[AztecInca]

Debate Topic: Have Democratic governments become more oppressive? Do these governments serve the people or do the people serve the government?

Glacies will be debtaing that deomcratic governments have become more oppressive while Paranoid Android will debate that they have in fact not become more oppressive.Generally such a topic would be far more specific but as this is a tournament I decided against making it easy for you.

This is a 1v1 formal debate.

It will consist of an Introduction, 5 bodily posts and a conclusion from each participant. No Flaming, bad manners or profantities will be tolerated. Please make sure you quote ALL your sources!

Please be aware that:

There is a point deduction for debaters who fail to make a post within the 7 day time frame. The deductions will be 2 points for every day the participant fails to post after the 7 days.

This is to ensure that debates continue in a timely fashion. If for any reason you cannot post within the 7 days, please ensure that you let myself or Tiddlyjen know to avoid having the points taken off your debate.

If, however the participant does not then attempt to make a post for up to 2 weeks after the 7 day rule has started an immediate disqualification will occur.

Good luck!

[Glacies]

INTRODUCTION
Firstly, I wish to thank everyone for coming out tonight, how y’all doin’? well I hope. Secondly, I would like to say, good luck to my debating adversary, and I hope this will be an enjoyable debate for all involved. Now, without further adieu, on with the show, as it were.

The term oppressive, when put into the political context, describes a system which is exercising its power over its citizens in a tyrannical manner, in fact transforming the delicate relationship between citizen and state, forcing the people to serve their government, while in fact it is the government which should be protecting and serving the citizens.

It is now the purpose of my argument to demonstrate how modern democratic systems are in fact, failing and becoming more and more oppressive.

My points of fact will describe the abuse of the American civil rights as documented primarily by recorded accounts of Guantanamo bay as well as the equally tyrannical “secret trials/courts etc” all in the name of protecting “national security.”

I will also discuss the actions taken by current legislation to ban the protesting of anti bush assemblies, in which protesting is in fact made into an illegal threat against the president as a result of Secret Service provision—Title 18, Section 1752(a)(1)(ii) of the U.S. Code—which makes it a federal crime to "knowingly and willfully" enter an area restricted by the Secret Service during a presidential visit.

In manipulating the pre-existing laws as such, the government in fact oppresses civilian rights, and prevents the government from in fact serving the citizens it represents, for how can a president serve his country in office, if he doesn’t hear what the citizens want? I shall not deal entirely upon the American democratic nation, and its state of affairs as many other democratic nations are oppressing their citizens, and my arguments will highlight just how unacceptable this current phase of pseudo tyranny is.


And with that, I give the spotlight to my more than qualified opponent, PA!!!

[Paranoid Android]

Introduction

Firstly, I’d like to extend my best wishes to Glacies in this debate – good luck I’m looking forward to this, and I’m sure it will be an entertaining thread for both us debaters and the readers following on. So without further ado, thus beginneth our arguments:

When I first read the topic title – Have Democratic governments become more oppressive? Do these governments serve the people or do the people serve the government? – my first reaction was to cry out in a loud voice, “Yes, they are more oppressive, working for themselves and not for the people”, and then degenerate into a diatribe belittling the government for all its many wrongs. It was automatic and reactionary. These days it seems to be common knowledge that the government is selfishly working for its own needs. Particularly amongst the university-student demographic, of which I am a part, it appears that there is an underlying assumption that the government is guilty. Anyone who dares state different is obviously buying into the government’s spin, a gullible dupe misled by the Establishment. This thought is so prevalent that it seems almost a waste of time to debate a foregone conclusion. So why bother. Let’s just give the points to Glacies, and avoid the angst of a debate.

BUT.... (ahhh, there's always a "but" ) as shall be evidenced throughout this debate, these assumptions are just that – assumptions. Popular opinion does not a conviction make. Scratching the surface will show that these claims have no basis. Throughout the course of this debate, it will become obvious to my opponent and to all who read along that democratic governments are not becoming more oppressive, that indeed the government does work in the very best interests of the people. In addition to addressing the flaws within my opponent's arguments and rebutting his posts, I shall discuss the following points in detail:

- The nature of oppression – what does it mean to be “oppressed”, and how has modern democracy done this.

- The nature of democracy – what is a democracy? How is this “oppression” (discussed in the first point) different to past democratic governments, if indeed it is different.

- The Government – who or what is “the Government”? Where does the oppression stem from?

