Democracy, the big lie

[Votto]

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

It is no different for an individualist system like capitalism. It is competition for resources. The goal is to gain a leg up on the competition, your fellow man.

Which is why I am not a proponent of a competitive system such as capitalism. It leaves death and destruction in its wake.

Human beings are competitive and always will be, hence the never ending popularity of sports and goals of getting ahead economically. We all participate, like it or not.

The question then becomes, do we want to use government in much the same way or should government be there to try and play referee so that there remains a higher authority that can distribute justice where it belongs, or will we have the government play the role of referee as well as athletic competitor?

 

[Tehon]

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

It is no different for an individualist system like capitalism. It is competition for resources. The goal is to gain a leg up on the competition, your fellow man.

Which is why I am not a proponent of a competitive system such as capitalism. It leaves death and destruction in its wake.

Human beings are competitive and always will be, hence the never ending popularity of sports and goals of getting ahead economically. We all participate, like it or not.

The question then becomes, do we want to use government in much the same way or should government be there to try and play referee so that there remains a higher authority that can distribute justice where it belongs, or will we have the government play the role of referee as well as athletic competitor?

As long as we continue to produce and distribute the means of our existence in a manner that promotes and rewards self interest you're not likely to have a choice.

 

[task0778]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

 

[Votto]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

Spreading democracy was not why the US involved itself in the Middle East and continues to do so. Spreading democracy was a justification. It is propaganda and probably most believe it. You even seem to believe that democracy is better. As I have said, there is some element of truth in this. People should have a voice and that voice should be heard. The problem becomes when that voice is either ignored or when the majority is the only voice we hear or even when that voice is flat out wrong and morally bankrupt.

 

[task0778]

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

It is no different for an individualist system like capitalism. It is competition for resources. The goal is to gain a leg up on the competition, your fellow man.

Which is why I am not a proponent of a competitive system such as capitalism. It leaves death and destruction in its wake.

Human beings are competitive and always will be, hence the never ending popularity of sports and goals of getting ahead economically. We all participate, like it or not.

The question then becomes, do we want to use government in much the same way or should government be there to try and play referee so that there remains a higher authority that can distribute justice where it belongs, or will we have the government play the role of referee as well as athletic competitor?

I don't think gov't should be a participant, just a referee. BUT - gov't does have a role in trying to level the playing field in terms of justice and opportunity. NOT outcomes. Protections need to exist to ensure employees, consumers, and competitors are all treated fairly and impartially. Gov't exists to safeguard our rights, freedoms, and liberties; I really don't think any other form of gov't does it better than a republican democracy.

 

[task0778]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

Spreading democracy was not why the US involved itself in the Middle East and continues to do so. Spreading democracy was a justification. It is propaganda and probably most believe it. You even seem to believe that democracy is better. As I have said, there is some element of truth in this. People should have a voice and that voice should be heard. The problem becomes when that voice is either ignored or when the majority is the only voice we hear or even when that voice is flat out wrong and morally bankrupt.

That is not the fault of the form of gov't, it is instead a problem that the society it governs does not act to correct. I'll ask again, do you know of any other form of gov't that does it better?

 

[Votto]

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

It is no different for an individualist system like capitalism. It is competition for resources. The goal is to gain a leg up on the competition, your fellow man.

Which is why I am not a proponent of a competitive system such as capitalism. It leaves death and destruction in its wake.

Human beings are competitive and always will be, hence the never ending popularity of sports and goals of getting ahead economically. We all participate, like it or not.

The question then becomes, do we want to use government in much the same way or should government be there to try and play referee so that there remains a higher authority that can distribute justice where it belongs, or will we have the government play the role of referee as well as athletic competitor?

I don't think gov't should be a participant, just a referee. BUT - gov't does have a role in trying to level the playing field in terms of justice and opportunity. NOT outcomes. Protections need to exist to ensure employees, consumers, and competitors are all treated fairly and impartially. Gov't exists to safeguard our rights, freedoms, and liberties; I really don't think any other form of gov't does it better than a republican democracy.

Government always has something to point to that is "good" in the world.

Even Al Capone had soup kitchens for the poor.

It provides an element of legitimacy.

