Democracy and Freedom

[paulitician]

Like it or not,our Republic has been incredibly successful. We've been the envy of the World for many many years. Not bad for a small rag-tag group of enslaved revolutionaries huh?

 

[The T]

We have a Government that exhibits Democratic principles but our form of Government is a Republic. We are not a direct-Democracy.

That means we have a democratic republic -- or at least, we are supposed to. And a democratic republic, although indeed it is not a DIRECT democracy, is a form of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy.

There are only two reasons why the Founders avoided direct democracy. One, it was impossible to implement with the technology of that time. And two, it would have been a threat to the privileges of the rich and powerful. But the latter was also true of representative democracy, which they also avoided.

Direct democracy on a large scale is not possible without the Internet. Obtaining the consent of the governed is limited to the speed at which discussion, debate, and decision-making can take place, and at the turn of the 19th century required face-to-face discussion. That meant democracy was only possible by proxy, through representatives, who could all gather in the same big room and discuss matters, which the people as a whole could not. Nowadays, this technical obstacle has been overcome, but there is no blame to the Founders for not implementing what would not have worked anyway.

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

They didn't avoid creating a direct-Democracy for the reasons you stated. Now I have a feeling you're just intentionally misinterpreting their stated reasons. No Founding Father stated the reasons you attributed to them. Like i said,do some more research on the subject.

DragQueen needs a lesson of the Federalist/Anti-Federalists...Apparently he has never taken the time to read them.

 

[Dragon]

They didn't avoid creating a direct-Democracy for the reasons you stated. Now I have a feeling you're just intentionally misinterpreting their stated reasons. No Founding Father stated the reasons you attributed to them. Like i said,do some more research on the subject.

"Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have?" - John Adams

"The rich, the well-born, and the able, acquire and influence among the people that will soon be too much for simple honesty and plain sense, in a house of representatives. The most illustrious of them must, therefore, be separated from the mass, and placed by themselves in a senate; this is, to all honest and useful intents, an ostracism." - John Adams

"Give all the power to the many, they will oppress the few. Give all the power to the few, they will oppress the many." -- Alexander Hamilton

"All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are the rich and well born; the other the mass of the people. The voice of the people has been said to be the voice of God; and however generally this maxim has been quoted and believed, it is not true in fact. The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct, permanent share in government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second" - Alexander Hamilton

Those are just two of the Founders. Do you require more?

As to the other reason to reject direct democracy (that it was unworkable and impossible), well, it was. They could not have implemented it; the technology didn't exist. But the real question is why they distrusted representative democracy. The above may shed some light on that question.

 

[bripat9643]

There is an abundance of alternatives. For instance, there are monarchies without aristocracies and there is the private law society.

Actually I don't think you can point to a historical monarchy without an aristocracy, but yes, if one does not want a republic, there are alternatives. A monarchy is not a republic at all, neither democratic nor aristocratic. And I know you have already said you're a monarchist.

Until 1865 no one could point to a democracy that didn't also include slavery. Yet, somehow it exists today. And isn't it interesting that many monarchies abolished slavery before the world's only democracy did, and they did it without a brutal war that killed 700,000 people. so much for the moral superiority of democracy.

Furthermore, I'm not a monarchist. I've merely said that monarchy is superior to democracy, and the historical record bares this out. Monarchies have lower rates of taxation, better economic growth and greater personal freedoms. What I endorse is called the "private law society." You might call it anarcho-capitalism.

However, for those who do want a republic, the alternatives are a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. Those republicans (small "r") who say they don't want a democracy therefore want an aristocracy, and vice-versa.

A democratic republic is a contradiction in the process of imploding. Democracies never last long after universal suffrage is granted. When all the imbeciles can vote the result can only be destruction.

Yes, they did want an aristocracy, but they wanted an aristocracy of merit, not one of birth.

What they wanted was an aristocracy of WEALTH, neither merit nor birth. And yet to an extent, at least among the southern planters, an aristocracy or birth did result.

ROFL! There's the classic Marxist class warfare propaganda showing its cloven hoof. The unstated premise behind your proposition is that wealth always implies legal privilege and not merit. Or that there is no practical distinction between the two. The Founding Fathers abolished legal aristocracy. So your claim is absurd. For a society to classify as non-aristocratic, according to your understanding reality, it couldn't have any wealthy people. You have simply defined wealth as a privilege and something evil to be abolished. That's great for Marxist propaganda, but not useful for any honest debate on the ideal social arrangement.

But let's see what others say. As noted above, you're a monarchist anyway so you don't want any kind of republic. But most posters here, especially the conservative ones, keep saying "republic not a democracy" as if there was a conflict between the two.

If you want a republic, then you want either a democracy or an aristocracy. And so I ask again of those who do want a republic: which kind do you prefer?

It really doesn't matter what the others say because what we have now effectively is unlimited democracy. The Constitution became a work of fiction around the turn of the Century. It was already in tatters after the Civil War. Our current government bares no resemblance to what the Founders intended.

