Democracy and Freedom

[dblack]

. It's equally correct to say that our nation is a democracy and a republic - the concepts don't stand in opposition.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."


James Madison
Thursday, November 22, 1787

As the paragraph this quote was taken from indicates, he was referring to "pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" which he was contrasting with the proposed delegated structure of a republic. It's not really a controversial claim that the founders (most of them at least) wanted democracy as a means of selecting representatives at the very least. I'm sure I could find quotes where Madison is advocating democracy over the aristocracy in the context of who should rule.

 

[Contumacious]

. It's equally correct to say that our nation is a democracy and a republic - the concepts don't stand in opposition.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."


James Madison
Thursday, November 22, 1787

As the paragraph this quote was taken from indicates, he was referring to "pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person" which he was contrasting with the proposed delegated structure of a republic. It's not really a controversial claim that the founders (most of them at least) wanted democracy as a means of selecting representatives at the very least. I'm sure I could find quotes where Madison is advocating democracy over the aristocracy in the context of who should rule.

True, government officials were to be elected democratically , but it did not follow that if candidate Jow Blow favored gun control that he could propose legislation to ban or regulate firearms.

.

 

[editec]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.

But as money is a kind of power, and as capitalism can operate as a foil against governments having ALL the power?

There is much good to be said about capitalism as an economic system for representative forms of governments

Oh yeah one more thing...as long as we have capitalism, we WILL have a CLASSIST society, too.

Why?

because at minimum capitalism needs a capital CLASS to exist.

 

[Ravi]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.

But as money is a kind of power, and as capitalism can operate as a foil against governments having ALL the power?

There is much good to be said about capitalism as an economic system for representative forms of governments

It's early and maybe my brain isn't working right, but isn't capitalism itself a form of direct democracy? Something the founders were aiming to protect us from.....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Informed democracy is proof against any undue influence, unfortunately we are currently in the midst of a resurgence in authoritarianism, probably due to the media who have given up their mission to responsibly inform. The fact that there is even a discussion on the appropriate level of democracy is alarming to me, it's like giving up in a way, the work of building a democracy is never done.

Democracy

Liberty

 

[editec]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.

But as money is a kind of power, and as capitalism can operate as a foil against governments having ALL the power?

There is much good to be said about capitalism as an economic system for representative forms of governments

It's early and maybe my brain isn't working right, but isn't capitalism itself a form of direct democracy? Something the founders were aiming to protect us from.....

Sure. Money is a KIND of power, isn't it?

Oh I don't think the Floundering Fathers were remotely worried about the PEOPLE leading the nation.

Certainly not once they created the bicameral system, at least.

It is a mistake, I think, to put too much faith in what modern interpretations of what the FF's did or did not want, do or think.

Their world and ours is so very different that trying to make comparisons, or trying to INSIST what they might have thought about the todays problems facing us is just foolishness.

I think the FF were somewhat idealistic PRAGMATISTS.

They might have strove to create an ideal society, but they did so knowing perfectly well that utopia wasn't attainable.

And they were perfectly willing to make a pact with the devil (read slavery here) if that is what it took for them to survive as a nation.

 

[dblack]

I think this notion of separating different kinds of power is crucial to a stable, free society. We've done a fair job, in the US, of separating religious power and political power. But right now we're struggling with our failure to adequately separate economic power and political power. Figuring that out is probably the most important task at hand.

 

[Contumacious]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.
.

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

 

[dblack]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.
.

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

Whatdya mean?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.

But as money is a kind of power, and as capitalism can operate as a foil against governments having ALL the power?

There is much good to be said about capitalism as an economic system for representative forms of governments

It's early and maybe my brain isn't working right, but isn't capitalism itself a form of direct democracy? Something the founders were aiming to protect us from.....

Sure. Money is a KIND of power, isn't it?

Oh I don't think the Floundering Fathers were remotely worried about the PEOPLE leading the nation.

Certainly not once they created the bicameral system, at least.

It is a mistake, I think, to put too much faith in what modern interpretations of what the FF's did or did not want, do or think.

Their world and ours is so very different that trying to make comparisons, or trying to INSIST what they might have thought about the todays problems facing us is just foolishness.

I think the FF were somewhat idealistic PRAGMATISTS.

They might have strove to create an ideal society, but they did so knowing perfectly well that utopia wasn't attainable.

And they were perfectly willing to make a pact with the devil (read slavery here) if that is what it took for them to survive as a nation.

