Buddhism a la surprise

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

Shall we compare the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of violent
force is common place with the number of violent deaths in countries where the use of
violent force is rare?

I vote this as the dumbest argument so far for 2009.

-S

[Letum]

The only reason elections do not throw the old rules out of the window is because
so far most people are happy with the old rules.
That does not mean elections are not capable of as much revolutionary change as a
civil war. There is nothing a violent revolution can do that an election can not.

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I vote this as the dumbest argument so far for 2009.

-S

I vote it the most obvious.

That aside, care to elaborate?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

The only reason elections do not throw the old rules out of the window is because
so far most people are happy with the old rules.
That does not mean elections are not capable of as much revolutionary change as a
civil war. There is nothing a violent revolution can do that an election can not.

Beside several other imp0ortant implications opposing you claim, the most obvious is this: at no election you can vote and bring a faction to power that has promised to overthrow the consitutional order, for almnost every constitution we know in the West forbid anti-constitutional activity and sets the constitutional order itself beyond reach of election results, aily politics. The German constitution even grants you the right (if you are German by nationality) to resist to such attempts by violence and brute force. Also, constitutions usually define certain things that are "verboten" and if you do them nevertheless, you lose basic rights of your citizenship and/or freedoms usually guaranteed. Abuse of such freedoms and assault on the comnstitution for example is such an offence. Rights of members of special branches of service also see limitations to their freedoms. Compare German Basic Law, articles 17a, 18, 19, 20.

Elections have limits, they obligate you to play by the rules of the system and not violating them. Revolt against such rules, that is not allowed by, in and through elections, could lead to revolutions. that'S why people get it hammered into their heads that they should vote: participiating in elections usually is the best way to prevent them revolting in serious, for in the act of participating it makes them submitting to the system's rules they eventually wanted to overthrow. But if you follow the rules, you can't overthrow them, and almost certainly not at the desired speed. You cannot accept something and be against it at the same time. However, if you are willing to invest years and decades (assuming you have not only such patience, but also the needed time), it may eventually work. The "re"-Islamisation of the secular state in Turkey by the fundemantalists of the AKP is such an example. And the most effective way to throw back these radicals would be to allow the military it's constitutional role to protect and guard the state against anti-secular assaults and ambitions - by force, which here would be sued for good, then. That is why the Turkish military plays such an active role in Turkish politics - fully legally by the Turkish constitution that it is oligated to protect by doing so.