We the People

[dblack]

I want to discuss the political abuse of the phrase "We the People", in particular, as justification for majoritarian democratic government. Invoking it in this way completely misses the spirit in which it was used by our founders and deliberately ignores that fact that they saw pure democracy as a dangerous threat to the will of 'we the people', and deliberately created a constitution that limited democractic power.

They recognized what so many today don't; that government is, first and foremost, a tool for enforcing conformity. That's the nature of law and law enforcement. They also understood that majority rule doesn't reflect the will of the people. It reflects the will of the majority. It decidedly ignores the will of some of the people. What they realized, and implemented as the overlooked genius of our Constitution, was that the will of the people, all of the people, can only be preserved by protecting that will from undue coercion. They sought to create a government with the express purpose of maximally protecting our rights (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion. Like so much of today's political doublespeak, it actually turns the original meaning inside out and uses it to justify policies that push us toward authoritarian government, and away from the freedom our country was founded on.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The country was founded as Democracy for the Few, those elites educated and wise enough to run it while the people who fought and died to establish it still had a "limited" say in what matters truly affected them. Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design. All we need to do now if update it so that it actually covers all the people. Selling it, as we do, to the highest bidder is the first thing that has to go before that can happen.

 

[dblack]

Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design.

Why do you consider that nice? Are you an anarchist? A nihilist? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design.

Why do you consider that nice? Are you an anarchist? A nihilist? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

Our "highly limited" version of Democracy is a rather nice design. It's also destined to fail but more slowly.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design.

Why do you consider that nice? Are you an anarchist? A nihilist? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

He's a progressive and a misanthrope.

Just here to help.

 

[Little-Acorn]

They recognized what so many today don't; that government is, first and foremost, a tool for enforcing conformity.

Yep. And so they designed a new type of government that would stay as far away from such "enforcement of conformity" as possible: A government that only had power in a few limited areas, and was forbidden to interfere with all others.

What they realized, and implemented as the overlooked genius of our Constitution, was that the will of the people, all of the people, can only be preserved by protecting that will from undue coercion. They sought to create a government with the express purpose of maximally protecting our rights (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

Exactly.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion.

The phrase was used to start the Constitution, to point out that the people of the U.S. were establishing a very limited government, and one whose members they could kick out on a regular basis - a different type of government that anything the world had ever seen.

The leftsts have been trying to alter that government ever since, and return it to the usual government-has-all-power meme that has been destroying societies for thousands of years. They are convinced (as leftists are always convinced) that if THEY are in power, this time it will turn out "good".

Their ignorance of history and human nature is breathtaking.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

We are a Republic. ( or we were designed to be a Republic )

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design.

Why do you consider that nice? Are you an anarchist? A nihilist? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

He's a progressive and a misanthrope.

Just here to help.

Knock yourself out.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Since Democracy is mob rule and destined to destroy itself, it's a rather nice design.

Why do you consider that nice? Are you an anarchist? A nihilist? Or was that an attempt at sarcasm?

Please don't feed the trolls.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

They also understood that majority rule doesn't reflect the will of the people. It reflects the will of the majority. It decidedly ignores the will of some of the people.hts (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

With only half of voters showing up at any given election, let alone affiliated with either of the major parties, it's not even rule of the real majority.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion. Like so much of today's political doublespeak, it actually turns the original meaning inside out and uses it to justify policies that push us toward authoritarian government, and away from the freedom our country was founded on.

That is what progressivism is all about.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

They also understood that majority rule doesn't reflect the will of the people. It reflects the will of the majority. It decidedly ignores the will of some of the people.hts (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

With only half of voters showing up at any given election, let alone affiliated with either of the major parties, it's not even rule of the real majority.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion. Like so much of today's political doublespeak, it actually turns the original meaning inside out and uses it to justify policies that push us toward authoritarian government, and away from the freedom our country was founded on.

That is what progressivism is all about.

They never wanted the majority to vote. It's why they didn't allow them to. The majority doesn't rule here, it was never designed to. Even the House of Representatives was a compromise. They didn't want it.

 

[Listening]

I want to discuss the political abuse of the phrase "We the People", in particular, as justification for majoritarian democratic government. Invoking it in this way completely misses the spirit in which it was used by our founders and deliberately ignores that fact that they saw pure democracy as a dangerous threat to the will of 'we the people', and deliberately created a constitution that limited democractic power.

