Is democracy a virtue?

[Votto]

This question should be asked. Is democracy a virtue? From today's culture you would think it to be the case. The more democracy the better is what you hear everyday in the media and academia and our leaders, yet it always goes uncorrected. In fact, pretty much all Americans refer to themselves as a democracy, but in reality, they are a Republic. And when they refer to American as a democracy, no one ever corrects them. The Founding Fathers were very wary of democracy, which is why they created a Republic instead.

American leaders have even bragged about bringing democracy to the Middle East in places like Iraq and Palestine, as if just brining democracy to these places will make it better because democracy is a virtue that makes us somehow more righteous as a society.

Who here agrees?

Ancient Athens is credited with brining democracy to the world, but what did those in Athens think of it?

Here is what Socrates said of democracy.

 

[skye]

No idea if Democracy is a virtue or all the contrary, the rule of the Mob.


The good news is



America is A REPUBLIC! ...........................not a Democracy

 

[Oddball]

U. S. Army Training Manual No. 2000-25, published by the US War Department, Washington, D.C., November 30, 1928...


CITIZENSHIP Democracy:

A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

CITIZENSHIP Republic:

Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.

 

[Votto]

No idea if Democracy is a virtue or all the contrary, the rule of the Mob.


The good news is



America is A REPUBLIC! ...........................not a Democracy

Which is why the Left goes bat sh$t crazy when the word "mob" is used to describe them

It hits too close to home



They would like nothing better than to do away with such things as the Electoral College, which would turn over all elections to be decided by 2 states, New York and California while the rest of the country would be held hostage, simply because they have higher populations.

 

[skye]

Democracy = Democratic Party >> rule of the mob

No idea if Democracy is a virtue or all the contrary, the rule of the Mob.


The good news is



America is A REPUBLIC! ...........................not a Democracy

Which is why the Left goes bat sh$t crazy when the word "mob" is used to describe them

It hits too close to home



They would like nothing better than to do away with such things as the Electoral College, which would turn over all elections to be decided by 2 states, New York and California while the rest of the country would be held hostage, simply because they have higher populations.

Absolutely!

It touches a nerve.

 

[Votto]

Here is an interesting academic critique on the ancient democracy of Greece.

They speculate that Greece was destroyed via direct democracy.

The Athenians: Another warning from history?

Most in academia, however, tend to glorify the democratic government of ancient Greece, as something we should all strive to attain while blaming the demise on the war with ancient Sparta. But as the article states, their demise continued well after the war after the government recovered, and it was all due to democracy.

In fact, the article left out that one of the reasons Athens picked a war with ancient Sparta in the first place was to spread their "superior" form of government of democracy to Sparta, something we all hear much about today in relation to making war in the Middle East. And like ancient Greece, it has helped bankrupt the West.

I reckon history really does repeat itself.

 

[Montrovant]

It depends on how you are defining the words. The US can be considered both a democracy and a republic, but not if you define democracy as direct democracy. If you accept different versions of democracy, such as representative democracy, however, the US fits that definition.

For example, this definition of democracy certainly applies to the US:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

the definition of democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY

 

[Votto]

It depends on how you are defining the words. The US can be considered both a democracy and a republic, but not if you define democracy as direct democracy. If you accept different versions of democracy, such as representative democracy, however, the US fits that definition.

For example, this definition of democracy certainly applies to the US:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

the definition of democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY

My main beef is the lack of respect Progressives have for the Founding Fathers disdain for direct democracy.

That is why Progressives changed the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century so that Senators would be elected directly by the people instead of appointed by state legislators. It simply reduced the power and influence of individual states that turned the duty over to an even less informed populace. In fact, one man during the Constitutional Convention suggested that the Senators be directly elected by the people, but not one other person agreed with him. The decision NOT to have Senators directly elected by the people was not even controversial during that time.

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators


And looking at how Congress is set up, it should drive home this point. Those in the House who are directly elected by the people only serve 2 years, as where those in the Senate served 6 years. Also, there are only 2 Senators, giving their votes much more power than a single Congressional vote in the House. And the Senate had special powers like approving those going to the Supreme Court, etc.

Clearly the Founding Fathers gave appointed Senators more sway than elected Congressmen in the House because they feared direct democracy more

To this day, Progressive still don't get it, and want to further moving towards direct democracy, like doing away with the Electoral College.

 

[Montrovant]

It depends on how you are defining the words. The US can be considered both a democracy and a republic, but not if you define democracy as direct democracy. If you accept different versions of democracy, such as representative democracy, however, the US fits that definition.

For example, this definition of democracy certainly applies to the US:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

the definition of democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY

My main beef is the lack of respect Progressives have for the Founding Fathers disdain for direct democracy.

That is why Progressives changed the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century so that Senators would be elected directly by the people instead of appointed by state legislators. It simply reduced the power and influence of individual states that turned the duty over to an even less informed populace. In fact, one man during the Constitutional Convention suggested that the Senators be directly elected by the people, but not one other person agreed with him. The decision NOT to have Senators directly elected by the people was not even controversial during that time.

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators


And looking at how Congress is set up, it should drive home this point. Those in the House who are directly elected by the people only serve 2 years, as where those in the Senate served 6 years. Also, there are only 2 Senators, giving their votes much more power than a single Congressional vote in the House. And the Senate had special powers like approving those going to the Supreme Court, etc.