- Society – democracy at work in different democratic countries, such as America, Australia and Europe.

- “By the people, for the people” – what do the people want, and does the government provide this for them? What does the government want, and do the people provide this for them?

And now I hand the stage over to you, my friend. Once again, good luck - PA

[Glacies]

Post 1
Firstly, i must point out, that i had in fact misspelled ado in my introduction, i'm quite ashamed really...but rather than view it as some portent of upcoming failure, i shall view it as, getting the mishaps out of the way early on.
Secondly, i am all for PA's suggestion to just give the points to me, but where'd the fun be in that?
My only point of contestation stems in his labelling of the belief in the governments outwardly oppressive nature, an assumption, for that would imply such an inference to be in fact a fallacy, which given the over abundance of evidence to the contrary seems harsh no?

Point-
Describing a government as an oppressive self serving machine, is a harsh label, as i'm certain my opponent will point out, and justly so mind you, for without any sort of backing it's tantamount to...well for lack of a better term, paranoid rambling.

Yet my first attempt at swaying over the judges as it were, comes in the form of a masterfully manipulated little known law. As i'd discussed in my intro, this is Secret Service provision—Title 18, section 1752(a)(1)(ii) (visible in detail here) which as i'd stated makes it unlawful for a person to remain on grounds where the president was staying. I am aware of the provisions true purpose, which is to prevent the assassination of the president...but it shouldn't be in place to prevent the pres from hearing words he doesn't want to...
This is best documented by the case of the protestor Brett Bursey (a controversial individual yes, but shouldn't free speech allow him his word?)
Docket Sheet, People V Bursey

Now, and i must stress all involved carefully read what he is charged with, how can an average citizen with a serious concern voice said issue, if "remaining on grounds that the president is visiting" is a crime? how can a government serve it's citizens if the citizens themselves cannot express their wants and needs?

While this certainly isn't the most oppressive act committed by a democratic government, it certainly is substantial evidence of a perversion of what a democracy is and should be, is it not? a government for the people by the people....if it suits those wealthy enough to run the country...hmmm...a bit oppressive for my taste...
Back to PA with the weather! or a counter argument...whichever comes first.

This post has been edited by Glacies: 11 August 2006 - 10:17 PM

[Paranoid Android]

Quote

I am aware of the provisions true purpose, which is to prevent the assassination of the president... but it shouldn't be in place to prevent the pres from hearing words he doesn't want to...

Preventing an assassination is certainly a worthy reason to have this law. No one wants to have their Leader killed. That should be enough reason for the Secret Service to usher people away. It seems a wild assumption though to say that the President does not hear the words he doesn't want to hear. The President is a politician - it's his job to not only know what the people want and don't want, but to decide what the people need and don't need.

Quote

This is best documented by the case of the protestor Brett Bursey (a controversial individual yes, but shouldn't free speech allow him his word?)…………. Now, and i must stress all involved carefully read what he is charged with, how can an average citizen with a serious concern voice said issue, if "remaining on grounds that the president is visiting" is a crime? how can a government serve it's citizens if the citizens themselves cannot express their wants and needs?

And after reading the link you provided, I found this of particular note:

What Brett Bursey “needed to know” was this:
“Where is the restricted area?
So I can go stand outside of it.”
But this, the U.S. Secret Service agent refused to say. Because she didn’t want Brett Bursey to go stand on its boundary. She wanted him to go and stand far away, in a remote “demonstration area”. A free speech zone. A protest zone. A coral. For malcontents, bozos, and other species of Untermenchen.
Out of sight. And out of mind.

Ignoring the blatant use of terms designed to make ones disposition favourable to their cause and simply dripping with propaganda – “remote demonstration area” “malcontents, bozos, and other species of Untermenchen”, for example – let’s perhaps look at the Bursey case from another angle, a less biased angle. Firstly, the “demonstration area” that the writer condemned is actually a part of law. The Laws give us (the people) the right to protest. But the Law also forbids unlawful gatherings of people (no lynch mobs, sorry folks ). This Law makes sense. The mob is a dangerous phenomenon, changing a person or group of persons into a destructive and violent collective (if anyone has ever seen footage of, or actually been the victim of a riot, they’d know what I mean). And so the Protest Laws were created to specifically allow large gatherings of people. All protests are done in "designated areas”, this one was not any different, not at all.

