Is the US a democracy?

[konradv]

With elections decided by the candidates who "sell out" the people by raising the most money, most elected officials can't represent or act in the best interests of the people. Their political indebtedness to campaign contributors preclude their ever earning their paychecks by acting in the best interests of the people. Congrss has not earned their paychecks in a long long time. They have acted in the best interests oftheir own political carrers, their own political parties and rarely act to keep kids safe anymore. I have to put forth an alternative form of government that can represent the people better than what we have now. Jefferson said, "A little rebellion erery once in awhile is not such a bad thing." The founding Fathers of this country especially the Anti-Federalists wrestled with the question of the sizing znd empowerment level of the Federal government. These fundemental concerns of the Anti-Federalists remain unresolved. They feared that the state and local governments would be left to operate with the "crumbs" that the Federal government left behind. States rights and local government rights are a mute point if there is no way to fund the goals of the people. We are stripping far too much cash to Washington DC and then expecting the Congress to return the money where it needs to go to keep the economy strong. The Congress is not smart enough to micro-manage the entire US economy from Washington DC. The first action needed to restore the economic system to it's full potential is to recognize the limitations of the federal government. We probably can't even micro-mange the economy from the state capitols. We should fire Congress, establish an internet Congress, succeed from the Federal and State IRS systems and task the county government to work on achieving energy independence at least in the rural counties and leave the cash in those counties to achieve the goal. The Tea Party is basically the reincarnation of the Anti-Federalists of the 1780's and need to evolve into the Common Sense political Party.

The Tea Party? What have they done to provide a real solution? The answer is in your first three sentences. SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. It'll cost us less in the long run.

 

[Texanmike]

With elections decided by the candidates who "sell out" the people by raising the most money, most elected officials can't represent or act in the best interests of the people. Their political indebtedness to campaign contributors preclude their ever earning their paychecks by acting in the best interests of the people. Congrss has not earned their paychecks in a long long time. They have acted in the best interests oftheir own political carrers, their own political parties and rarely act to keep kids safe anymore. I have to put forth an alternative form of government that can represent the people better than what we have now. Jefferson said, "A little rebellion erery once in awhile is not such a bad thing." The founding Fathers of this country especially the Anti-Federalists wrestled with the question of the sizing znd empowerment level of the Federal government. These fundemental concerns of the Anti-Federalists remain unresolved. They feared that the state and local governments would be left to operate with the "crumbs" that the Federal government left behind. States rights and local government rights are a mute point if there is no way to fund the goals of the people. We are stripping far too much cash to Washington DC and then expecting the Congress to return the money where it needs to go to keep the economy strong. The Congress is not smart enough to micro-manage the entire US economy from Washington DC. The first action needed to restore the economic system to it's full potential is to recognize the limitations of the federal government. We probably can't even micro-mange the economy from the state capitols. We should fire Congress, establish an internet Congress, succeed from the Federal and State IRS systems and task the county government to work on achieving energy independence at least in the rural counties and leave the cash in those counties to achieve the goal. The Tea Party is basically the reincarnation of the Anti-Federalists of the 1780's and need to evolve into the Common Sense political Party.

The Tea Party? What have they done to provide a real solution? The answer is in your first three sentences. SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. It'll cost us less in the long run.

God no. Do not give the government any more control over the process it uses to increase its power. If you want to run for office, do it on your own damn dime.

Mike

 

[peach174]

TM, why did you take off the last sentence in Jefferson's Letter?

 

[Dragon]

Majority does not Rule here. Rule of Law does.

These two things have no inherent contradiction, either. In a democracy, the people's votes set the law, directly or indirectly -- but it's still a government of laws. All modern governments of ANY kind are that.

The Purpose of Good Government in part, is to Establish, maintain, preserve, and expand on Justice and Liberty. That is not always popular, is it?

Those words are so vague and poorly defined that it both is and is not, depending on what one specifically means by "justice" and "liberty." Ask the average person on the street and you will find widespread approval of both; get specific (especially about the second, where one person's liberty to swing his fist so often runs afoul of another person's nose), and you may find some dispute.

Once again, though, the question of limitations on government to protect people's rights has NOTHING to do with the question of democracy. You can have a democracy in which the government is limited to protect people's rights (and we do). Or you can have a democracy in which that is not done. Or you can have a non-democracy in which either of those is true. While we would surely disagree on the specifics, in general you and I both approve of a government that is restrained in certain ways in order to protect the rights of individuals. But there is no reason why such a government cannot be a democracy.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democracy or Republic which is it?

http://www.devvy.com/pdf/larosa/larosa_democracy_or_republic.pdf

 

[Liability]

a republic is a type of democracy so we are a democracy just the same

Sure.

We are the type of democracy that isn't a democracy.

We are, however, a republic.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

tell us why you believe it is or is not.

It IS a democracy now.
It wasn't in 1800.

 

[Texanmike]

Majority does not Rule here. Rule of Law does.

These two things have no inherent contradiction, either. In a democracy, the people's votes set the law, directly or indirectly -- but it's still a government of laws. All modern governments of ANY kind are that.

The Purpose of Good Government in part, is to Establish, maintain, preserve, and expand on Justice and Liberty. That is not always popular, is it?

Those words are so vague and poorly defined that it both is and is not, depending on what one specifically means by "justice" and "liberty." Ask the average person on the street and you will find widespread approval of both; get specific (especially about the second, where one person's liberty to swing his fist so often runs afoul of another person's nose), and you may find some dispute.

