Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually checks and balances are usually there to stifle democracy. Sometimes allowing the people to decide is not such a good thing - as the world now knows to its cost.
"Actually checks and balances are usually there to stifle democracy."
don't want to get into what "usually" means or what it means to stifle democracy.
i was talking about the checks meant to prevent one branch of government from wielding too much power and to allow the branches to control each other. that supports democracy not stifles it.
"Sometimes allowing the people to decide is not such a good thing"
and who gets to decide? the right people? who are they?
"as the world now knows to its cost"
it's better to pay that cost after willingly choosing it rather than having someone else impose another outcome, no matter how benevolent and competent that someone is.
i respect jon stewart for example but i wouldn't have him decide on behalf of the world who the president of the US is.