Had Brett Bursey been directed to the very edge of the restricted area, he could in every right have simply stood there, giving the same protest he could at the other venue. However, in doing so, he’d sacrifice the biggest advantage that a protest has – NUMBERS. The numbers at a protest are what make the protest a success. The mass rising up and saying “No!” sends a clear message. By standing at the edge of the restricted area, he would give up this advantage, a lone voice, echoing in the vast emptiness, indeed he would detract from the rally by depriving it of its numbers.

That is the best-case scenario, of course. Worse outcomes are possible. What if one or two individuals would join Bursey at the edge of the restricted zone? And then one or two more join. Before anyone knows what is happening, there is an “unlawful gathering”, within shouting distance of the President of the United States of America. Ungoverned by an organized rally, this mob has the power to quickly turn unruly, putting the President and his team under no small amount of risk. (It was likely this reason that the Secret Service refused to provide the exact location of the Restricted Zone, instead directing Bursey to the Designated Area)

”But what about making the Designated Protest Area at the boundary of the Restricted Zone” I hear the calls coming from people. This is a good question, to which a simple answer lies. And that is the same as a small unruly mob. A large gathering, though under control, can also become unruly if the object of their wrath lay within small distance. The edge of the Restricted Zone, within sight of the President, is no place for such a rally, especially if the protest was of particular concern to security, with the safety of the President in question.

Let’s not kid ourselves, folks. We live in a global information-age. Echoed through public opinion and amplified by the media (to us) and governmental advisors, the President does hear the voice of the Rally. The location of the rally serves only to protect the President. The case of Brett Bursey was no different to other rallies, with their own “designated areas”. This case only serves to highlight media propaganda and sensationalism.

When (or more correctly, I should say “if”) these protests and rallies become outlawed, it is then that the government becomes oppressive.

I apologize for the length of time dedicated to this simple rebuttal, but it is not a point that could be dismissed in one or two lines.

Quote

Back to PA with the weather! or a counter argument...whichever comes first.

Well, the weather beat me to the punch, but it didn't really have much to say, so here I am with the counter-argument.

1 – The nature of oppression

What does it mean to be “oppressive”? The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary describes this as: “Exercise of power in a tyrannical manner; cruel treatment of subjects, inferiors, etc.; the imposition of unjust burdens”. So in order to discuss an “oppressive democracy”, it becomes a question of whether the government is tyrannical and/or cruel and/or unjust. So are the people under democratic governments under such oppression? Certainly there are individuals that may claim to be under just such an oppression. Brett Bursey certainly feels he was oppressed.

Who is it that the government is supposed to serve – the individuals in society, or the society itself. The collective we often refer to as simply “the people” are the concern of the government. I’ll discuss this more in my next few posts. For now, I feel only the need to make a distinction between the individuals within society, and society itself. The government works for the good of the collective, and as such, certain individuals may at times feel they are being harshly treated in this endeavour. This is nothing new. The big question in this debate is not "Are democratic governments oppressive"?, but rather "Have democratic governments become more oppressive"?. And that, dear readers, is the point of my next post.

Take the reigns, Glacies. The horse is yours for now.

[Glacies]

Quote

Take the reigns, Glacies. The horse is yours for now.

Thank you! but that horse seems to have bucked me madly into a state of semi unconsciousness. what a brilliant rebuttal! and truly a great demonstration of your sharpness of tongue, my eloquent adversary. However, your brilliant display may very well have unjustly shed a light of non intended bias on my part...i said may mind you, i could be wrong... firstly:

Quote

Preventing an assassination is certainly a worthy reason to have this law. No one wants to have their Leader killed. That should be enough reason for the Secret Service to usher people away. It seems a wild assumption though to say that the President does not hear the words he doesn't want to hear

I should have stated how important the protection of a political representative is, i did not, and some could say you took advantage of that error (something if you hadn't intended to do, you have my apologies) and made it sound as if my further statements were in fact "wild assumptions" i believe you put it...they may be wild yes, but assumptions? i'm not certain that is the best term, for if a protestor, ie the much maligned and controversial Bursey, carries no weapon, and clearly is merely a protestor, what harm does he really pose? though in retrospect that is all a matter of personal interpretation isn't it? and the president may find most things particularily harmful, so i shall move on.

Quote

a simple answer lies.And that is the same as a small unruly mob. A large gathering, though under control, can also become unruly if the object of their wrath lay within small distance. The edge of the Restricted Zone, within sight of the President, is no place for such a rally, especially if the protest was of particular concern to security, with the safety of the President in question.