Once again, though, the question of limitations on government to protect people's rights has NOTHING to do with the question of democracy. You can have a democracy in which the government is limited to protect people's rights (and we do). Or you can have a democracy in which that is not done. Or you can have a non-democracy in which either of those is true. While we would surely disagree on the specifics, in general you and I both approve of a government that is restrained in certain ways in order to protect the rights of individuals. But there is no reason why such a government cannot be a democracy.

Your first premise is incorrect. There is an absolute rule of law on which the people are not allowed to vote. There are rights which the people themselves cannot grant to the federal government. The danger is that once you stray too far from the Constitution people begin to gain these abilities. The wonder of the Constitution is not that it creates a government that can survive indefinitely but that it created a government that lasted ten years.

While I understand where you draw your first premise, if you practice that then then you are practicing nothing more than the destruction of the government which you create. A pure democracy will inevitably end up with the abolition of an individual's right to own property. Once an individual loses the right to own property democracy becomes impossible because you no longer vote on what to do but you vote on what to distirbute. While it is focused more on capitalism I would suggest you look up James Allen on the 20th century motor company. His explanation of what happend and why everyone utters that saying will show you what happens when you try to run a pure democracy.

Mike

 

[Truthmatters]

In the encyclopedias of the world a republic is defined as a type of Democracy.

Why do you on the right lie about that?

 

[grunt11b]

Nope, we are a constitutional republic, dumbfuck. If you would have paid attention in school you would know that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This thread is EXACTLY why we need to close the Department of Intentional Misinformation and Liberal Propaganda AKA Department of Education and disband any and all teachers unions

 

[Texanmike]

In the encyclopedias of the world a republic is defined as a type of Democracy.

Why do you on the right lie about that?

God, I hate conversing with you but I will try to ask you a question.

What makes the US a Democracy?

List the criteria for a Democracy and then tell me how the US fits that bill.

Mike

 

[bigrebnc1775]

why are you on the right so desperate to redefine the word Democracy ?

Why are you so desperate to redefine what we are supposed to be?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

At the moment it appears we are a dictatorship run by the one.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In the encyclopedias of the world a republic is defined as a type of Democracy.

Why do you on the right lie about that?

I see nothing mentioning democracy.

re·pub·lic   [ri-puhb-lik] Show IPA
noun
1.
a state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them.
2.
any body of persons viewed as a commonwealth.
3.
a state in which the head of government is not a monarch or other hereditary head of state.
4.
( initial capital letter ) any of the five periods of republican government in France. Compare First Republic, Second Republic, Third Republic, Fourth Republic, Fifth Republic.
5.
( initial capital letter, italics ) a philosophical dialogue (4th century b.c.) by Plato dealing with the composition and structure of the ideal state.

Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

 

[Robert_Stephens]

a republic is a type of democracy so we are a democracy just the same

Sure.

We are the type of democracy that isn't a democracy.

We are, however, a republic.

I'm not sure where they get what we are other than.

The Constitution: Article 4, 4, we are a republic, answering to the governed....

you are correct, we are and were framed as a Constitutional Federal Republic according to our framers.

Robert

 

[konradv]

With elections decided by the candidates who "sell out" the people by raising the most money, most elected officials can't represent or act in the best interests of the people. Their political indebtedness to campaign contributors preclude their ever earning their paychecks by acting in the best interests of the people. Congrss has not earned their paychecks in a long long time. They have acted in the best interests oftheir own political carrers, their own political parties and rarely act to keep kids safe anymore. I have to put forth an alternative form of government that can represent the people better than what we have now. Jefferson said, "A little rebellion erery once in awhile is not such a bad thing." The founding Fathers of this country especially the Anti-Federalists wrestled with the question of the sizing znd empowerment level of the Federal government. These fundemental concerns of the Anti-Federalists remain unresolved. They feared that the state and local governments would be left to operate with the "crumbs" that the Federal government left behind. States rights and local government rights are a mute point if there is no way to fund the goals of the people. We are stripping far too much cash to Washington DC and then expecting the Congress to return the money where it needs to go to keep the economy strong. The Congress is not smart enough to micro-manage the entire US economy from Washington DC. The first action needed to restore the economic system to it's full potential is to recognize the limitations of the federal government. We probably can't even micro-mange the economy from the state capitols. We should fire Congress, establish an internet Congress, succeed from the Federal and State IRS systems and task the county government to work on achieving energy independence at least in the rural counties and leave the cash in those counties to achieve the goal. The Tea Party is basically the reincarnation of the Anti-Federalists of the 1780's and need to evolve into the Common Sense political Party.

The Tea Party? What have they done to provide a real solution? The answer is in your first three sentences. SUPPORT PUBLIC FINANCING OF ELECTIONS. It'll cost us less in the long run.

God no. Do not give the government any more control over the process it uses to increase its power. If you want to run for office, do it on your own damn dime.

That's the problem. Who does it on their own dime? It's done on the special interests' dime and that's why we're being ignored. You have to get off this "don't give the government any more power" kick, unless you're satisfied with "business as usual"!!! You're looking at it wrong. Public financing would give US more power, since the candidates would have to listen to the people, instead of whomever they made promises to for campaign cash.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At the moment it appears we are a dictatorship run by the one.

That's what happens when those who support the dictator are also confused between the difference of a Republic and a democracy

 

[Truthmatters]

A republic is a type of democracy.

There is NOTHING bad about a democracy.

Quit pretending its a bad word

 

[Liability]

A republic is a type of democracy.

There is NOTHING bad about a democracy.

Quit pretending its a bad word

A democracy can be a great and wonderful thing.

It can also be a horror show.

Needless to say, a two dimensional one-sided partisan hack like you is unwilling to admit (or even see) as much.