 

[Dragon]

Furthermore, I'm not a monarchist. What I endorse is called the "private law society." You might call it anarcho-capitalism.

I stand corrected. You are an anarchist, not a monarchist. Anarchy is also not a republic. However, most people on this thread other than you and I are believers in a republic, and for them the choice comes down to democracy or aristocracy, within a republican framework.

the unstated premise behind your proposition is that wealth always implies legal privilege and not merit.

It always implies legal privilege, and it does not imply merit in any sense that applies in a civic context. It often does imply "merit" in the self-referencing, tautological form that states those who are wealthy have shown their ability to obtain wealth.

The point however is that what the Founders created was not a meritocracy but a plutocracy. If they sometimes had a problem distinguishing the two, that doesn't make them the same thing.

The Founding Fathers abolished legal aristocracy.

No, they abolished titles of nobility, while establishing a legal framework for aristocracy in a different form.

It really doesn't matter what the others say because what we have now effectively is unlimited democracy.

We most certainly do not. We have a government in which the rich and corporations call all the shots, and the pretense of democracy is no more than that.

 

[The T]

There is an abundance of alternatives. For instance, there are monarchies without aristocracies and there is the private law society.

Actually I don't think you can point to a historical monarchy without an aristocracy, but yes, if one does not want a republic, there are alternatives. A monarchy is not a republic at all, neither democratic nor aristocratic. And I know you have already said you're a monarchist.

Until 1865 no one could point to a democracy that didn't also include slavery. Yet, somehow it exists today. And isn't it interesting that many monarchies abolished slavery before the world's only democracy did, and they did it without a brutal war that killed 700,000 people. so much for the moral superiority of democracy.

Furthermore, I'm not a monarchist. I've merely said that monarchy is superior to democracy, and the historical record bares this out. Monarchies have lower rates of taxation, better economic growth and greater personal freedoms. What I endorse is called the "private law society." You might call it anarcho-capitalism.

However, for those who do want a republic, the alternatives are a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. Those republicans (small "r") who say they don't want a democracy therefore want an aristocracy, and vice-versa.

A democratic republic is a contradiction in the process of imploding. Democracies never last long after universal suffrage is granted. When all the imbeciles can vote the result can only be destruction.



What they wanted was an aristocracy of WEALTH, neither merit nor birth. And yet to an extent, at least among the southern planters, an aristocracy or birth did result.

ROFL! There's the classic Marxist class warfare propaganda showing its cloven hoof. The unstated premise behind your proposition is that wealth always implies legal privilege and not merit. Or that there is no practical distinction between the two. The Founding Fathers abolished legal aristocracy. So your claim is absurd. For a society to classify as non-aristocratic, according to your understanding reality, it couldn't have any wealthy people. You have simply defined wealth as a privilege and something evil to be abolished. That's great for Marxist propaganda, but not useful for any honest debate on the ideal social arrangement.

But let's see what others say. As noted above, you're a monarchist anyway so you don't want any kind of republic. But most posters here, especially the conservative ones, keep saying "republic not a democracy" as if there was a conflict between the two.

If you want a republic, then you want either a democracy or an aristocracy. And so I ask again of those who do want a republic: which kind do you prefer?

It really doesn't matter what the others say because what we have now effectively is unlimited democracy. The Constitution became a work of fiction around the turn of the Century. It was already in tatters after the Civil War. Our current government bares no resemblance to what the Founders intended.

unable to REP again...

 

[dblack]

This pissing match over "republic vs. democracy" seems pretty pointless. Mostly it's hinged on the fact that most of you are equivocating on the term. Pretty much all of the founders argumentation was against a pure democracy. in contrast with a representative one - in the form of a republic. But the representative elements of our government is, most definitely democratic - both in the way we assign power and in the way our representatives make decisions.

So, lets be clear. Our nation is most definitely a democratic, representational republic - there's no conflict between the terms in that description. AND it's most definitely NOT a pure democracy, nor was it intended to be.

I guess the conservatives here are simply not willing to give up their precious slogan ("We are a republic, not a democracy"). But any rational assessment shnws that it is, at best, an over-simplification. At worst it's plain misleading.

 

[paulitician]

Our Republic is a system of Government others have been trying to duplicate all around the World for many many years. So i would say it has worked out very well. Go with what works.

 

[Full-Auto]

Our Republic is a system of Government others have been trying to duplicate all around the World for many many years. So i would say it has worked out very well. Go with what works.

Our system is an experiment. A bit early to judge. You have to close of view.

 

[georgephillip]

We are a Republic. I don't think most Americans understand that. It's not a perfect form of Government but it's as good as we're gonna get on this Earth. It has been an incredibly successful form of Government.

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

Well then i guess the rest of the Planet better get onboard and become Republics themselves. Because it is an incredibly successful form of Government. That's just fact. Go with what works. And it definitely works.

At the conclusion of WWII the US had about 6% of the planet's population and over 50% of the planet's wealth. Was the US a Republic or an Empire at that time? Are they mutually exclusive? The genocide of North American Indians is a fact; do you consider it a success?

