Modern illusion of democracy

[Onyx]

Quite true.

Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy - rule by the one, the few, or the many - is in the end, rule by men. It is contrary to America's republican principles, that law and equity shall govern her.

What rock have you been living under?

The United States is ruled by the few. Democracy under the state is a lie.

 

[Rustic]

Quite true.

Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy - rule by the one, the few, or the many - is in the end, rule by men. It is contrary to America's republican principles, that law and equity shall govern her.

What rock have you been living under?

The United States is ruled by the few. Democracy under the state is a lie.

No doubt, The federal government has fucked up whatever this "experiment" was supposed to be. Fact

 

[320 Years of History]

No one can defend the evils of the state

Others may, but I am not attempting to defend the "evils of the state" we call the U.S. I see them for what they are and have learned how to and do act to mitigate their negative impacts on myself; moreover, I've taught my children and mentees how to do the same. They may or may not choose to do so, but they do know how to do so.

I know there's little to likelihood of our in the foreseeable future realizing the perfect or ideal state. The state we have now is one that can be improved upon to be sure, but the so-called improvements that accord greater comfort to folks who fail to thrive within the general paradigm as it exists now are not among those to which I will cotton.

Unlike many folks, I'm not ashamed of being an inveterate capitalist. The republican political system we have in place and that functions in concert with a capitalist economic system (as laissez faire a one as it can be at the moment) is acceptable to me. Does that make me something of a Social Darwinist? Of course it does. I'm okay with that too for were I among the folks who are not thriving, I'd take my own advice and take life elsewhere. Indeed, I've already begin making contingency plans to do just that if Trump wins the election, so disturbed am I by what he'd do to the country. You see, even as I give out advice that may be unsettling, it's the same advice I would take and apply to my own situation.

 

[Onyx]

Excuse me? If "the vast majority" live like kings, what pray tell precisely constitutes living better than "like kings" and thus serves as a legitimate basis for dissatisfaction among the "vast majority" who are indeed, per your statement, "living like kings?"

Common sense and moral principle.

A system that thrives off exploitation is violent, inhuman, and unsustainable. The reason the vast majority have lived like kings for so long, is because there was a large amount of potential wealth and a lot of backs to step on in order to sustain the stabilizing force.

We are already starting to see the tides turn, and this bubble that we are living in is going to pop like it has in the past.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Do not forget the significance of the sheep.

Real democracy, or power of the people, is nonexistent within the framework of the state. The endless struggle has always been human beings pitted against machines, and the machines won out.

The United States is not a direct democracy. We are a republic made up of 50 states and territories. Over the years government has gotten larger. Some of which was needed, some of which goes to far. Now we are in something of a high tech social media driven enviorment. Interest groups of both competing ideologies gaining more of strong hold on today's public debate giving way to some very off the wall results.

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, where the rights and protected liberties of its citizens are paramount, the states and local jurisdictions subordinate to that.

The Federal government functions exactly as intended by the Founding Generation, at the behest of the people, neither 'too big' nor 'too small.'

Our republican form of government functions as a representative democracy, acknowledging and implementing the will of the people.

When the people err, and their elected representatives enact measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those measures are invalidated by the courts, safeguarding the liberties of the people from the tyranny of 'majority rule.'

The Founding Generation wisely rejected creating a democracy given its many faults and failings, and instead created a Republic whose citizens are subject to the rule of law, not men - as men are incapable of ruling justly; the illusion of democracy is the foolish notion that men can.

 

[Onyx]

Others may, but I am not attempting to defend the "evils of the state" we call the U.S. I see them for what they are and have learned how to and do act to mitigate their negative impacts on myself; moreover, I've taught my children and mentees how to do the same. They may or may not choose to do so, but they do know how to do so.

In other words, you have become complacent and indignant.

I know there's little to likelihood of our in the foreseeable future realizing the perfect or ideal state.

No likelihood. Do not bother entertaining the thought

The state we have now is one that can be improved upon to be sure, but the so-called improvements that accord greater comfort to folks who fail to thrive within the general paradigm as it exists now are not among those to which I will cotton.

False.