While i do see some sense in your previous statement, ie preservation of peace and the problems with mobs etc, and heck, i even see some logic behind the free speech zones after you had described them, yet even you yourself must see some flaw with your argument...you are saying the free speech zones cannot lie outside the restricted area because there is some chance that the crowd will become irate and an angry mob...basing an argument on "may happens" and "what if's" and potential outcomes is flawed is it not? i mean, could i not counter by merely stating
"the free speech zones should be on the edge of the restricted area because while they may become a mob, they may not..."
though besides those points, i see no further flaws with your counter argument.

Your first post however...ohhh boy...as ricky would say "PA, you have some 'splainin to do!"
Your first paragraph, i couldn't have agreed to more, i mean, i was wondering..."hmm, am i on the wrong side here? could PA be right?" then came the second paragraph, and i came to my senses...

Quote

Who is it that the government is supposed to serve – the individuals in society, or the society itself. The collective we often refer to as simply “the people” are the concern of the government.

It is true that the government is responsible for the protection of society as a whole, true, and as stated by a great philosopher of our time, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (i do hope PA knows the origin of that..but that's besides the point.) and that the collective is of the utmost importance in the mind of the government. but, i must think a better question (for at least my side of the argument) should be, who is the collective/majority and furthermore, should the minority/few should be overlooked and imposed upon?
Again citing Bursey here..but he was in a crowd of people, all with signs, all shouting, it wasn't as if he was standing alone in a restricted area, instead he was merely carrying a sign reading "No more war for oil, don't invade Iraq" shouldn't all of the people in that area have been charged? just stating that in this case it seems the minority was unjustly imposed upon...

But finally, without further ado (spelled it right HA!) my second argument point! (wow took me long enough huh?)

Point
Could the governments of today in fact be acting in the best interest of the majority, all the while seemingly oppressing another party, if so, such an act would in fact be warranted would it not? (it would be)
How could a person find out if the government is in fact operating with the majorities wishes at heart? well, one can turn to the polls, for example the ever popular Zogby polls (an impartial pollitical polling corporation) however such a poll, Pro-bush impeachment poll
Suggests that the majority does not in fact want Bush manning the white house, and therefore, is it not inferred that the government does not currently have the support of the majority? nor therefore, the majorities best interests at heart?
Further statistics as cited on the link above, demonstrate a vast number of groups, all of which have a majority of pro impeachment advocates.

Quote

Responses to the Zogby poll varied by political party affiliation: 66% of Democrats favored impeachment, as did 59% of Independents, and even 23% of Republicans. By ideology, impeachment was supported by Progressives (90%), Libertarians (71%), Liberals (65%), and Moderates (58%), but not by Conservatives (33%) or Very Conservatives (28%).

Responses also varied by age, sex, race, and religion. 74% of those 18-29 favored impeachment, 47% of those 31-49, 49% of those 50-64, and 40% of those over 65. 55% of women favored impeachment, compared to 49% of men. Among African Americans, 75% favored impeachment, as did 56% of Hispanics and 47% of whites. Majorities of Catholics, Jews, and Others favored impeachment, while 44% of Protestants and 38% of Born Again Christians did so.

Majorities favored impeachment in every region: the East (54%), South (53%) and West (52%), and Central states (50%). In large cities, 56% support impeachment; in small cities, 58%; in suburbs, 46%; in rural areas, 46%.

The subject of the impeachment,(illegal wire taps) as well as further examples of unjust and oppressive behaviour on the part of governments shall be discussed in my next point.

well, you've pretty much heard me yammer on enough now haven't you? i'll take my leave and let my opponent get a word in, i'm getting light headed from talking too much...

[Paranoid Android]

Quote

well, you've pretty much heard me yammer on enough now haven't you? i'll take my leave and let my opponent get a word in, i'm getting light headed from talking too much...

your yammering was most interesting, Glacies. Much pause for thought, indeed.

Quote

what a brilliant rebuttal! and truly a great demonstration of your sharpness of tongue, my eloquent adversary.

Why thank you, Glacies. I’m ‘ing, I really am!

Quote

could i not counter by merely stating
"the free speech zones should be on the edge of the restricted area because while they may become a mob, they may not..."

