Democracy and Limited Government

[dblack]

I've noticed that many people here, regardless of political affiliation, tend to see the principle of limited government as standing in opposition to democracy. Advocates of democracy tend to see constitutional limits on federal and state power as impediments to be overcome or evaded, whereas detractors of democracy see them bulwarks keeping "the ignorant masses" at bay.

I don't think either of these characterizations is accurate. I actually see limited government as a foundation of democracy and a crucial element of any stable democracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively, dependable, predictable limitations on government power make democracy sustainable in much the same what that the rule of law makes freedom possible.

Without limits on democratic power, the minority has everything to lose and can never voluntarily submit to the authority of those they disagree with. And I think that's what we're seeing now in US politics. As constitutional limitations, via the efforts of ambitions leaders and incompetent courts, have been stripped away, democracy becomes less and less tenable. The electorate is becoming ever more bitterly divided and ever more resentful of sharing power with an opposition.

 

[Sinjorri]

you all suck.

why wha what have u heard? it was in college, on a bet, drunk, on a saturday,

 

[Sinjorri]

I've noticed that many people here, regardless of political affiliation, tend to see the principle of limited government as standing in opposition to democracy. Advocates of democracy tend to see constitutional limits on federal and state power as impediments to be overcome or evaded, whereas detractors of democracy see them bulwarks keeping "the ignorant masses" at bay.

I don't think either of these characterizations is accurate. I actually see limited government as a foundation of democracy and a crucial element of any stable democracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively, dependable, predictable limitations on government power make democracy sustainable in much the same what that the rule of law makes freedom possible.

Without limits on democratic power, the minority has everything to lose and can never voluntarily submit to the authority of those they disagree with. And I think that's what we're seeing now in US politics. As constitutional limitations, via the efforts of ambitions leaders and incompetent courts, have been stripped away, democracy becomes less and less tenable. The electorate is becoming ever more bitterly divided and ever more resentful of sharing power with an opposition.

well the asians have done quite well without being a party of minorites. I dont see them forcing the alws to get them things, like on tv or movies, i dont see them protesting schools because they are offended, and i never hear of the asian unemployment rate when everyone is screaming of the black or hispanic unemployment. So who is there voice and how ahve they been heard and where has it benefited them.

 

[dblack]

you all suck.

why wha what have u heard? it was in college, on a bet, drunk, on a saturday,

Yes. College. Drunk. Saturday. Our future.

 

[Sinjorri]

you all suck.

why wha what have u heard? it was in college, on a bet, drunk, on a saturday,

Yes. College. Drunk. Saturday. Our future.

yea i agree . i was so lame in college.

 

[Wiseacre]

Depends on the specific society and the definition of 'limited'. I mean, not many want unlimited gov't, pure socialism or communism or facism on one side and anarchy on the other. So, it comes down to what 'limited' means to the populace being served. Some places, a bigger gov't can work (Sweden), other places not so much (Greece). I think the efficency and effectiveness of gov't may be as big a factor as it's size.

For us, I think we've been moving too fast towards bigger gov't, we aren't as stable as we used to be and nobody is confident of what the future holds. Our social and political contract with our gov't is changing too rapidly, most of us are struggling to keep up and failing at it. The consequences aren't being well thought out, we mostly get the extreme views from both ends of the sprectrum but not so much what other alternatives could work. Many of our institutions are outdated, and we gotta make some changes but we're too divided to cooperate and compromise. It may take a serious depression or catastrophe of some kind to bring us all back together.

 

[bripat9643]

I've noticed that many people here, regardless of political affiliation, tend to see the principle of limited government as standing in opposition to democracy. Advocates of democracy tend to see constitutional limits on federal and state power as impediments to be overcome or evaded, whereas detractors of democracy see them bulwarks keeping "the ignorant masses" at bay.

I don't think either of these characterizations is accurate. I actually see limited government as a foundation of democracy and a crucial element of any stable democracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively, dependable, predictable limitations on government power make democracy sustainable in much the same what that the rule of law makes freedom possible.

