I deleted the rest of your post because I didn't really have a problem with it.

I left the part I had a problem with....I'm sure if people want a wider context they can scroll up a bit...but posts can get really long if we aren't more specific with what we want to address.

There is a bit of a conflict in what you say, in my view. You say allow local democracy to make a decision on it but then you say that if higher powers don't like the decisions taken by the local democracy that they can over-ride them.....Well....that's just having your cake and eating it too isn't it.

You either have local democracy or you don't.

If we follow your point and have 'higher up guidance' reflecting, 'national feelings' then you are agreeing then that this statue should be remade and put back then.

Because as the link I provided showed, the national majority mood is not to take down these statues.

I actually take the position that you tolerant local democracy if it is obeying the law....and keeping or not keeping the statue isn't a question of that....indeed the people who took matters in their own hands broke the law....apart from escalating the violence that's sure to come later.

Edited by Stirlingsays (18 Aug 2017 10.53pm)

There is a bit of conflict in what I say because with out pointing out the obvious there will be a bit of conflict in democracy, the American Civil war itself centred on a conflict between local state laws and federal laws. Charlottesville and Virginia are not isolated or independent from the US, so you don’t either have local democracy or not you have democracy at many interconnecting levels that will, undoubtedly , conflict at times.
There is big leap from shouldn’t be taken down to they should be re-made, your link and the five thirty eight site show that the majority of American don’t see the need to take the statues taken down. However, that encompasses a wide range of response, potentially from full on racist to a neutral ‘no the pain, violence and conflict is too great for lumps of metal for long dead fools’. That is not the same as should we put them back up, it also comes after a week of violence and a death.
That’s not too avoid the question of whether they should be put back up and hypothetically if everyone agreed that the statues were fine and dandy and caused no offence then I would have no problem with them being left standing, to be fair it would be slightly patronising of me to tell people living in southern states that they ought to be offend by the statues. However a majority vote cannot be allowed to inflict a 'tyranny of the masses , if democracy is to work it needs to protect the rights of all citizens and all citizens need to feel part of a civilized society. The law is there to protect that local, state and national government also need to in their policy making and ideals.

The decision to take down the statue in Charlottesville was taken by the local city council.

Similarly, no right minded person should be happy about Communists and Anarchists being allowed to march freely - don't you agree?
-----------------
I believe myself to be ''right minded'' and wish more would. It would ultimately be for your benefit.
You and yours will never quite understand it though.

Wow, using your logic here....then democracy can be ignored by the judgement of a ruler or rulers. I view that as undefendable. 'if everyone agreed' is not democracy. How is this different from 'democracy is fine, just as long as I agree with the decision'?

I support the right of the local council to take the decision they took. At the end of the day...while representative democracy isn't perfect it is subject to the will of the majority.

A 'tyranny of the masses' argument only works if we are actually talking about tyranny. The removing or keeping or replacing of statues does not fit what was meant by this.

If the local council take decisions that remain inside the law then the state should not involve themselves.

Sorry if I didn’t make clear, I said if every one felt that the statues were fine and dandy then it would be patronising for me to tell people in the south these statues are offensive and to take them down.

I then go on to make a separate point that a simple majority vote at local level shouldn’t be used to legitimise something that a mpeople at national levels would find offensive. Yes the law is there to protect rights but in 1860 slavery it was legal. The South wanted to maintain slavery in the face of newly elected national president wish to abolish slavery, OK so the South wasn’t a true democracy because the slaves weren’t enfranchised but hypothetically if, with a fully enfranchised population, 50.1 % of the Virginians had voted to maintain slavery, should the Union have accepted that decision?. That is stretching the point and I don’t belief you arguing that but neither am I arguing that rulers should be able to ignore popular votes.

Again, As I said originally the decision should be made locally and local accommodation and compromise made where possible, when that is not possible or local decision conflict greatly with national interests or the national mood then decision need to be taken at a higher level although again ideally compromise will found.

Edited by Stirlingsays (20 Aug 2017 11.11am)

I doubt this was released by the campaign, but I'm very cynical about politicians so wouldn't rule it out either. Most politicians would sell their own grandmother as part of pandering to the electorate in any given state.

That's part of the problem even with this election. Clinton would reel off a list of minority groups she feigned caring about in order to get the numbers she needed. She said very little to give hope to white working class voters though. Trump instead employed a populist message with slights and anger aimed at various minority groups, because he saw that as a vote winner. It has emboldened some very unfortunate types.

I saw Bernie as striking a better balance, because he at least has talked the talk over the years and did have aspects of popular appeal to him. His own party helped to end his chances though. I see Trump as a symptom rather than a solution and would hope that whoever comes next, democrat or republican, they have a more sober approach aimed at lifting people up.

Edited by wordup (20 Aug 2017 4.29pm)