Democracy and Freedom

[Defiant1]

Everyone wants some kind of say in how their country is run and everyone should have some kind of input but I frequently run across references to democracy as "mob rule", the opinion that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, I know that is the very basis of Fascism and wonder if the person stating that opinion knows that.

Well, everyone can't have a say. But, if you are citizen, over the age of 18, not a felon, and not adjudged to be mentally incompetent, you can have a say in our Constitutional Republic, by voting.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

As you know we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. Democracy is a component of the Republic allowing the people a voice with regard to representation and in some cases a direct voice via referendum.

It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

No, it would be a very bad idea, as it would conflict with the fundamental tenets of the Republic and the rule of law. It is the rule of law that protects our liberty, not democracy, and guards against the tyranny of both the state and majority.

In theory each American needn’t be overly concerned who controls Congress, a given state government, or who is president, as all would be subject to the rule of law and one’s Constitutional rights protected accordingly.

I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule…

Indeed, you shouldn’t, as the majority is just as capable of violating citizens’ civil rights as the state. It is the acknowledgement of, and respect for, the rule of law that protects our freedoms.

I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.

And the rule of law is designed to protect your minority positions, not democracy. That you don’t wish to impose your values on others indicates you understand how a Constitutional Republic functions.

 

[Contumacious]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. )

Just so you know Democracy was considered and REJECTED by the Founding Fathers in favor of a Constitutional Republic.

But the proponents of the welfare/warfare state took it upon themselves to abandon the Constitutional Republic .

.

 

[occupied]

Everyone wants some kind of say in how their country is run and everyone should have some kind of input but I frequently run across references to democracy as "mob rule", the opinion that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, I know that is the very basis of Fascism and wonder if the person stating that opinion knows that.

Well, everyone can't have a say. But, if you are citizen, over the age of 18, not a felon, and not adjudged to be mentally incompetent, you can have a say in our Constitutional Republic, by voting.

We vote for candidates picked by special interests in elections structured by gerrymandering to result in a desired outcome. Not exactly an ideal of representative democracy.

 

[dblack]

Everyone wants some kind of say in how their country is run and everyone should have some kind of input but I frequently run across references to democracy as "mob rule", the opinion that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, I know that is the very basis of Fascism and wonder if the person stating that opinion knows that.

I don't think people are too stupid to know what's good for them. But I do think they tend to assume that what's good for them, is also good for others - which can be problematic.

There's also the practical concern about the effort and diligence required to stay informed. I certainly don't have the time or energy to keep up to date with all the information necessary to make intelligence decisions about policy details at the national level. So delegating that work seems to make sense.

 

[LibertyForAll]

Democracy is just another way of saying Mob Rule. We have seen what mobs can do and even if a group of people are in agreement they are not necessarily right. Look at the witch hunts/trials for a good example.
The real questions in my mind are about power and where should the power lie? How can we gaurantee that we are being honestly represented? Are my interests represented equally with those who are wealthier than I? The desire for democracy is really the desire to be heard and to know that we are being represented. I feel that is lacking in todays political environment.

Its my opinion that democracy can be used as a force of evil if you have the money and power to influence the information received by the voters. There are a lot of people who watch the news and take it at face value. They believe their politicians when they are given information without verifying it. They take spin as fact and base their decisions on information that is designed to "mislead" or at least lead towards a desired outcome.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I would prefer we go back to states electing Senators.

Which unfortunately is tainted by partisan motives.

Primary elections held exclusively by the parties involved.

That’s for states to address, as they write the election laws.

More attention to states' rights.

It depends on what is meant by ‘states’ rights,’ which is in essence a myth as the states are subject to the rule of law, judicial review, and Constitutional case law. See: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

And more emphasis put back on property rights.

And it depends on what is meant by ‘property rights,’ as private property owners are prohibited from practicing discrimination with regard to both employees and patrons. See: United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) and Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

 

[occupied]

Contracting our voting rights down to male land owners as the founders intended is no path to enduring freedom. In an industrial society it is the path to ever greater exploitation of the entire working class.

 

[Contumacious]

And it depends on what is meant by ‘property rights,’ as private property owners are prohibited from practicing discrimination with regard to both employees and patrons. See: United States v. Darby Lumber Co. (1941) and Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States (1964).

And it depends on what is meant by Judicial Review since judges have no authority to nationalize Private property in order to prevent discrimination because Americans have a right to associate with whomever they wish!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

 

[dblack]

Contracting our voting rights down to male land owners as the founders intended is no path to enduring freedom. In an industrial society it is the path to ever greater exploitation of the entire working class.

Agreed.

 

[midcan5]

Interesting thread and one in which I agree with several comments. I'd only add, words mean different things for different people and it is in working out the politics of our system of government that we hopefully arrive at a fair and equitable society - for all. Getting there is the hard part if we assume a moral universe. 'An alert and knowledgeable citizenry'... big requirement.


"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. ¶ We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Dwight D. Eisenhower

 

[Wiseacre]

The alternatives to a republican form of gov't are even less attractive than what we have now. With all it's problems, next year we're all going to vote for or against a change in gov'ts role and functions, whether we know it or not. Not many other forms of gov't will let you do that.

As thorny and difficult as many of our current issues are, do you want a say in what happens or not?

 

[Flopper]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

What is a better alternative form of government?

 

[dblack]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

What is a better alternative form of government?

I don't know. As I said, I support democracy as means of choosing leaders. It's the push for more, and more direct, democracy that I have doubts about.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Who are the elite in our country? It is mostly the billionaire class. They have special rights unto themselves, their own tax code, and the ability to pick up the phone and speak to practically anyone. They cannot be voted out or made to answer for exploitation. Direct democracy may not be a good idea as dumbed down and bound by propaganda as we have become but it is a noble thing to work towards. To not work towards greater democracy is to give up the fight against concentration of power, call it fascism or oligarchy or whatever but it is the reward for letting a few unelected people have absolute economic power over our lives.

Yes, life tends to be better when you have more money to make it better. For some reason, this simple fact seems endlessly intriguing to leftists, and they have an endless desire to somehow do away with it. They can't seem to wrap their brains around the fact that this will always be true in any human society, no matter what, and that there will always be people who have more than others.

Accept human nature and move the fuck ON, already.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So you see democracy as a counter to economic power?

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

So your idea of democracy is to use mob rule to inhibit the freedoms of people you don't like.

Got it.

Yes, we only dislike concentration of power when it's in someone ELSE'S hands, dontcha know?

 

[Ravi]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

What is a better alternative form of government?

I don't know. As I said, I support democracy as means of choosing leaders. It's the push for more, and more direct, democracy that I have doubts about.

I'm not getting what you're worried about. Constitutionally, we can't have a direct democracy.

 

[dblack]

I'm not getting what you're worried about. Constitutionally, we can't have a direct democracy.

A lot of people (the OWS crowd, for example) are calling for it though. And more and more people seem to think democracy should trump constitutionality.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Everyone wants some kind of say in how their country is run and everyone should have some kind of input but I frequently run across references to democracy as "mob rule", the opinion that people are too stupid to know what is good for them, I know that is the very basis of Fascism and wonder if the person stating that opinion knows that.

Well, everyone can't have a say. But, if you are citizen, over the age of 18, not a felon, and not adjudged to be mentally incompetent, you can have a say in our Constitutional Republic, by voting.

We vote for candidates picked by special interests in elections structured by gerrymandering to result in a desired outcome. Not exactly an ideal of representative democracy.

Everyone is a member of "special interest group". Spare us the buzz words.

 

[peach174]

We are suppose to be a Republic not a Democracy.