 

[Dragon]

Our Republic is a system of Government others have been trying to duplicate all around the World for many many years.

No, they haven't. The following features are common to other advanced democracies that make them work better at translating the people's will into government policies than our system, by far:

1) Proportional representation -- instead of our winner-take-all system of electing Representatives, most advanced nations have some sort of proportional representation. If we had a similar system, and in California (let's say), the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 40%, and the Libertarians and Greens 5% each, that would send 27 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and either 3 Greens and 2 Libertarians or 2 Greens and 3 Libertarians, to Congress. Ours would send right around 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans with no Libs or Greenies at all.

2) Public financing of campaigns -- while they aren't completely immune to corporate influence, most other advanced nations greatly reduce this problem.

3) Shorter campaign seasons -- their campaigns are a lot shorter than ours and a lot less expensive, too.

We're an old, outdated model. Improvements have been discovered and implemented abroad.

 

[Chris]

Our Republic is a system of Government others have been trying to duplicate all around the World for many many years.

No, they haven't. The following features are common to other advanced democracies that make them work better at translating the people's will into government policies than our system, by far:

1) Proportional representation -- instead of our winner-take-all system of electing Representatives, most advanced nations have some sort of proportional representation. If we had a similar system, and in California (let's say), the Democrats received 50% of the vote, the Republicans 40%, and the Libertarians and Greens 5% each, that would send 27 Democrats, 21 Republicans, and either 3 Greens and 2 Libertarians or 2 Greens and 3 Libertarians, to Congress. Ours would send right around 30 Democrats and 23 Republicans with no Libs or Greenies at all.

2) Public financing of campaigns -- while they aren't completely immune to corporate influence, most other advanced nations greatly reduce this problem.

3) Shorter campaign seasons -- their campaigns are a lot shorter than ours and a lot less expensive, too.

We're an old, outdated model. Improvements have been discovered and implemented abroad.

There are other countries that do things better than we do.

We could learn from them.

 

[Contumacious]

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

The rich deserves to have its wealth confiscated by political majorities because ..........>

.

The rich deserve to be the only voices listened to by government because . . . .

Answer that question and you will have the answer to yours.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

Where the fucketh did the Founding Fathers state that only the rich have rights?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

 

[dblack]

I think the most interesting topic raised in this thread so far is the desired relationship between economic power and political power. It seems to be at the source of so many of our disputes - from OWS to the Tea Party - and at the heart of what most of us would consider 'corruption'. Clearly the ambiguity of our current system regarding this issue isn't helping us.

From what I can tell, the socialist solution to the problem is to make them one in the same. Just as the theocrat would seek to combine religion and the state, socialists want to bring economic power under democratic control. In my opinion, free-market societies have failed by not recognizing the importance of doing the opposite - firmly separating economic and political power. I think getting that separation right will be the next major positive evolution in the development of free society.

 

[georgephillip]

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

Property rights are human rights. What are these "special rights" you refer to?

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

Who are the "victims" of capitalism?

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.
The special rights of creditors over debtors.
If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer.
Google "chattel slavery."

 

[paulitician]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from. Staying in a country you despise makes no sense. So get out and see the World. Who knows,you might just find somewhere better to live. Give it a shot.

 

[Contumacious]

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

Property rights are human rights. What are these "special rights" you refer to?

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

Who are the "victims" of capitalism?

The special rights of those who hold property over those who do not.
The special rights of creditors over debtors.
If your idea of a social contract includes the idea that the legitimacy of all governments result from an agreement of all its citizens to form one, debtors and those without property are all victims of the 55 rich, racist aristocrats who secretly crafted the US Constitution.

The answer to your question about capitalism's victims is too obvious to warrant an answer.
Google "chattel slavery."

Mr. Dumb Ass, Sir:

So , the fact that you sat on your unmotivated fat ass, smoked weed and waited for the taxpayers to fucking feed you has nothing to do with the fact that you are one of "capitalism" victims?


.

 

[dblack]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from. Staying in a country you despise makes no sense. So get out and see the World. Who knows,you might just find somewhere better to live. Give it a shot.

Love it or leave it, eh? No thanks. I plan to stubbornly stick around and fight for what I believe is right.

In all honesty, there may be a point where I'd consider leaving. I did briefly after Bush was re-elected in '04. But if I could ride out the Bush administration, I suppose I'm in for the long haul.

 

[The T]

Most of you on this Board are still here in America no? So it must be working out somewhat well for you. If it was so awful and wrong,you would probably be somewhere else no? Lots of countries out there to choose from. Staying in a country you despise makes no sense. So get out and see the World. Who knows,you might just find somewhere better to live. Give it a shot.

Indeed. Stop trying to fight a losing battle...As you still have your liberty to speak/ You have the liberty to leave and renounce your citizenship.

 

[paulitician]

Beware of the Entitlement mentality. This mentality clouds the brain and causes one to become very irrational. It causes severe confusion in those who have that mentality. It's actually very sad.