 

[Votto]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

Spreading democracy was not why the US involved itself in the Middle East and continues to do so. Spreading democracy was a justification. It is propaganda and probably most believe it. You even seem to believe that democracy is better. As I have said, there is some element of truth in this. People should have a voice and that voice should be heard. The problem becomes when that voice is either ignored or when the majority is the only voice we hear or even when that voice is flat out wrong and morally bankrupt.

That is not the fault of the form of gov't, it is instead a problem that the society it governs does not act to correct. I'll ask again, do you know of any other form of gov't that does it better?

I would say the issue is not the type of government, rather, it is the collective power within government that is the issue. Collective power reduces freedom of the individual.

And this also relates to society. The more wicked the society the more authoritarian it becomes in order to try and maintain a civil society.

I think the Founding Fathers were right, only a moral society can be free. Those that cannot self regulate themselves needs an all encompassing government to do it for them.

As much as I hate the centralized power of the US government, sometimes I wonder how needed it is based on the moral depravity we see in it every day.

Perhaps we have passed the tipping point of being privileged enough to even have freedom, least people use that freedom to abuse themselves and others. And yes, self governance is a freedom and voting can be apart of that.

That is why I think collectivists wage war on moral issues. They know that the key to their success is the moral depravity of society at large.

The only way to maintain the civility of a bunch of convicts is to build a wall around them and hire a warden.

 

[task0778]

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

Spreading democracy was not why the US involved itself in the Middle East and continues to do so. Spreading democracy was a justification. It is propaganda and probably most believe it. You even seem to believe that democracy is better. As I have said, there is some element of truth in this. People should have a voice and that voice should be heard. The problem becomes when that voice is either ignored or when the majority is the only voice we hear or even when that voice is flat out wrong and morally bankrupt.

That is not the fault of the form of gov't, it is instead a problem that the society it governs does not act to correct. I'll ask again, do you know of any other form of gov't that does it better?

I would say the issue is not the type of government, rather, it is the collective power within government that is the issue. Collective power reduces freedom of the individual.

And this also relates to society. The more wicked the society the more authoritarian it becomes in order to try and maintain a civil society.

I think the Founding Fathers were right, only a moral society can be free. Those that cannot self regulate themselves needs an all encompassing government to do it for them.

As much as I hate the centralized power of the US government, sometimes I wonder how needed it is based on the moral depravity we see in it every day.

Perhaps we have passed the tipping point of being privileged enough to even have freedom, least people use that freedom to abuse themselves and others. And yes, self governance is a freedom and voting can be apart of that.

That is why I think collectivists wage war on moral issues. They know that the key to their success is the moral depravity of society at large.

The only way to maintain the civility of a bunch of convicts is to build a wall around them and hire a warden.

A good bit of the divisiveness in our country is based on the collective power of our gov't , when is it appropriate and at what level of gov't. I'm sure you would admit there are some functions that require the use of that collective power: foreign affairs, national defense, interstate commerce to name a few. Then there are others that are not so cut and dried: health care, housing, education, etc. And therein lies the disagreements, what should the gov't do and how to pay for it. But here's the thing: a democratic republic allows that debate to flow, and decisions are made by our elected representatives or their appointees subject to the approval of the judiciary and the authority of the legislative branch. Sometimes that separation of powers and checks and balances gets out of whack when one part of the gov't doesn't do it's job properly, but that is not the fault of the form of gov't. Rather it is the fault of those elected reps and also our own fault for not throwing them out of office when they fail to abide by our wishes.

 

[bgrouse]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

The US is not a democracy or a republic. It is an empire run by and for the extreme wealthy.

I guess that's the result of lying politicians lying to the dumbass voters.

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

Exactly!

I guess the point of my thread is, Progressives are the ones who are engaged in the lie of democracy being the basis for government in the US, and the key to solving injustice around the world.

You mean like how they invaded Germany and banned the Nazi party and invaded Iraq and banned the Ba'ath party?

 

[BlackSand]

As long as we continue to produce and distribute the means of our existence in a manner that promotes and rewards self interest you're not likely to have a choice.

Having a choice ... Is competitive and a core principle of self-interest ...

.

 

[Tehon]

As long as we continue to produce and distribute the means of our existence in a manner that promotes and rewards self interest you're not likely to have a choice.

