- 在線時間
- 5 小時
- 最後登錄
- 16-10-23
- 國民生產力
- 1
- 附加生產力
- 523
- 貢獻生產力
- 0
- 註冊時間
- 10-7-31
- 閱讀權限
- 10
- 帖子
- 259
- 主題
- 6
- 精華
- 0
- 積分
- 783
- UID
- 643417
|
Tommy 發表於 14-10-24 06:24 
"大是大非" 根本無國界。判斷大是大非，我只有道德考量，民族主義只是政治家玩弄人民的花招。
...
If you consider "道德", do you think affecting other people's living is "道德"?
Do you think getting democracy is "大是大非"? I hope you will read the following I copied from the Internet. I found that the sources of the information are true. I am not saying that we should not have democracy, but is it great enough to be "大是大非"? Do we really need to get it now with all possible means, even if a lot of people or even the whole Hong Kong have to suffer to a very large extent?
Quote
An American christian, Gary DeMar, has written the Devil of Democarcy in The American Vision, a Biblical Worldview Minsitry. The following are extracted from his short article:
.......John Winthrop (1588–1649), first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony, declared direct democracy to be “the meanest and worst of all forms of government.”[1] John Cotton (1584–1652), seventeenth-century Puritan minister in Massachusetts, wrote in 1636: “Democracy, I do not conceive that ever God did ordain as a fit government either for church or commonwealth. If the people be governors, who shall be governed?”[2] In the Federalist Papers (No. 10), James Madison (1751-1836), fourth president of the United States and recognized as the “father of the Constitution,” writes that democracies are “spectacles of turbulence and contention.” Pure democracies are “incompatible with personal security or the rights of property. . . . In general [they] have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”[3] These more realistic descriptions of the effects of direct democracy are a far cry from today’s modern appraisal.
.......
So, contrary to what is widely taught in the schools of the United States and bruited about in the news media and expressions of politicians, the United States is not— in the opinion of one its principle founders and interpreters—a democracy. The Constitution itself, Article IV, Section 4, says: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of government. . . .” Taken simply literally it is a guarantee of a republican government in the states and a republican government outside and above the states. There is no mention of the word democracy in the Constitution.[4]
What should we think of this? Did these men oppose the democratic process?.......
These men feared that the whims of the majority cut off from an ethical base would prevail if direct democracy were ever accepted as a legitimate form of civil government. On the other hand, these men knew that only “the people” could keep a civil government in check. There was no divine right of kings (or a divine right of representatives or judges), and there must be no divine right of the people. A checking and balancing civil government was the ideal our founders worked for. But if at any time the character of the people changed, the effort would have been for nought.
Unquote
Quote
The following quote is commonly found in articles in the West: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship." The quote was probably written by Professor Alexander Tytler in University of Edinburgh in 1790, according to Loren Collins in his article "The Truth About Tytler".
Unquote
Quote
|
|
發表於 14-10-24 00:12