You indeed could counter as such. I admit there is a degree of conjecture on all our parts, as we only have access to part of the information that the government does. It would, I think, depend largely on security fears. I’ve noticed many rallies and protests are actually held along the route that the politicians will be taking. Other rallies, including the one in question, are held some distance away. I could very well be wrong, since obviously I have no access to the security advice given to the President (and if I did, I’d probably be gagged from revealing it anyway ), but it seems there may be a reason for holding it such a distance away. Perhaps the governmental security had particular concerns regarding this rally. Maybe they had some Security Intel that we as citizens are not privy to.

Quote

i must think a better question (for at least my side of the argument) should be, who is the collective/majority and furthermore, should the minority/few should be overlooked and imposed upon?

A very good question, and one that I shall be addressing shortly as the point of this second post.

Quote

How could a person find out if the government is in fact operating with the majorities wishes at heart? well, one can turn to the polls, for example the ever popular Zogby polls (an impartial pollitical polling corporation) however such a poll, Pro-bush impeachment poll
Suggests that the majority does not in fact want Bush manning the white house, and therefore, is it not inferred that the government does not currently have the support of the majority? nor therefore, the majorities best interests at heart?

This brings up an uncomfortable question, one I touched on in my last post in my rebuttal where I stated: “ The President is a politician - it's his job to not only know what the people want and don't want, but to decide what the people need and don't need.” Is what the population WANT akin to what the population NEEDS? I now address just this with my next post.

2 – The nature of democracy

My opponent asked me a question in his last post – “who is the collective/majority and furthermore, should the minority/few should be overlooked and imposed upon?” Unfortunately this has no single “correct” answer. Depending on the circumstances, the collective may be characterized by race, religion, political affiliation, job description, income, location, marital status, age, or any other number of factors. With society made up of millions of individuals each with different needs and wants, it is the Leader’s job to sift through it all, decide what the people want, and what the people need, and then find a workable solution, not necessarily just the popular solution.

In other words, compromise. Democracy in many ways is a study on compromise (“compromise” was once defined as a solution that neither side is entirely happy with). And this compromise has existed since the very first democratic society. This is not new to modern democracy. In the 1940's, as the battle with Germany heated up, the government raised its taxes to cover the costs. As a result, many were left struggling to make ends meet (sounds remarkably familiar to today, actually). It was these taxes that funded the American involvement in World War II - indeed, as Walt Disney jumped on the propaganda bandwagon, it's Donald Duck cartoon based itself around the slogan - TAXES TO BURY THE AXIS - to cushion the blow, make the tax seem a little less..... oppressive (Link to this and other Disney war favourites). The rich and middle-income earners hardly felt the strain, yet it was harsh, and even debilitating for others. But it was this contribution that allowed the Allies to finally overcome hostilities, and ensure the safety of their democratic society.

Certainly, individuals may claim to be oppressed, but the big question in this debate is not “Are democratic governments oppressive? This is important. That is not the debate question. Rather, the question is “Have democratic governments become more oppressive?”. Taxes raised is only one of many examples. Some individuals are inconvenienced (oppressed, some might say) in the democratic cause. Make no mistake my friends, a democracy is not the same as a Free Country, and it is this distinction that makes all the difference.

Democracy has not become more oppressive, it is doing what it has always done – compromised; compromised to find a solution that not everyone is entirely happy with, but one that everyone can live with. And it is the unenviable task of "the government" to institute this. But who or what is "the government"? Tune in to the next post - same Bat Time, same Bat Channel - to find out. Coming up next on our broadcast, a reply from Glacies.

[Glacies]

POST 3

Quote

Tune in to the next post - same Bat Time, same Bat Channel - to find out.

When we last left our hero, he was thrown cowl first (yes i wear a cowl during all of my debates) into a precariously placed, PA patented, perfectly prepared predicament, pertaining predominantly to the perspicuity of the concept of governments becoming more oppressive. (yay alliteration!! as most batman episodes would start with)

Quick rebuttal, then on to my point, (i spoke far too long last time, don't want to be labelled a blow hard...or some such) While it is true that the goverment must reach compromises everyday, i do not question or doubt that. but who is the government working for, if the majority (as previously documented) of citizens wants the government to stop...(the answer could be that the government is working for itself and ignoring the needs of it's citizens...)

