your demands that the concern is unimportant are overwhelemd by the stature of thinkers who warn us against the dangers you want to ignore.

Ok...one sec...you just used Wikipedia to support your point...

hustonj
06-19-2014, 04:25 PM
Ok...one sec...you just used Wikipedia to support your point...

False.

You kept demanding that I provide you with some basic education about a topic you were refusing to research, so I gave you the first 3 links that Google provides on the topic so that you have choices.

If wikipediea knows more on the topic than you do, after having the chance to do research and educate yourself, whose fault is THAT?

sandsjames
06-19-2014, 04:30 PM
False.

You kept demanding that I provide you with some basic education about a topic you were refusing to research, so I gave you the first 3 links that Google provides on the topic so that you have choices.

If wikipediea knows more on the topic than you do, after having the chance to do research and educate yourself, whose fault is THAT?

False. I never demanded anything. I simply provided my opinion on how useless the HoR is in this day and age. You are the one who is attempting to make me think that we'd be worse off yet there is no way to know because we haven't experienced it so, basically, your opinion is worth about as much as mine.

Now I can waste time posting links to sites that dispute your side and support my side by I really can't be bothered because this isn't a government class assignment and I'm not required to have references to state my opinion.

hustonj
06-19-2014, 04:57 PM
False. I never demanded anything.

You have demanded repeatedly that your expectations of how our government could and should be reorganized trumps the warnings of Plato, Aristotle, Hamilton, Mills and others.

You have demanded that I accept your position and that I quit arguing a position you don't want to discuss, and that you continue to state you neither understand nor are willing to research. As expected, when I provide you an almost effortless means of learning more about the topic that you are so quick to dismiss because you know better than the historic minds who identified the (as of yet) unstoppable problem, you demanded the right to belittle me for trying to provide you multiple options on how to correct your own ignorance.

Your most powerful demands have been expressed through your repeated refusal to acknowledge points that don't serve your side of the discussion. You have been attempting to defend your position by pretending that the concerns I raise don't exist.

That's demanding that we willingly join you in your willful ignorance.

You've been demanding a great many things, just very little of it through direct written demand.

sandsjames
06-19-2014, 05:15 PM
You have demanded repeatedly that your expectations of how our government could and should be reorganized trumps the warnings of Plato, Aristotle, Hamilton, Mills and others. You have demanded that I accept your position and that I quit arguing a position you don't want to discuss, and that you continue to state you neither understand nor are willing to research. Ummm...no I didn't. I don't care one way or the other if you agree with me. A demand would be for me to say "You will feel about this how I feel about it".


As expected, when I provide you an almost effortless means of learning more about the topic that you are so quick to dismiss because you know better than the historic minds who identified the (as of yet) unstoppable problem, you demanded the right to belittle me for trying to provide you multiple options on how to correct your own ignorance. Yes, from the minds of those who had no idea what our current society would be like. You do realize that there are several governments that aren't like ours who are very successful, right?


Your most powerful demands have been expressed through your repeated refusal to acknowledge points that don't serve your side of the discussion. You have been attempting to defend your position by pretending that the concerns I raise don't exist.Now it's not only a demand, it's a powerful demand. Are you using dictionary.com??


That's demanding that we willingly join you in your willful ignorance.

You've been demanding a great many things, just very little of it through direct written demand.

I think you've confused "demand" with "suggest". I've presented my opinion. If you like, you can continue to "demand" that I accept the ideas of those who lived hundreds (or thousands) of years ago as being relevant to our society and that there can't possibly be a better way to do it.

Husband: "I think that the lawn looks better if I cut it to 2 inches instead of 3 inches, plus it makes more sense because I don't have to cut it as often."

Wife: "Well, conservationists say it's better for your lawn to let it grow to 4 inches."

Husband: "I still think it's easier and makes more sense to keep it at 2."

Wife: "Why are you demanding that I agree with you?!"

FLAPS, USAF (ret)
06-20-2014, 12:59 PM
Is PYB in the house?

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 01:05 PM
Is PYB in the house?

I'm getting that feeling.

hustonj
06-20-2014, 01:17 PM
I think you've confused "demand" with "suggest". I've presented my opinion. If you like, you can continue to "demand" that I accept the ideas of those who lived hundreds (or thousands) of years ago as being relevant to our society and that there can't possibly be a better way to do it.

You expressed an opinion. I expressed a contradictory opinion. Since then you have been belittling the expression of an opinion that you disagree with while refusing to actually intelligently discuss the basis of the difference between those opinions. You have done nothign to provide support for your disdain of the opinion you disagree with, and have instead simply kept repeating your position, demanding that accept your position as support for your position. That's not how an exchange of ideas happens.

Bullying behavior is a demand.

The only demands that I have tried to make are that we start from the basis of the design of our government, that we not accept the opinion of ANY of us as being inherently superior to the men recognized from history as being Great Thinkers, and that we try to understand the reasoning behind the different opinions.

I provided references to multiple Great Thinkiers showing clearly that your opinion is in direct contradiction to their expressed beliefs/conclusions about human behavior, and your response has been to belittle me (and one of the references, ignoring the others completely) and say "un-uh!" before repeating your position without providing any new support, again.

I'm trying to have an adult conversation. It appears that makes exactly one of us putting forth that effort, sadly.

sandsjames
06-20-2014, 01:22 PM
You expressed an opinion. I expressed a contradictory opinion. Since then you have been belittling the expression of an opinion that you disagree with while refusing to actually intelligently discuss the basis of the difference between those opinions. You have done nothign to provide support for your disdain of the opinion you disagree with, and have instead simply kept repeating your position, demanding that accept your position as support for your position. That's not how an exchange of ideas happens.

Bullying behavior is a demand.

The only demands that I have tried to make are that we start from the basis of the design of our government, that we not accept the opinion of ANY of us as being inherently superior to the men recognized from history as being Great Thinkers, and that we try to understand the reasoning behind the different opinions.

I provided references to multiple Great Thinkiers showing clearly that your opinion is in direct contradiction to their expressed beliefs/conclusions about human behavior, and your response has been to belittle me (and one of the references, ignoring the others completely) and say "un-uh!" before repeating your position without providing any new support, again.

I'm trying to have an adult conversation. It appears that makes exactly one of us putting forth that effort, sadly.

You're right...I'm a bully. You win.

And I'm still confused at to why you think I have "disdain" for your opinion. You are a very sensitive person.