RE: Netherlands Crime Rate
> Here, you created a loop in the concept of class so that if I am inNo I didn't, because I didn't say you *must* be of a certain class if you live in a certain area, only that you are likely to be, because people in the same class tend to flock together for a variety of reasons.
> a certain class I live in certain areas and if I live in those
> areas I must in the said class. This is my problem with the term
> Harlem recently experienced a dramatic drop in crime rate.This appears to be because the crime rate has dropped throughout NY, not just in Harlem. There may still be proportionally more crime in poorer areas. But yes, it's possible that the class structure can change over time without people changing location. Hopefully the first world has become a lot more middle class than it was in Victorian times, for example, though probably at the expense of the third world.
> Would you say it is because people in Harlem are now in a different
> class? (Obviously they are NOT living in a different place!)
- --- In Fabric-of-Reality@yahoogroups.com, Elliot Temple <curi@...> wrote:
>Yes, but they both get one vote each.
> On Sep 16, 2009, at 12:50 AM, inntranz wrote:
> > Apathy is the enemy of direct democracy, but IMHO apathy gets more criticism than it deserves. Life is short and one man's apathy is another man's well balanced set of priorities.
> The situation is better than that.
> These two men who see it differently don't have equally relevant perspectives.
> What matters is the man whose life it is, not the man with intrusive preferences about other people.
> Opposing the apathy of *other people*, in any strong or forceful way, is opposing freedom.
I don't believe any form of democracy, direct or representative, is a silver bullet for protecting freedom. On the other hand, the freedom to be apathetic seems one of the least likely to come under threat.
Like Charles and Bill, I live in New Zealand where the issue of direct democracy has suddenly become topical. In fact, this very weekend it literally had people marching in the streets.
A decade or so ago the government introduced a system of "non-binding citizen-initiated referenda". Topics covered over the years have included employment conditions for firemen, the number of MPs in parliament, harsher penalties for crime, and whether parents should be allowed to physically punish their children.
As far as I recall, the government has ignored the result of every referendum so far.
That it has taken us over a decade to take to the streets over this shows that apathy is a subject on which we are qualified to speak.
>The issue that finally got people protesting was that the right to hit their kids had been taken away from them. What to make of that, I'm not so sure.
> Note: this applies to one's children.