From: igor@cs.columbia.edu (Igor Pankevich)
Subject: Re: Estonia
Organization: Columbia University Department of Computer Science
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 23:58:52 GMT

In article <101492@netnews.upenn.edu>, sergei@upenn5.hep.upenn.edu (Sergei Borodin) writes:
> In article <Bz1zI4.D6B@cs.columbia.edu> igor@cs.columbia.edu (Igor Pankevich) writes:
> 
> >By the way, in the US some time ago there was a so called "literacy test" - you
> >had to be able to read in order to be able to vote. It was declared
> >unconstitutional later. 
> 
>  'unconstitutional'  doesn't mean unreasonable, though. How a person would
>  be able to vote if (s)he cannot read a name of a candidate?

Oh, well, I will give a free history lesson. The literacy test was designed
exclusively to prevent blacks from voting. It was administered by whites and was
not to be appealed. So they just said that no blacks could read, that's all.
Now, I am not talking reasoning now. I am talking what I consider democratic an
what I don't.

> 
> >Not to say that Estonia has the same 
> >constitution as the
> >USA, but the latter surely has the most democratic constitution.
> 
>   Are you familiar with other constitutions? (soviet doesn't count) 
>   What, btw, do you mean by 'most democratic'?

I mean exactly what I say, 'most democratic'. The US constitution has always been
considered the most democratic one. To create such a constitution was a goal
of the national forefathers, and I think they succeded and it still holds true
after all these years.

						 American public can
>   'democratically' deside to pay more taxes?

Exactly. They elect their government.
						 OK. What I mean is that
>   taken in mass (statistically) people are stupid and in that sense
>   'democracy' is no better than autocracy, and sometimes even worse.
>   However, I'd guess, people might be happier when they desided to
>   kill (or whatever) themselves by themselves (don't know how to
>   phrase it better).
> 
Can you read it over and decide for yourself what you wanted to say, please?

> > So whatever goes
> >against American constitution, and thus would be illegal in the USA we here
> >concider undemocratic. Dixie.
> 
>   Who gives a shit what you consider 'undemocratic' from the point of
>   view of the US constitution? It's kinda strange logic to take 
>   the constitution of the US or any other country as an ideal and
>   consider things which don't fit there as "undemocratic" or bad.
>   According to your logic, the only 'democratic' country in the
>   world is the US, 'coz other countries dont have the US constitution.

And how else do you propose to decide what is democratic and what not? Based on
your own ideals? And what are they based upon? By the way, you have an
interesting way of argument (not you alone, though): you presume that I mean or
say something which I never said, and begin to argue against it. In Russian it is
called "to fight a wind-mill". I am not saying that the US form of the State
organization is an ideal one. Neither did I say that the US is the _only_ 
democratic country in the world - it is only the _most_ democratic. And I
consider things which go against our constitutional rights to be undemocratic. 
What's wrong with that?
Stop seeing things in black/white, colors happen.

--Igor P.










> 
> >--Igor P.
> 
>  S.B.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet,alt.drugs,talk.politics.drugs