Lol, you're deluded if you can't see how your "power to influence other people in how they vote" makes your vote more valuable than theirs. That's not democracy, man. "One person, one vote". And you being able to "influence" other people breaks that entire concept into "More power to influence = more votes".

Yes, you are conflating democracy with freedom. You seem to think that freedom means a right to influence other people to vote as you. That is not democracy, because democracy in its basic form is "one person, one vote". As such, what you call "freedom", is merely you claiming the right to infringe on other peoples' freedom to vote as they please, free from your influence and manipulation. And also, freedom does NOT include you being able to exercise control over me with what you call "power to influence". Your rights END where my rights over myself start.

It seems to me that you're a fan of democracy simply because in your world-view it conveniently allows you to claim "freedom for all" and at the same time manipulate them into voting the same as you. Because yeah, dude, your phrase "power to influence" simple means coerce and manipulate people into voting the way you want them to.

I'm probably not the first to say this, but... Fuck you, and your damn social contract. Claiming some over-arching "contract" that I never signed doesn't give you magical powers to force me to conform to whatever you deem is contained in this contract of yours.

Are these auto auctions for second hand cars?

I'm not well versed with American laws... You said the "1st Amendment". Is that that law that says whoever has the most money is the one that gets to pick who is elected by virtue of more advertising money? Well, gee gosh darn it, that doesn't sound very democratic of you. You sure you're a democracy? One person, one vote, right?

Wrong... I'm not one to quibble over definitions, but that's most certainly NOT what democracy is about. Just think for a moment about what your comment implies. You're saying that you're free to use your own money to promote your own viewpoints. Sure, freedom is good, and everyone should be allowed to be free to do with their money as they please. However... Once you start allowing a person to use his money to enhance the political position of a party/candidate then you are skewing and altering the playing field. You're basically making your single vote count more than the vote of the poor homeless man down the street, or whatever. Even if it's not directly playing out that way, you have to admit that that money will be used by the candidate/party to promote their cause.

But really, the problem is you're conflating democracy with freedom. You think because you have democracy that you are free? Or that freedom means you have a democracy? Both debatable. Especially now that we're seeing how skewed the political system is when money is involved.

I'm no fan of democracy, but it's easy to see what all these things mean when you take them to their logical conclusions. Take away all the fluff, and "freedom" talk you have there, and all you're left with is a system that's heavily influenced by money. Good luck. To all of us.

Wait, you actually think the "system works"? It doesn't... And when it does, it's just to appease you into thinking that "look, see, it works, we told you so".

Can you clarify a little more about how you think campaign contributions are an essential part of democracy? Because to me, every which way I look at it, campaign contributions just expose the possibility of a party/candidate getting benefit due to the fact that their supporters have more money. How is that democracy?

I fail to see how someone can think that giving politicians money is a good thing. Shouldn't it just be about votes? Isn't that the point of democracy? How can you justify giving money in any way? Do you think your vote is not enough that you have to give money? Why do you feel the need to give money other than because you want your vote to count more than what it does by itself? Can't you see that that leads to you thinking that your "vote" should count more inherently by virtue of you giving more money?

Just sit back, look at it rationally and wonder about these things you take for granted. Please.

Here we go: citation 1

Or another one: citation 2

Since you insist on quibbling over irrelevant details, instead of actually discussing the topic, I have no interest in talking to you.

Except for the fact that the postal service pays no taxes, get's 100 million per year in funding, and has a government-enforced monopoly over mail delivery? Either way, both you and the AC are quibbling with me over trivial details. You can't deny that the USPS's market position isn't heavily helped by the government, and that's the important bit.

Personally, I couldn't care less about the details of your country's postal service, nor your silly ad hominem. The fact is that it DOES get subsidized by government, and that reduces the cost. It may not be as much as you think makes it qualify as "directly received taxpayer-dollars", but it still does. And yes, my link has the actual numbers. And as long as it's given a government-sanctioned monopoly and funding, then you can not possibly compare it to private institutions.

usgovinfo.about.com

Nice try, though, statist. Oh, and did I mention that the USPS is exempt from paying taxes? Wow, was going to leave it there, but I just had to copy-paste this text from the link:
All of which are typical functions and powers of a private business. However, unlike other private businesses, the Postal Service is exempt from paying federal taxes. USPS can borrow money at discounted rates, and can condemn and acquire private property under governmental rights of eminent domain.

Do you honestly believe that healthy, educated people are going to be good thing for the government as it currently is? No, they aren't, and that's why they'll fight you every step of the way. Good luck.

You do realize that that cost is heavily subsidized by the government? And that subsidy comes from your taxes. You're paying for it either way, you just don't see it. Not only that, but if you're not sending letters, you're subsidizing it for the others that are. Oh, the joy of socialist themes.

In case you haven't noticed, but that's how conversations go. One topic leads to the next. My first paragraph was sufficient to address 1/2 of your post, but don't let that stop you from doing your thing and implying I'm somehow incapable of understanding your point because 1/3 of my post wasn't specifically aimed at the point you arbitrarily chose to be the "point you made". 1/2 of your post was also about overall democracy and majority rules. Seriously, now that I re-read both our posts, it seems that you're positively correct. About half of your post was about the definition of democracy/republic. the rest is most certainly applicable to what I responded.