Having a choice ... Is competitive and a core principle of self-interest ... Dumbass ...

.

For those with the means. For everyone else...........not so much.

 

[Votto]

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?

I am not sure anyone can claim that the US went to war in the ME just to start a democracy there, there were other reasons. Unsubstantiated reasons as it turned out.

Do you deny that some form of democratic gov't is better than any other? If so, what would be a better alternative? You do realize that corrupt people will pretty much lead to very bad governance no matter what the form of gov't is, at least in a real democratic system the people can vote out the bad guys. Or at least have that opportunity. Do you think that a theocracy like what Iran has is better than what we have? What about a monarchy like what the Saudis have, better than our gov't? How about a dictatorship like in Syria or Turkey?

"However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?" In that case you get the gov't you deserve. Won't matter what form it takes.

Spreading democracy was not why the US involved itself in the Middle East and continues to do so. Spreading democracy was a justification. It is propaganda and probably most believe it. You even seem to believe that democracy is better. As I have said, there is some element of truth in this. People should have a voice and that voice should be heard. The problem becomes when that voice is either ignored or when the majority is the only voice we hear or even when that voice is flat out wrong and morally bankrupt.

That is not the fault of the form of gov't, it is instead a problem that the society it governs does not act to correct. I'll ask again, do you know of any other form of gov't that does it better?

I would say the issue is not the type of government, rather, it is the collective power within government that is the issue. Collective power reduces freedom of the individual.

And this also relates to society. The more wicked the society the more authoritarian it becomes in order to try and maintain a civil society.

I think the Founding Fathers were right, only a moral society can be free. Those that cannot self regulate themselves needs an all encompassing government to do it for them.

As much as I hate the centralized power of the US government, sometimes I wonder how needed it is based on the moral depravity we see in it every day.

Perhaps we have passed the tipping point of being privileged enough to even have freedom, least people use that freedom to abuse themselves and others. And yes, self governance is a freedom and voting can be apart of that.

That is why I think collectivists wage war on moral issues. They know that the key to their success is the moral depravity of society at large.

The only way to maintain the civility of a bunch of convicts is to build a wall around them and hire a warden.

A good bit of the divisiveness in our country is based on the collective power of our gov't , when is it appropriate and at what level of gov't. I'm sure you would admit there are some functions that require the use of that collective power: foreign affairs, national defense, interstate commerce to name a few. Then there are others that are not so cut and dried: health care, housing, education, etc. And therein lies the disagreements, what should the gov't do and how to pay for it. But here's the thing: a democratic republic allows that debate to flow, and decisions are made by our elected representatives or their appointees subject to the approval of the judiciary and the authority of the legislative branch. Sometimes that separation of powers and checks and balances gets out of whack when one part of the gov't doesn't do it's job properly, but that is not the fault of the form of gov't. Rather it is the fault of those elected reps and also our own fault for not throwing them out of office when they fail to abide by our wishes.

A great deal of the divisiveness in the country is based upon the collective power of the Federal government. That is an absolute truth we can agree upon.

Before the Constitution was ratified, the US had the Articles of Confederation, but it did not give the Federal government enough power. As George Washington aptly said, the problem was "no money". So the Constitution was ratified and a balance had been achieved.

But Progressives were not happy because they wanted an even more powerful federal government. Then Progressive came along and failed to institute a Federal income tax because SCOTUS struck it down at the turn of the 20th century as unconstitutional, so they just added to the Constitution. Then they created their own back and poof! You had instant power.

Now the Federal government is too powerful. They now throw money at every man, woman, and child on the globe. They even give money to their adversaries abroad so as to give them some degree of influence in the world. This is the reason for the $20 trillion plus debt.

Additionally, the Feds took over pretty much every aspect of our lives. Now the President decides everything from what doctor we see to how our kindergartener will be educated. This means that the Federal government now dictates to both liberal and conservatives states. As a result, every election cycle you hear grumblings about seceding or dividing up a state. IF states rose up and reclaimed their rightful power then both conservatives and liberals could self govern as they wish, but as it stands now every election cycle half the country wants to leave the union.

