[UncleEntity]

> The majority can't decide that gravity should cease to exist or the sun shouldn't shine within their borders. Some limitations on democracy are natural, others are imposed by those who established it. That doesn't mean it's not a democracy.

I don't think anyone is arguing that not being able to impose the voters' will over the laws of nature is any indication of whether a system is democratic. Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to be murdered) have any bearing because they're basically the same thing. Red herring, really.

If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy? More like a dictatorship ruled over by dead people with the illusion that people have "self rule".

[chmod775]

> If someone who is long gone (and no longer has voting rights) imposed limitations on a democratic system then how is it even a democracy?

You are always asking for "how" X can still be a democracy, which is a weird question I don't even know how to answer, since I really don't even know what you understand under a democracy.

What do you mean how? Can you throw me a rope and explain this to me then:

> Nor should not being able to vote away natural rights (like the right not to be murdered) have any bearing

If I can't vote to legalize murder, how is it still a democracy?