They recognized what so many today don't; that government is, first and foremost, a tool for enforcing conformity. That's the nature of law and law enforcement. They also understood that majority rule doesn't reflect the will of the people. It reflects the will of the majority. It decidedly ignores the will of some of the people. What they realized, and implemented as the overlooked genius of our Constitution, was that the will of the people, all of the people, can only be preserved by protecting that will from undue coercion. They sought to create a government with the express purpose of maximally protecting our rights (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion. Like so much of today's political doublespeak, it actually turns the original meaning inside out and uses it to justify policies that push us toward authoritarian government, and away from the freedom our country was founded on.

"The People" is who ? In the sense that it was the entire population of the United States (at the time), I don't think this was true.

The founders studies governments and also looked at the context from which they were developing this new one.

They came up with a system that supposedly allowed government to be tailored to "The People" (meaning the state of Kansas in one domain, Johnson County in another domain, The city of Shawnee in yet another, and the Whispering Hills subdivision in another.....and finally your individual household in another. The idea was to push as much flexibility down to the lowest level as possible.

But those of us at the receiving end must be ready to step up. And so far, we've been all to willing to let others take us whereever they want.....

Screw FDR.

 

[Disir]

I agree that "we the people" has been used for a variety of purposes. I also agree that democracy or mob rule was what they were trying to avoid. We the people establishes the social contract. It doesn't say.......we the corporations or we the foundations or any of that. The Constitution is a contract between the states. So, we the people give up our gang-banging ways, the arbitrary nature of a monarchy, and playing judge and jury solo in order to achieve.

The Bill of Rights aka the Bill of Federal Limitations is another ball game.

 

[dblack]

I want to discuss the political abuse of the phrase "We the People", in particular, as justification for majoritarian democratic government. Invoking it in this way completely misses the spirit in which it was used by our founders and deliberately ignores that fact that they saw pure democracy as a dangerous threat to the will of 'we the people', and deliberately created a constitution that limited democractic power.

They recognized what so many today don't; that government is, first and foremost, a tool for enforcing conformity. That's the nature of law and law enforcement. They also understood that majority rule doesn't reflect the will of the people. It reflects the will of the majority. It decidedly ignores the will of some of the people. What they realized, and implemented as the overlooked genius of our Constitution, was that the will of the people, all of the people, can only be preserved by protecting that will from undue coercion. They sought to create a government with the express purpose of maximally protecting our rights (each of us, equally) to act on our will free from state interference or mandate.

That's why I find the use of "We the People" as a call to arms for what often amounts to mob rule to be such a perversion. Like so much of today's political doublespeak, it actually turns the original meaning inside out and uses it to justify policies that push us toward authoritarian government, and away from the freedom our country was founded on.

"The People" is who ? In the sense that it was the entire population of the United States (at the time), I don't think this was true.

The founders studies governments and also looked at the context from which they were developing this new one.

They came up with a system that supposedly allowed government to be tailored to "The People" (meaning the state of Kansas in one domain, Johnson County in another domain, The city of Shawnee in yet another, and the Whispering Hills subdivision in another.....and finally your individual household in another. The idea was to push as much flexibility down to the lowest level as possible.

But those of us at the receiving end must be ready to step up. And so far, we've been all to willing to let others take us whereever they want.....

Screw FDR.

Whispering Hills??? HA... It's very likely I installed the guttering on your apartment building.

 

[dcraelin]

some of the founders undoubtedly were afraid of the common people, of Democracy (which really means the same thing as Republicanism, read Federalist #9).

Some founders wanted a Monarchy....but we didnt get one did we.............because they knew the people, WE THE PEOPLE, would not stand for it.

see my pictures for more on this topic.

 

[dblack]

some of the founders undoubtedly were afraid of the common people, of Democracy (which really means the same thing as Republicanism, read Federalist #9).

I suppose some were. But I think the effort to portray the founders as elitists is overplayed. Especially relative to the world they lived in. The were radical egalitarians on that context.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

some of the founders undoubtedly were afraid of the common people, of Democracy (which really means the same thing as Republicanism, read Federalist #9).

I suppose some were. But I think the effort to portray the founders as elitists is overplayed. Especially relative to the world they lived in. The were radical egalitarians on that context.

They were men of the world, not saints. Keep them earthbound, they read more accurately that way.