 

[BlackSand]

For those with the means. For everyone else...........not so much.

Government, community and society can only limit choices ... And rob freedom to do so.

.

 

[Tehon]

For those with the means. For everyone else...........not so much.

Government, community and society can only limit choices ... And rob freedom to do so.

.

In our society anyone with the money and the inclination can limit your choices.

 

[deanrd]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

To Republicans, it is a big lie. They are 90% white for a reason.

 

[BlackSand]

In our society anyone with the money and the inclination can limit your choices.

That's what I posted ... Limiting choices is a function of society ... Any society, government or community.
If you have a problem with the limits based on the money one has ... Then limiting the money one could have would not be the answer.

Availability is not best served by restriction ...

.

 

[Tehon]

In our society anyone with the money and the inclination can limit your choices.

That's what I posted ... Limiting choices is a function of society ... Any society, government or community.
If you have a problem with the limits based on the money one has ... Then limiting the money one could have would not be the answer.

Availability is not best served by restriction ...

.

We are free by nature. We form government to protect our freedom by those who would suppress it, but in doing so give up some of our freedom. Our freedom remains constantly under attack. Not by government directly but by those who would subvert government for their own purpose. Their purpose being their self interest. The politicians likewise are acting in their self interest.

It is absolutely correct to want to suppress someones ability to subvert the government for their own purposes. Giving more people the ability to do so only compounds the problem. I think this is what we are seeing today. There are so many competing interests that it is difficult in America to make sense of it all. We can't agree on anything.

My inclination is not to restrict people. It is to free them from the system of competition that sets them against one another. The reason our government has been subverted is that people who have "won" are acting in their self interest to try and stay on top. Well what if there is no top, only cooperation in achieving goals for all. Then we are all free and government can naturally dissolve.

 

[BlackSand]

We are free by nature. We form government to protect our freedom by those who would suppress it, but in doing so give up some of our freedom. Our freedom remains constantly under attack. Not by government directly but by those who would subvert government for their own purpose. Their purpose being their self interest. The politicians likewise are acting in their self interest.

It is absolutely correct to want to suppress someones ability to subvert the government for their own purposes. Giving more people the ability to do so only compounds the problem. I think this is what we are seeing today. There are so many competing interests that it is difficult in America to make sense of it all. We can't agree on anything.

My inclination is not to restrict people. It is to free them from the system of competition that sets them against one another. The reason our government has been subverted is that people who have "won" are acting in their self interest to try and stay on top. Well what if there is no top, only cooperation in achieving goals for all. Then we are all free and government can naturally dissolve.

Protection (security) is self-interest ...
Government is only a tool of control ... And control is a measure of power.

Like the old saying ... "Power Corrupts" ... Is a crock of shit.
It isn't power that corrupts the person ... Power only allows a person's corruption to influence more people.
It is a person's absence of virtue that corrupts them ... And government, society or community facilitates a person's absence of virtue to corrupt the outcome for others.

.

 

[Votto]

We are free by nature. We form government to protect our freedom by those who would suppress it, but in doing so give up some of our freedom. Our freedom remains constantly under attack. Not by government directly but by those who would subvert government for their own purpose. Their purpose being their self interest. The politicians likewise are acting in their self interest.

It is absolutely correct to want to suppress someones ability to subvert the government for their own purposes. Giving more people the ability to do so only compounds the problem. I think this is what we are seeing today. There are so many competing interests that it is difficult in America to make sense of it all. We can't agree on anything.

My inclination is not to restrict people. It is to free them from the system of competition that sets them against one another. The reason our government has been subverted is that people who have "won" are acting in their self interest to try and stay on top. Well what if there is no top, only cooperation in achieving goals for all. Then we are all free and government can naturally dissolve.

Protection (security) is self-interest ...
Government is only a tool of control ... And control is a measure of power.

Like the old saying ... "Power Corrupts" ... Is a crock of shit.
It isn't power that corrupts the person ... Power only allows a person's corruption to influence more people.
It is a person's absence of virtue that corrupts them ... And government, society or community facilitates a person's absence of virtue to corrupt the outcome for others.

.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
James Madison, The Federalist Papers, 1788

It sure beats Marx quotes such as, "Me take money from rich man. Me happy"