All states are destined to inevitably degenerate. Study up on history, economics, sociology, philosophy, or just about any social science. The cycle always comes full circle, and the X factor is the state.

Unlike many folks, I'm not ashamed of being an inveterate capitalist. The republican political system we have in place and that functions in concert with a capitalist economic system (as laissez faire a one as it can be at the moment) is acceptable to me.

Again, we are not living in a capitalist system, and if you believe that our system is anything close to laissez faire, then you are living in an echo chamber.

 

[occupied]

The progressive left is the only bloc of voters who take democracy seriously enough to fight for it having been the target of practically every attempt to limit speech and voting rights.

Nope, not really.

Expanding an institution which is directly in opposition to democracy is not taking democracy seriously at all.

Well over half this country can vote only because progressives went to the streets, fought and sometimes died for these rights. We even had to fight for the right to take to the streets to protest.

I have always admired the left wings tendency to commit to direct action, but when that direct action is applied to unjust ends, it is all for naught.

So what you are saying is that you don't like how things turned out so it was all for naught? Democracy is messy, so they say, it is never also never accomplished. It's why our founders called on us to perfect our democracy instead of thinking they had done so from day one. The fight against fascism will continue in spite of way too many of us seemingly willing to give it up for Fascism American style.

 

[norwegen]

Quite true.

Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy - rule by the one, the few, or the many - is in the end, rule by men. It is contrary to America's republican principles, that law and equity shall govern her.

What rock have you been living under?

The United States is ruled by the few. Democracy under the state is a lie.

It may be an oligarchy. I didn't say it wasn't.

Democracy is worse, though. The worst, even. It promises empowerment to the people, who, in the end, tyrannize themselves. Broader suffrage and greater political opportunity are ingredients for a vulnearable, base, and unsophisticated government.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Democracy is the shittiest system that works...

And the last part is questionable. It certainly doesn't work if DNC decides to commit fraud.

And this is an example of the ignorance, stupidity, and hate that our Constitutional Republic guards against, and why a ‘pure democracy’ is a failed and dangerous system of government.

Imagine this sort of ignorance, stupidity, and hate becoming the majority in a democracy.

 

[320 Years of History]

Excuse me? If "the vast majority" live like kings, what pray tell precisely constitutes living better than "like kings" and thus serves as a legitimate basis for dissatisfaction among the "vast majority" who are indeed, per your statement, "living like kings?"

Common sense and moral principle.

A system that thrives off exploitation is violent, inhuman, and unsustainable. The reason the vast majority have lived like kings for so long, is because there was a large amount of potential wealth and a lot of backs to step on in order to sustain the stabilizing force.

We are already starting to see the tides turn, and this bubble that we are living in is going to pop like it has in the past.

Oh, puh-lease. Spare me the morality line. What matters as goes political processes is integrity, not morality. You see, while you, other too, may not care for the principles I espouse and for which I advocate, the fact remains that I make no attempt to hide what they are or run from them. You don't have to like where I stand, but I won't leave you wondering where I stand; I'm clear and steadfastly candid about my views. That's what I give and that's what I expect in return. That's integrity; it's honest. So, IMO, if there's any morality with which to take exception in the American social or political process/paradigm, it's that too few people are equally transparent.

 

[Onyx]

It may be an oligarchy. I didn't say it wasn't.

Democracy is worse, though. The worst, even. It promises empowerment to the people, who, in the end, tyrannize themselves. Broader suffrage and greater political opportunity are ingredients for a vulnearable, base, and unsophisticated government.

It definitely is an oligarchy. Only a couple of fools, like C_Clayton_Jones , would contest this fact.

I define democracy as power of the people, and the people only have power when they are absent of a means of tyranny. This distinguishes democracy from majoritarianism or mob rule.

 

[Onyx]

Oh, puh-lease. Spare me the morality line. What matters as goes political processes is integrity, not morality.

Uh, attention dumbass?

Integrity is an aspect of morality, and there is no integrity in what goes on with the US political process. The system is founded on dishonesty, or do you deny that too?