And in fact there is a noticeable trend of governments gradually (or in some cases blatantly and suddenly) becoming more and more tyrannical in their actions as newer leaders are elected to power. It could be noted, (as i will demonstrate in a moment) that there are moments of...waxing and waning, if you will, in the levels of political oppression. Yet, therefore it is noteable that right now, we are certainly in a moment of increase in oppression, whether it will recede, is yet to be seen.

Evidence! the crowds shout, Evidence! no prob, as i'd foreshadowed earlier, there was a reason for the Zogby poll, and that reason was....illegal wiretapping, ordered by the president, even though he was explicitly ordered not to by the supreme court. CNN article on the wiretappings. This is clearly something the citizens do not want, so documented by bush's poor ratings, yet, Bush continues to do so, and actually admits he will not stop, demonstrating a self serving, oppressive agenda no?

Well that's all for tonight ladies and gentleman, i'm far too tired to continue and i don't want to risk over stressing a point. so as they say in Poland. Goodnight i'm going to bed.

[Paranoid Android]

Quote

a precariously placed, PA patented, perfectly prepared predicament, pertaining predominantly to the perspicuity of the concept of governments becoming more oppressive. (yay alliteration!!)

In the words of the immortal Darth Vader – “Impressive – most impressive.” Your alliteration is astounding. Have you been looking at my Profile quote by any chance? I may just steal one or two of those words to add on if you don't mind (after the debate, of course)

Quote

if the majority (as previously documented) of citizens wants the government to stop...(the answer could be that the government is working for itself and ignoring the needs of it's citizens...)

Or it could be argued that what people want and what people need are two different things. The volatile nature of the world, particularly post-9/11, have shifted governmental issues - security is now an overriding concern. And it does affect life. But is it oppressive? More on this in my next post (just have to keep you in suspense somehow ).

Quote

illegal wiretapping, ordered by the president, even though he was explicitly ordered not to by the supreme court. CNN article on the wiretappings. This is clearly something the citizens do not want, so documented by bush's poor ratings, yet, Bush continues to do so, and actually admits he will not stop, demonstrating a self serving, oppressive agenda no?

Self serving? This is democracy here. A system where popular opinion can have you out on the streets before you can say "Antidisestablishmentarianism". To act contrary to the wants of the people is essentially committing political suicide. Perhaps Bush is doing that even now. Far from condemning him as self-serving, this I think exonerates him. That he is doing what he believes is truly best for his country, for his people, despite that they are against him, and likely to lose his political power for that. This is the nature of Democracy, my friend. That's the Government for ya.

3 – The Government

But what is “the government”? We bandy this about like a dirty word, something to be shunned. It’s a taboo subject in general conversation. I can imagine one day a group of friends sitting down to dinner together, as one person says, “You know, the other day I heard that the government had done…”, and him trailing off as the whispers around the room echo in on themselves “Oh dear”, the person sitting opposite states. And a little 10-year old girl, auburn hair in braids, looks at mommy with shocked expression, “Mommy, he said the ‘G’ word”

But again I must ask – what is “the Government”?

- Is it an instituted organization? Yes…… and no.
- Is it a system of politics? Yes…… and no.
- Is it a conglomerate of people? Yes…… and no.
- Is it an individual person? Yes…… and no.

Pin-pointing what the Government is, is extremely difficult. It can at all times refer to the organization that we entrust to run our respective nations, the system of politics by which that nation is run, the collective Name we assign to those who run the nation, and of course it focuses in on the individual chosen to run that nation. These run simultaneously side-by-side. And this does not even include the part of the government that resides at the heart of democracy – the Opposition, the group not in control, the one that holds different views on world issues than the current administration. That said, when speaking of the government in the context of this debate, we usually herald everything back to the figurehead of that government – the current leader of the nation, who ultimately makes the decisions that affect us all.

It is the people who vote for this leader. It is the nation who stands up to say, “We want this bloke”. That is the nature of democratic government. When the figurehead of this government ignores the wants of the people, he’d better have a damn good reason for doing so. As I mentioned in the rebuttal above, it’s political suicide.

But is there really a good reason, or is it a ploy to gain power while playing to the choir about the needs vs. wants? I’ll look a little closer at this in my next post, when I discuss specific democratic governments and how they work. I turn the stage over to Glacies now. I need some sleep, methinks.

[AztecInca]

Glacies has had to hand in his resignation for this tournament as he will be unable to again post for at least two weeks. A decision regarding the outcome of this match will be reached once a discussion with the remaining participant is undertaken.