Mook

The use of the second person in that part of my post was meant in the general sense, not directed at you specifically, damorgan. My apologies if it was interpreted otherwise.

The problem with relying on the 'democratic process' to solve these problems is twofold: it's not what we in America have; and it doesn't, as has often been mentioned, equate with being "right."

In lieu of democracy, we have a republic, where we elect (and, with mind-numbing regularity, re-elect) legislative representatives to speak for us. Of course, these representatives are (a) only human and (b) almost to a man, more concerned with winning re-election and gaining power than with the principles of any particular issue. My reluctance to cede my money and liberty at the behest of any individual is independent of the status of that individual, no matter how lofty it may be - I voted for Bush, but that doesn't mean that I agree with his thoughts on these matters.

And preserving individual rights and freedoms is not why we have a government; it's why we have a Constitution, so that no amount of "majority rule" can take away what is rightfully ours as citizens of this proud nation. I have the right to speak freely, the right to bear arms, and so forth, no matter whether 51%, or 75%, or 99% of the population happens to agree with this right or not.

I don't mind one whit if any particular individual deigns to cede the rights granted them by virtue of being human, or being American. I do mind - a great deal - when that individual dares imply that they have the right to cede my rights, on my behalf. No, thank you!

Mook