You see, while you, other too, may not care for the principles I espouse and for which I advocate, the fact remains that I make no attempt to hide what they are or run from them. You don't have to like where I stand, but I won't leave you wondering where I stand; I'm clear and steadfastly candid about my views. That's what I give and that's what I expect in return. That's integrity; it's honest. So, IMO, if there's any morality with which to take exception in the American social or political process/paradigm, it's that too few people are equally transparent.

There you go talking yourself up again.

You got serious insecurities man. That's why you write irrelevant walls and pat yourself on the back so often.

 

[320 Years of History]

All states are destined to inevitably degenerate.

Yes, all of them are. The states of China, Japan and San Marino I'm sure will disagree with you. Looking at the Aboriginal Australians, one sees that political ownership of a nation state isn't even required for the persistence of a culture.

 

[320 Years of History]

Integrity is an aspect of morality

It is. But as far as politics, economics and governance go, it's the aspect that matters. Morality as a whole in all its dimensions does not.

 

[Onyx]

So what you are saying is that you don't like how things turned out so it was all for naught?

Well yeah. If no good comes out of it, then it is all for naught.

The only good it produced is the realization that your goals suck.

Democracy is messy, so they say, it is never also never accomplished. It's why our founders called on us to perfect our democracy instead of thinking they had done so from day one. The fight against fascism will continue in spite of way too many of us seemingly willing to give it up for Fascism American style.

You perfect democracy by voiding society of all means of tyranny and centralized control.

The political process itself is what is stopping the perfection of democracy.

 

[Onyx]

Yes, all of them are. The states of China, Japan and San Marino I'm sure will disagree with you. Looking at the Aboriginal Australians, one sees that political ownership of a nation state isn't even required for the persistence of a culture.

Right, well we are not talking about cultures, but rather states.

China and Japan have fallen victim to the cycle of violence hundreds of times.

 

[320 Years of History]

Oh, puh-lease. Spare me the morality line. What matters as goes political processes is integrity, not morality.

Uh, attention dumbass?

Integrity is an aspect of morality, and there is no integrity in what goes on with the US political process. The system is founded on dishonesty, or do you deny that too?

You see, while you, other too, may not care for the principles I espouse and for which I advocate, the fact remains that I make no attempt to hide what they are or run from them. You don't have to like where I stand, but I won't leave you wondering where I stand; I'm clear and steadfastly candid about my views. That's what I give and that's what I expect in return. That's integrity; it's honest. So, IMO, if there's any morality with which to take exception in the American social or political process/paradigm, it's that too few people are equally transparent.

There you go talking yourself up again.

You got serious insecurities man. That's why you write irrelevant walls and pat yourself on the back so often.

Red:
If you think my "red" claims above constitute pats on the back, okay. I see them as nothing but representations of my nature, which, as you don't actually know me, nor I you, you cannot know unless I tell you.

 

[Onyx]

It is. But as far as politics, economics and governance go, it's the aspect that matters.

Okay, and can you back that up with anything other than conjecture?

Morality as a whole in all its dimensions does not.

So humanity and utility have no importance in politics, economics, and governance? The state is void of both humanity and utility, but you are telling me that those attributes are irrelevant.

I mean, are you just fucking around or are you actually serious?

 

[320 Years of History]

Yes, all of them are. The states of China, Japan and San Marino I'm sure will disagree with you. Looking at the Aboriginal Australians, one sees that political ownership of a nation state isn't even required for the persistence of a culture.

Right, well we are not talking about cultures, but rather states.

China and Japan have fallen victim to the cycle of violence hundreds of times.

And yet they here they remain as political states. I have news for you: the ebb and flow of politics does not necessarily lead to the end of the state. Quite simply, "things" need not be rosy all the time or for everyone at every time.

 

[Onyx]

And yet they here they remain as political states. I have news for you: the ebb and flow of politics does not necessarily lead to the end of the state.

I never contested that. You really do love your strawman

Quite simply, "things" need not be rosy all the time or for everyone at every time.

No one said that either.

The point, which is an indisputable fact, is that no system or establishment is sustainable. All have fell victim to the cycle of violence, and when you are looking to build something that can last, that is kind of a big deal.