| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 11:40 am |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: One thing. The revolution to take back the Town of Summerfield is on it's way also!
Baseball Buddy, I think all sides of the political spectrum would agree with you on that statement. Each side's point of view as to wanting their interests represented and control taken back and away from the those representing the 'other side' is what is at stake.
At the heart of this whole matter, is simply the burning central issue for each side as to what role Summerfield government should play in the lives of citizens and their community and how and which government services should be paid for.
Some citizens (a minority I believe), surely want a large government bureaucracy which will provide everything for them, while others simply believe that people are governed best who are governed least (the majority). The answer to that core question, by voters, will determine the future political leadership and thus, the future of Summerfield.
I look forward to seeing and hearing what voters decide this year and I'm sure you do too.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 11:56 am |
|
Jim, I don't understand why you don't see what Becky did as wrong. Last time I checked we lived in a representative democracy. That means that one of the things we have to accept is that the majority decision stands. The council voted 3 - 2 to continue on with phase II of the park and to apply for the PARTF Grant. Whether you agree with that decision or not is something to take up in the next election. If the town so believes that the phase II of the park was a bad idea then those council members will be voted out. But at this time the decision was to go on with the park. Becky refused to stand by that decision and went behind everyone's back to send that letter and in the process broke one of the most important points of representative democracy that you must accept majority rules.
Now I am not saying that Becky had to take it lying down. She can rally her supporters and at the next election have her supporters run a candidate that they think will support their view, get the majority of the vote and have another supporter of hers sitting on the council. That is the way it is suppose to work.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 12:18 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: Last time I checked we lived in a representative democracy. That means that one of the things we have to accept is that the majority decision stands.
Hairbrush, obviously I am concerned that we have a quite different understanding of how democracy works and what rights are imposed and instilled by a representative form of government. I am not at all clear from your comments that you have read or understand such American political readings as The Federalist Papers and the attendent arguments therein, nor whether you can discern the differences between the concepts of Jeffersonian versus Jacksonian democratic philosophies.
Clearly, I wonder if you are mindful of how even 'majority' decisions made in our NC General Assembly or our US Congress are no sooner passed or adopted than the other sides (various minority interests) seek to undermine such legislative acts through judicial intervention, funding restriction and various and other schemes to delay, deprive or derail unpopular yet 'majority' decisions.
History is quite literally and liberally littered with political acts by the majority which were not always as popular with the masses as they were by the representatives. History is also replete with minor as well as major rebellions as well as civil disobedience.
'Majority decisions' once decided that women were not allowed to vote and that 'negroes' had their rights relegated to second class citizenship at best. Separate but equal was a constitutional and legislative 'majority' decision overturned conceptually by the much smaller 9 member minority of a US Supreme Court as you will recall. Dozens of other instances of majority decisions by the legislatures are found overturned in the Supreme Court and other courts of our lands decisions which protected minority rights from an overeaching majority.
A 'majority decision' allows American military leaders to continue to conduct a war opposed by more than 70% of all American citizens. Yet, under your concept of representative democracy, those citizens would simply abide by the majority decision and sit by and watch as more American blood is shed until the next election cycle in November of 2008. Under your concept of majority rules, there is no allowance for disaffected minorities to protect or be protected from overreaching majorities (as fear which was omnipresent to our Founders by the way).
So many of the great and true leaders of history are the ones such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama who have fought for the rights imperiled to a minority by the super strength of a majority. Whether those majorities operate with or without conscience, there is nothing whatsoever in representative democracy which requires nor dictates that the disaffected minority simply roll over and play dead.
So Hairbrush, in the end, I simply adhere to the principles of protecting and advocating for minorities in their never ending fight against majorities without conscience and majorities gone mad with the ego of their collective strength. Might does not make right to me even if it does to you.
Last edited on Mar 22nd, 2007 12:42 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 12:27 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote
So many of the great and true leaders of history are the ones such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama who have fought for the rights imperiled to a minority by the super strength of a majority. Whether those majorities operate with or without conscience, there is nothing whatsoever in representative democracy which requires nor dictates that the disaffected minority simply roll over and play dead.
I hope you are not comparing these great people with BS and DC. That would be the worst comparison in history. These great leaders have done good for all. BS and DC are egomaniacs and self serving.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 12:37 pm |
|
Baseball Buddy wrote: I hope you are not comparing these great people with BS and DC. That would be the worst comparison in history. These great leaders have done good for all. BS and DC are egomaniacs and self serving.
No, I was simply suggesting the names of some well known historical figures who also opposed majority rule and understood the need for protection from an overreaching majority (which the Federalist Papers so eloquently discussed). There are literally dozens if not hundreds more which history would characterize as dissenters from a majority view, but I thought the use of only a few would suffice to make the point.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 12:41 pm |
|
| Good Jim , I am glad your not comparing these great leaders with BS and DC. Good analogy for the underdog.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 12:54 pm |
|
Okay Jim, you are right and I am wrong so I am bowing out of this fight. I guess because in this one case I happen to believe in the majority and want to spend my tax money on a park then I certainly can not be in the right. I guess all my years of working as a page and helping in local elections, working in another country helping them understand their new democracy government gives me no understanding, shoot I guess my master's work on democracy in adult education gives me absolutely no understanding, so I gracefully bow out.
