The de-liberalization of photography

On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.



--
Peter

On 12/7/2010 8:37 AM, Rich wrote:
On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Pete wrote:

The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.

He's mistaken idiot. The minorities have BECOME the tyrannizers.


What does that statement have to do with photography. If you know how to
read and think, look at this group's charter.

--
Peter

Peter is far from an idiot, that is uncalled for. If you met him you'd
know. He and I have different opinions of certain subjects but it doesn't
make either one of us an idiot.

"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Dec 6, 11:41 am, "Pete Stavrakoglou" wrote:

The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.

He's mistaken idiot. The minorities have BECOME the tyrannizers.

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?

On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?



A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency
powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example.

--
Peter

"peter" wrote in message
...
On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate
against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?



A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency
powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example.

How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been
anything like this?

On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate
against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?



A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency
powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example.

How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been
anything like this?


They have the potential to do so.

--
Peter

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:24:45 -0500, peter
wrote:

On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate
against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?



A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency
powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example.

How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been
anything like this?


They have the potential to do so.

Prop 8 was all about a perceived danger. People were afraid that two
gay people would gain equal footing with heterosexuals.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 2010-12-10 18:34:56 -0800, tony cooper said:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 20:24:45 -0500, peter
wrote:

On 12/10/2010 4:11 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/8/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/7/2010 8:21 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/6/2010 11:41 AM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
...
On 12/2/2010 3:45 PM, Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
wrote in message
snip
Unfortunately much of what happens in California is proposition
driven,
so
the Legislature and Judges have their hands tied by the voters.

I don't find such a thing as unfortunate. I wish we had as much in
New
York. When our elected representatives continue to legislate
against
our
will, propositions might be our only recourse.



The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

That has nothing to do with my comment.


It is a reasonably predictable consequence.

No it is not. The consequence of the people acting through proposition
leads to tyranny of the majority?



In a small way.
If it weren't for rules preventing it:
We would still have slavery;
Jews, Muslims, Blacks and Asians: could not purchase homes anywhere they
wanted to; would be relegated to lower end employment, together with the
Irish, Greeks, etc; would be restricted as to what professions they can
enter into; where they could eat; what part of the bus they must sit in;
shall I go on?
This is not all ancient history, but things I have personally witnessed.
Just look at some deed restrictions in Cormack. Although unenforceable
under current law, the majority could reinstate them, given the power.
Sadly, not every person is a person of good will.

Do you know of any example of the people's use of "proposition" that
resulted in this tyranny?



A proposition is just another form of things that have. "emergency
powers," in reaction to a perceived danger is but one example.

How have the recent propsitions we've seen come to a vote in California been
anything like this?


They have the potential to do so.

Prop 8 was all about a perceived danger. People were afraid that two
gay people would gain equal footing with heterosexuals.

....and Prop 20 & 27 were all about redistricting and "Gerrymandering".

Prop 19 was for the legalization and decriminalization of marijuana.

Prop 22 prohibits the State from appropriating, or borrowing State fuel
taxes, or taking funds used for transport redevelopment (highway
infrastructure repairs & construction) or local government projects.

Prop 23. Entirely sponsored by Texas energy corporations, with Valero
and Tesoro oil companies taking the lead against, of all things
Schwarzenegger's AB 32 Air Pollution Control Law. Californians took
offense at Texas corporations butting into our politics.

Californians were sick and tired of the bickering and failure to come
to a consensus of the State budget with the two thirds majority. So
Prop 25 passed, now a simple majority will allow for the passage of the
State budget.

However, when it comes to State & Local tax & fee increases Prop 26
passed requiring two-thirds majority in the Legislature for State tax &
fee increases, and a two-thirds voter approval for local tax & fee
increases.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

peter wrote:
On 12/4/2010 8:28 AM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
wrote:

The minority needs protection against a tyranny of the majority

Just give the minority proportionally greater voting powers.
:-)

Yup! That worked really well/ I don't need to say where and when, or do I.

Imperial Germany, in this case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussia...lass_franchise

Though they were not alone, Rumania had a similar system up
to WWI, for example ...

-Wolfgang