Without limits on democratic power, the minority has everything to lose and can never voluntarily submit to the authority of those they disagree with. And I think that's what we're seeing now in US politics. As constitutional limitations, via the efforts of ambitions leaders and incompetent courts, have been stripped away, democracy becomes less and less tenable. The electorate is becoming ever more bitterly divided and ever more resentful of sharing power with an opposition.

The term "stable democracy" is an oxymoron. As H.L.Mencken so eloquently stated, democracy is a self-limiting disease. it contains the seeds of it's own destruction. Under democracy, government will continue to grow until democracy disappears. The process is well underway. In fact, we are now observing the terminal stages.

 

[dblack]

I've noticed that many people here, regardless of political affiliation, tend to see the principle of limited government as standing in opposition to democracy. Advocates of democracy tend to see constitutional limits on federal and state power as impediments to be overcome or evaded, whereas detractors of democracy see them bulwarks keeping "the ignorant masses" at bay.

I don't think either of these characterizations is accurate. I actually see limited government as a foundation of democracy and a crucial element of any stable democracy. Perhaps counter-intuitively, dependable, predictable limitations on government power make democracy sustainable in much the same what that the rule of law makes freedom possible.

Without limits on democratic power, the minority has everything to lose and can never voluntarily submit to the authority of those they disagree with. And I think that's what we're seeing now in US politics. As constitutional limitations, via the efforts of ambitions leaders and incompetent courts, have been stripped away, democracy becomes less and less tenable. The electorate is becoming ever more bitterly divided and ever more resentful of sharing power with an opposition.

well the asians have done quite well without being a party of minorites. I dont see them forcing the alws to get them things, like on tv or movies, i dont see them protesting schools because they are offended, and i never hear of the asian unemployment rate when everyone is screaming of the black or hispanic unemployment. So who is there voice and how ahve they been heard and where has it benefited them.

Perhaps you're missing the point. I'm not talking about racial minorities. I'm talking about any time your views are superseded by majority vote. The constitution is what protects the rights of the minority from from the unlimited desires of the majority.

 

[dblack]

The term "stable democracy" is an oxymoron. As H.L.Mencken so eloquently stated, democracy is a self-limiting disease. it contains the seeds of it's own destruction. Under democracy, government will continue to grow until democracy disappears. The process is well underway. In fact, we are now observing the terminal stages.

Well, that's the point of my OP actually. Constitutionally limited government is the very thing that preserves democracy.

 

[Mac1958]

.

No government entity can serve its constituents unless its members realize that paralysis kills, and choose to act like intelligent adults and work together. Otherwise, all it's doing is supervising the sinking of the ship.

Which is precisely what's happening.

.

 

[dblack]

Depends on the specific society and the definition of 'limited'. I mean, not many want unlimited gov't, pure socialism or communism or facism on one side and anarchy on the other. So, it comes down to what 'limited' means to the populace being served. Some places, a bigger gov't can work (Sweden), other places not so much (Greece). I think the efficency and effectiveness of gov't may be as big a factor as it's size.

I think the diversity of the society is a big factor as well. Pervasive government can work better, and longer, in a society that shares more in the way of values and culture. In a large, pluralistic society, this is less the case.

For us, I think we've been moving too fast towards bigger gov't, we aren't as stable as we used to be and nobody is confident of what the future holds. Our social and political contract with our gov't is changing too rapidly, most of us are struggling to keep up and failing at it. The consequences aren't being well thought out, we mostly get the extreme views from both ends of the sprectrum but not so much what other alternatives could work. Many of our institutions are outdated, and we gotta make some changes but we're too divided to cooperate and compromise. It may take a serious depression or catastrophe of some kind to bring us all back together.

Right. But I wonder if it isn't possible to recognize, as a nation, the value of the Constitution and to reclaim it as the bedrock of democracy rather than its enemy.

 

[dblack]

No government entity can serve its constituents unless its members realize that paralysis kills, and choose to act like intelligent adults and work together. Otherwise, all it's doing is supervising the sinking of the ship.

Which is precisely what's happening.

How do you mean?

I'd argue that paralysis isn't what's killing us so much as distrust. Are you suggesting that constitutional limitations represent paralysis?

 

[Mac1958]

No government entity can serve its constituents unless its members realize that paralysis kills, and choose to act like intelligent adults and work together. Otherwise, all it's doing is supervising the sinking of the ship.