But no matter what I will never believe that what Becky did was right and ethical and neither will I ever believe that she has the best interest of this town in the fore front.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 22nd, 2007 01:03 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: I guess because in this one case I happen to believe in the majority and want to spend my tax money on a park then I certainly can not be in the right.
Hairbrush, you know as well as I do, that a determination of 'right' or being 'in the right' or being on the 'right side' is simply nothing more than a VALUE JUDGMENT.
Obviously, you have very strong feelings and a passion that you are RIGHT but that by no means that the other side is WRONG. The other side always has the same right to believe that they are right as you do in your feelings. And the fight over right, rights and the rights and wrongs in politics and life have been going on since the Garden of Eden and will continue with us until the final chapter of history is completed.
As the Quakers would say, all acts and events are actually neutral, and only become positive or negative or right or wrong depending on the value we attach to them.
So, in the end, you have ever right to believe you are right, but I do think you may be wrong in believing those others can't be as right in their thinking who equally share a passion and strong feelings in opposition to your ideas on the park.
Last edited on Mar 22nd, 2007 01:05 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
doggoneit
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 01:30 pm |
|
Talk about entertainment. Forum folks are great. Except it’s the same old group, with the same old lines. Jim Flynt’s comments are at least level headed and the argument thought pattern is more developed. Thank goodness Jim participates.
I typically take a business oriented view. Free enterprise, limited government and let the market decide. Moving to Summerfield years ago, I looked for the best school district with the best rural setting. The G-boro water shed land acquisition, organized a group to incorporate Summerfield. Great, a chance to hold off higher tax waste and forced big city government actions. But something developed that was perhaps not anticipated (?) The local group (with good intentions at first) came into power and with more $$ than ever seen before. My take with all politics is that $$ and power leads to no good. With the quick and large home development the tax $$ base grew beyond comprehension. Summerfield has $9 million in the bank and now it must be spent (or invested as some folks say). The big question is how. And who has the business savvy to comprehend the opportunities this amount of money can do. And how do we do this with fair and equitable consequences (unlike the previous administration, which is still fresh in my mind).
I have no major problem with the “Park” as it is (but the survey was bogus, pick up a good marketing analysis / statistics book and read up on how a questionnaire should be conducted and you will see the nightmare of errors and miss-interpreted data). My problem is the speed at which some folks are forcing quick decisions without a chance to see other (perhaps better) opportunities for local funds. How about a tax cut ?
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 01:30 pm |
|
I think we might be gettin' off track here.
Hairbrush, it didn't sound to me like you were calling Strickland's opinion of the park wrong, it sounded like you were calling her decision to go behind the backs of the council wrong. In that case the values you used to reach that determination are ones I heartily agree with.
My values also tell me Strickland going behind the backs of the council was wrong.
(Whoops. Didn't see doggoneit's post till after I posted. Mine is in reference to the stuff before that.)Last edited on Mar 23rd, 2007 01:51 pm by FatPappy
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 02:11 pm |
|
doggoneit wrote: Talk about entertainment. Forum folks are great. Except it’s the same old group, with the same old lines.
Doggoneit: Your post brings to mind two wonderful quite applicable quotes:
The first by Lord Acton: Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
And the second by Thoreau: There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 02:23 pm |
|
doggoneit wrote: I typically take a business oriented view. Summerfield has $9 million in the bank and now it must be spent (or invested as some folks say). The big question is how. And who has the business savvy to comprehend the opportunities this amount of money can do.
The larger question should be whether any company with $9 Million dollars cash in the bank and annual income of in excess of $1 Million would hire any of the current town council members to manage and lead their companies or serve on their board of directors? Do these 5 individuals have the education, background and experience to properly manage and lead such an enterprise or serve on the board of directors? Would you hire these same 5 individuals to run your company or serve on your board of directors?
If not, then it is time as Donald Trump would say, for taxpayers to simply say 'You're Fired' and then hire a new more professional crew to more effectively manage and respond to the interests of ALL of Summerfield stockholders (and not just the elitist few).
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 02:41 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
Would you hire these same 5 individuals to run your company or serve on your board of directors?
No surprise, but there are two I would fire at the first opportunity because they've shown they can't be trusted. Whatever qualifications they might claim to have are irrelevant once they've abused their trust.
Professional management sounds like a good argument for a council-manager system.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 05:23 pm |
|
FatPappy wrote: Professional management sounds like a good argument for a council-manager system.
Hypothetically, whether you have 5 incompetent managers solely leading your company (or leading your company with the assistance of one administrator), or one manager answering to 5 incompetent board of director members of that same company, the results in the end would be the same. Incompetent results.
There are certainly more than 2 incompetent members running your existing company from what I can see.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Mar 23rd, 2007 07:01 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
There are certainly more than 2 incompetent members running your existing company from what I can see.
Untrustworthiness was my charge against them, not incompetence. Just to clarify.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
