>I think it's fair to characterise democracy as two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner!
Given the nature of the original quote ("Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin), does that imply that the poor need more guns?
The armed insurrection in Northern Ireland did eventually, after 30 years of human rights violations, 3500 dead and 47000 injured, mortar attacks on Downing Street, the near-annihilation of the government in a Brighton hotel, and the assasination of the Queen's cousin, result in improved treatment of and economic opportunities for the Catholic population. This really isn't the best way to handle budgets.
Democracy is about achieving better results without having to kill people.
For what it's worth, Franklin probably never said that. The use of "have for lunch", marks it as too modern, and I can't find any attestation at all prior to a minor variation of the first sentence showing up on Usenet in 1990 (the author didn't present it as a quotation).
It, mainly, fucks two lots of people;
1) Those caught up in the "war". 2) Those who would otherwise have the money spent on them (broadly, the disadvantaged).
Note, those two sets don't make up the majority, and have the least ability to enact change.
I think it's fair to characterise democracy as two foxes and a hen voting on what's for dinner!