Which is precisely what's happening.

How do you mean?

I'd argue that paralysis isn't what's killing us so much as distrust. Are you suggesting that constitutional limitations represent paralysis?

That's a great question.

No, but it can. My argument is that the very existence of our constitutional limitations requires those who operate within the constitutional system to cooperate. In fact, my guess is that those who wrote the Constitution were assuming spirited and thoughtful debate followed by ultimate compromise and progress.

I would also guess that they would not have been thrilled with the idea of absolutism, my way or the highway, all or nothing. I suspect they would have predicted what's happening right now.

.

 

[dblack]

No government entity can serve its constituents unless its members realize that paralysis kills, and choose to act like intelligent adults and work together. Otherwise, all it's doing is supervising the sinking of the ship.

Which is precisely what's happening.

How do you mean?

I'd argue that paralysis isn't what's killing us so much as distrust. Are you suggesting that constitutional limitations represent paralysis?

That's a great question.

No, but it can. My argument is that the very existence of our constitutional limitations requires those who operate within the constitutional system to cooperate. In fact, my guess is that those who wrote the Constitution were assuming spirited and thoughtful debate followed by ultimate compromise and progress.

I would also guess that they would not have been thrilled with the idea of absolutism, my way or the highway, all or nothing. I suspect they would have predicted what's happening right now.

I think they were aiming for consensus. They wanted a government that could only really impose laws that were widely accepted. Obviously, constitutional limitations can be changed with a large enough majority. Even without those limitations, laws simply work better when they are well-supported by the population.

The problem we have now is that, especially without the constitutional protections, our government oscillates back and forth between competing majorities - each passing laws that the other finds unacceptable. Real leadership builds consensus, rather than compromise, and that's what's missing.

 

[Mac1958]

How do you mean?

I'd argue that paralysis isn't what's killing us so much as distrust. Are you suggesting that constitutional limitations represent paralysis?

That's a great question.

No, but it can. My argument is that the very existence of our constitutional limitations requires those who operate within the constitutional system to cooperate. In fact, my guess is that those who wrote the Constitution were assuming spirited and thoughtful debate followed by ultimate compromise and progress.

I would also guess that they would not have been thrilled with the idea of absolutism, my way or the highway, all or nothing. I suspect they would have predicted what's happening right now.

I think they were aiming for consensus. They wanted a government that could only really impose laws that were widely accepted. Obviously, constitutional limitations can be changed with a large enough majority. Even without those limitations, laws simply work better when they are well-supported by the population.

The problem we have now is that, especially without the constitutional protections, our government oscillates back and forth between competing majorities - each passing laws that the other finds unacceptable. Real leadership builds consensus, rather than compromise, and that's what's missing.

YES.


You expressed my point better than I did. I can't come up with anything to add. Couldn't freakin' agree more.

.

 

[bripat9643]

The term "stable democracy" is an oxymoron. As H.L.Mencken so eloquently stated, democracy is a self-limiting disease. it contains the seeds of it's own destruction. Under democracy, government will continue to grow until democracy disappears. The process is well underway. In fact, we are now observing the terminal stages.

Well, that's the point of my OP actually. Constitutionally limited government is the very thing that preserves democracy.

It hasn't worked so far. Democracy in American is swirling down the toilet bowl. Government continues to grow and the voters have fewer real choices. Incumbency is virtually a guarantee of reelection. Government programs can never be repealed.

 

[dblack]

The term "stable democracy" is an oxymoron. As H.L.Mencken so eloquently stated, democracy is a self-limiting disease. it contains the seeds of it's own destruction. Under democracy, government will continue to grow until democracy disappears. The process is well underway. In fact, we are now observing the terminal stages.

Well, that's the point of my OP actually. Constitutionally limited government is the very thing that preserves democracy.

It hasn't worked so far. Democracy in American is swirling down the toilet bowl. Government continues to grow and the voters have fewer real choices. Incumbency is virtually a guarantee of reelection. Government programs can never be repealed.

It worked for quite a while. It's my contention that a large part of why it's not working now is that we're casting aside constitutional limitations.