[pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?

[Reinier Bakels]

we now get into the basics of democracy. afaik there are two alternative 
views:
1. Democracy is an expression of the sovereign will of the people - so it is 
always correct. This principle does not allow for the unavoidable distortion 
on the way from the will (votes) of the people until actual legislation. The 
only correction mechanism isyet another democratic decision.
2. The rule of law in some cases has priority over the will of the people. 
The example most familiar to me is the German constitution - which is 
enforced by a constitutional court. The first 20 articles can not be 
changed, at least not in essence.The German constitutional court can reject 
statutes. But it is restrictive in making political decisions. So often it 
decides that a certain statute should be corrected (improved) *by the 
parliament* before a certain date. If not, the statutue is no longer in 
force.
What other mechanisms exist to remedy a failing democracy? THE PIRATE 
PARTY!

Groeten, Grüße, Regards, Cordialement, Hälsningar, Ciao, Saygilar, 
Üdvözlettel, Pozdrowienia, Kumusta, Adios, Oan't sjen, Ave, Doei, Yassou, 
Yoroshiku, Slán, Vinarliga, Kær Kvedja
>>> REINIER B. BAKELS PhD LL.M. MSc
private: Johan Willem Frisostraat 149, 2713 CC Zoetermeer, The Netherlands 
telephone: +31 79 316 3126, GSM ("Handy") +31 6 4988 6490,  fax +31 79 316 
7221
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard M Stallman" <rms at gnu.org>
To: "Reinier Bakels" <r.bakels at pr.unimaas.nl>
Cc: <pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net>
Sent: Monday, December 29, 2008 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] where is the manifesto?


>    You are quite right that thiscan be a major problem. The solution imho 
> is to
>    solve the problem at the front door, not at the back door.
>
> You're proposing the solution of never having a corruptible
> government.  Of course, that is what we want -- but we cannot expect
> to achieve it, because no human system is perfect.  We must instead
> design the system so that mistakes can be corrected.  Which means we
> must reject and eliminate the "principle" that makes them irreparable.
>
> I am all in favor of requiring compensation when the government takes
> physical property.  Even extending this to shares and financial
> instruments is good, provided there is an exception when they were
> obtained through corrupt privatization.  But when it extends to powers
> over other people, the principle becomes unjust.
>