Simple and too the point what the founders wanted was for Americans individual rights to be protected. That's why they created a republic. not a democracy

 

[Contumacious]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.
.

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

Whatdya mean?

"Capitalism," "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."


The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

.

 

[Katzndogz]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.

But as money is a kind of power, and as capitalism can operate as a foil against governments having ALL the power?

There is much good to be said about capitalism as an economic system for representative forms of governments

It's early and maybe my brain isn't working right, but isn't capitalism itself a form of direct democracy? Something the founders were aiming to protect us from.....

Capitalism is controlled by competition and innovation.

The issue of whether blacksmiths should keep their jobs was never subject to a vote.

 

[occupied]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.
.

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

Too many get capitalism and free enterprise mixed up. Take a look at Pinochet.

 

[dblack]

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

Whatdya mean?

"Capitalism," "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."


The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

.

Okay, so you're disputing the term used. Makes sense. But what about editec's actual point? I don't think he was trying to say that capitalism itself pollutes government, but that under capitalism people with economic power can use it to pollute government. Surely you recognize that reality, eh?

 

[Dragon]

If one begins with the rose-glasses notion that capitalism is an ideal and perfect economic system, then ipso facto any economic system that departs from perfection becomes non-capitalist. More objective and realistic conceptions of what capitalism is do exist, however.

Once again: "republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive concepts. "The Founding Fathers created a republic, not a democracy" is therefore a nonsensical sentence. A republic is either a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. Anyone who proclaims that he wants "a republic not a democracy" is therefore revealing that what he really wants is an aristocracy.

 

[Contumacious]

I think there IS a damned good argument to be made that of all the economic systems CAPTIALISM is probably the best economic system to reflect and work well with a representational form of government.

That is NOT to say that capitalism cannot pervert that system, neither is it to say that capitalism isn't quite capable of working hand in hand with highly repressive tyrannies, either.
.

HUH?

So, in that case, you are not referring to to Capitalism.

Too many get capitalism and free enterprise mixed up. Take a look at Pinochet.

Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise are the same thing.

What most people confuse is fascism because in a fascist system entrepreneurs are able to own their business but under massive government regulations, ie, the US of A.

.

 

[Dragon]

No. The constitution prescribes the government's functioning; it does not necessarily limit the government's power.

When it comes to the US Constitution, it does. If you're suggesting it doesn't, then democracy (or, as you point out, monarchy and aristocracy) becomes a potential threat to liberty. The Bill of Rights, and the structure of checks and balances, simply don't offer enough protection on their own.

I agree that in the case of the U.S. Constitution, the power of the government is limited and protections of individual rights are included. I was merely pointing out that a constitution doesn't HAVE to do this in order to qualify as a constitution. I was arguing against the general premise, not a specific application.

 

[Dragon]

Capitalism, free markets, free enterprise are the same thing.

As I implied above, this starts from the premise that capitalism is a perfect economic system. It's almost a religious belief rather than an economic idea.

Let me propose a more value-neutral and objective definition of capitalism: an economic system especially applicable to an industrialized economy in which the means of production are privately owned and operated, and in which business operations are undertaken for the purpose of generating profits for the business' owners.

 

[Contumacious]

Whatdya mean?

"Capitalism," "is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned."


The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

.

Okay, so you're disputing the term used. Makes sense. But what about editec's actual point? I don't think he was trying to say that capitalism itself pollutes government, but that under capitalism people with economic power can use it to pollute government. Surely you recognize that reality, eh?

The opposite is true.

In the of the US of A , Scumbag demagogue politicians polluted Capitalism by introducing fascism:


It began in the late 1800's , when fedgov began subsidizing railroads and attacking The Standard Oil (N.J.) . Capitalism was stabbed in its heart and fascism was born.

For shame.

.

 

[dblack]

Okay, so you're disputing the term used. Makes sense. But what about editec's actual point? I don't think he was trying to say that capitalism itself pollutes government, but that under capitalism people with economic power can use it to pollute government. Surely you recognize that reality, eh?

The opposite is true.

In the of the US of A , Scumbag demagogue politicians polluted Capitalism by introducing fascism:


It began in the late 1800's , when fedgov began subsidizing railroads and attacking The Standard Oil (N.J.) . Capitalism was stabbed in its heart and fascism was born.

For shame.

.

Oh, c'mon. Clearly it's been a two-way street. For every 'scumbag politician' looking to expand their power by horning in on economic matters, there was an eager "Capitalist" ready to get in bed with government.