Clearly the Founding Fathers gave appointed Senators more sway than elected Congressmen in the House because they feared direct democracy more

To this day, Progressive still don't get it, and want to further moving towards direct democracy, like doing away with the Electoral College.

Senators are still representatives, meaning that if they are elected directly instead of appointed by legislators, there is still not a direct democracy. Direct democracy skips the representatives and has the people vote directly on issues.

 

[Votto]

It depends on how you are defining the words. The US can be considered both a democracy and a republic, but not if you define democracy as direct democracy. If you accept different versions of democracy, such as representative democracy, however, the US fits that definition.

For example, this definition of democracy certainly applies to the US:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

the definition of democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY

My main beef is the lack of respect Progressives have for the Founding Fathers disdain for direct democracy.

That is why Progressives changed the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century so that Senators would be elected directly by the people instead of appointed by state legislators. It simply reduced the power and influence of individual states that turned the duty over to an even less informed populace. In fact, one man during the Constitutional Convention suggested that the Senators be directly elected by the people, but not one other person agreed with him. The decision NOT to have Senators directly elected by the people was not even controversial during that time.

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators


And looking at how Congress is set up, it should drive home this point. Those in the House who are directly elected by the people only serve 2 years, as where those in the Senate served 6 years. Also, there are only 2 Senators, giving their votes much more power than a single Congressional vote in the House. And the Senate had special powers like approving those going to the Supreme Court, etc.

Clearly the Founding Fathers gave appointed Senators more sway than elected Congressmen in the House because they feared direct democracy more

To this day, Progressive still don't get it, and want to further moving towards direct democracy, like doing away with the Electoral College.

Senators are still representatives, meaning that if they are elected directly instead of appointed by legislators, there is still not a direct democracy. Direct democracy skips the representatives and has the people vote directly on issues.

True, but it is moving towards direct democracy and the Founding Fathers overwhelmingly made sure that they were not elected directly by the people.

Their wisdom is dismissed as was the wisdom of Socrates.

 

[Montrovant]

It depends on how you are defining the words. The US can be considered both a democracy and a republic, but not if you define democracy as direct democracy. If you accept different versions of democracy, such as representative democracy, however, the US fits that definition.

For example, this definition of democracy certainly applies to the US:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

the definition of democracy
Definition of DEMOCRACY

My main beef is the lack of respect Progressives have for the Founding Fathers disdain for direct democracy.

That is why Progressives changed the Constitution at the turn of the 20th century so that Senators would be elected directly by the people instead of appointed by state legislators. It simply reduced the power and influence of individual states that turned the duty over to an even less informed populace. In fact, one man during the Constitutional Convention suggested that the Senators be directly elected by the people, but not one other person agreed with him. The decision NOT to have Senators directly elected by the people was not even controversial during that time.

Repeal The 17th Amendment And End Direct Election Of Senators


And looking at how Congress is set up, it should drive home this point. Those in the House who are directly elected by the people only serve 2 years, as where those in the Senate served 6 years. Also, there are only 2 Senators, giving their votes much more power than a single Congressional vote in the House. And the Senate had special powers like approving those going to the Supreme Court, etc.

Clearly the Founding Fathers gave appointed Senators more sway than elected Congressmen in the House because they feared direct democracy more

To this day, Progressive still don't get it, and want to further moving towards direct democracy, like doing away with the Electoral College.

Senators are still representatives, meaning that if they are elected directly instead of appointed by legislators, there is still not a direct democracy. Direct democracy skips the representatives and has the people vote directly on issues.

True, but it is moving towards direct democracy and the Founding Fathers overwhelmingly made sure that they were not elected directly by the people.

Their wisdom is dismissed as was the wisdom of Socrates.

I understand the idea behind appointed rather than elected senators. It's not an issue I'm especially concerned about, however. Unlike so many other changes over the years, this one actually went through the process of a constitutional amendment. The founders didn't just set up a system of government, they set one up with a mechanism for that system to change, and that's what happened.

Besides, I would think the issue here would be less a move toward direct democracy and more a loss of power by the states.

 

[Edgetho]

I think Socrates was a figment of Plato's imagination.

If you take a look at Plato's 'Republic' you'll see what I mean.

And, IMHO, Plato was as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.

It is worth noting that Greece fell to Macedonia during this time

 

[Flash]

Democracy sucks when it becomes the Rule of the Mob.

Democracy can take away liberty the same as any other form of government. It can also be use for state sponsored thievery like we see with socialism.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

anarchy is better than democracy.

With anarchy, everyone has their own property and keeps the property that they can defend.

With democracy, the bastardized, ambiguous, loose, non-specific entity known as "the People," owns everything, which means individuals own nothing.

 

[BluesLegend]

I won't debate the word "democracy", there's right and there's wrong its that simple. The left mob's recent attempt to bring back the Salem witch trials and burn SC nominees at the stake for example, WRONG!

 

[Flash]

anarchy is better than democracy.

With anarchy, everyone has their own property and keeps the property that they can defend.

With democracy, the bastardized, ambiguous, loose, non-specific entity known as "the People," owns everything, which means individuals own nothing.

There is a role for limited government. There are a few things that is best done collectively.

Things like defense, courts, police etc. However,it is a small fraction of what Liberals think government should do.