I take online courses, and am just beginning an economic theory course, so I'm ready to sit back and have a little enjoyable bit of debate. And then, the "D" word comes into it.
It is tiring to hear the same old arguments operating under the assumption that if you can vote, you can decide how the government behaves. This may be the case if you have a major media outlet, or you are part of a majority, but it is not the same for those people who do not get their votes enacted.
Look at what happened during the Republican primaries. Ron Paul was particularly liked by the disenfranchised, those people who have been marginalized by the majority of people for decades, centuries, even. People who regularly are viewed with suspicion and disgust by police and "law-abiding citizens" alike. People who are vilified by the media, plays the bad guys in movies, and are the targets of raids by military-loaded swat teams. People who were not harming anyone else, except that they were doing (or in possession of) those things the majority look upon with disgust. Drugs. Prostitution. Protesting outside of a licensed area. Building without the city's permission... on their own property. Braiding hair without a hairstyling license.
Who speaks for the hated? Who represents those the law forgot? When did prohibition and regulation replace the keeping of peace? To use a cliché, where's the outrage?