Democracy, the big lie

[Votto]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

 

[Votto]

So am I hear just to bash democracy? No. There is some good in it. After all, none of us are as smart as all of us. Instinctually, we recognize that the law of averages indicates that the majority often fare better than those who strike out on their own. This is why the Founding Fathers included some democratic elements within government. This is why the House of Representatives was chosen to be elected directly by the people. However, the Senate was not. The Senate was chosen to be appointed by the state representatives so that they could represent the wishes of state leaders. This way both the common man and the states in which they resided both had a voice in the Federal government. However, Progressives did not see the virtue in this and decided to have those in the Senate elected directly by the people as those in the House.

So let us compare the House, chosen to be elected by the people, and the Senate, those chosen to be appointed by the states.

Those in the Senate were chosen to serve 6 years and those in the House only 2 years

Those in the Senate were only to have two Congressmen and those in the House as many as the population would dictate.

It would appear that those in the Senate were given far more power and sway. They had longer terms and there were only two per state. They were also appointed by the states.

Considering these facts, I would only wager that had the Founding Fathers got wind of these Senators being elected directly by the people, they would have been very concerned to say the least, for they feared a direct democracy.

Progressives often disdained the Founding principles upon which the nation was based, and the appointment of Senators by the states was no exception. For you see, Progressives only wanted a centralized all powerful government, and to do this they would have to subvert power from the states, which they did.

In short, the embrace of "democracy" by Progressives was only a tool to weaken the power of the states, nothing more. They did not think that democracy empowered the people, far from it, they simply recognized that it would weaken the states.

 

[Votto]

One of the biggest problems of a democracy is the abuse inflicted on the minority. How can a minority avoid being targeted by the majority?

The Founding Fathers came up with what is known as the Bill of Rights. They recognized us as having inalienable rights, something that a democracy cannot take from us, nor can a Republic.

We all recognize the injustice of targeting people of race who are a minority, such as FDR throwing Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 simply because they had slanted eyes like those they were fighting in the Pacific, but what about those who have great wealth? What about those with property? Should they be targeted as well or be respected as a minority?

This is one of the reasons the left despises the Bill of Rights. Democracy has no right to make minorities a target. God makes right and wrong and not lawmakers who seek to exploit minorities for their own political power, whether it be to demagogue for them, or abuse them for personal gain, much like Barak Obama using the IRS to target the minority of Conservatives in the US.

 

[Votto]

I'm also reminded of how Progressives hate the fact that Hillary won the popular vote but lost the election. Again, the Founding Fathers did not want a direct democracy for this very reason. If it were up to a direct democracy, California and New York would be deciding Presidential elections every time because of their large population centers. Do we want these two states to dictate to the rest of us?

Progressives are not so much concerned with protecting the rights of the minorities as they are having abject power. They could care less about the minority of conservatives being targeted by the IRS, just as they would have no real concern about New York and California controlling political power for the next 100 years as they rule the minorities who may differ.

It is akin to diversity. Progressives only like diversity that they like. They would have no problem expunging conservatives from society. You are lucky enough if they just shout you down.

 

[task0778]

We hear people every day praise the virtue of democracy. We hear it from our leaders, we hear it from the press, we even hear it from our educators. One would almost assume that democracy is akin to some life saving righteous force that will eventually purge any government of corruption and injustice. It's almost as if democracy were some sort of god like power, in which rests all of our hopes and dreams.

However, what most people may not know, or refuse to consider, is that the history of democracy is far from desirable. The people of Athens are often credited with being the first recorded democracy. However, do we ever consider the historical success of that ancient democracy?

Looking closer into Athenian life, only the citizens of Athens who were male could vote. This excluded the vast majority of Athenians, which included children, women, and slaves. In fact, there were far more slaves than citizens. In a rather odd way though, slavery was the key to any success democracy might have had in Athens. For you see, the men of Athens who were allowed to participate in democracy spent their days debating and studying topics, so that they were well informed and educated about the issues. This was only made possible because they had slaves to attend to the time consuming chores of every day life. We all know that an uniformed vote is a wasted vote. The irony here is that even the well informed men of Athens paved a path to hell as they devolved into a self righteous and arrogant society that squandered their riches and freedom on wars abroad with such powers as Sparta in order to spread their virtuous form of government. The gospel of democracy led them to ruin. Sound familiar?

So as we see, democracy does not automatically lead to virtue. In fact, the Founding Fathers seemed to think that democracy before virtue was placing the cart before the horse. Many of the Founders, such as Ben Franklin, seemed to think that only a virtuous people could succeed in a free and democratic society. Ben Franklin famously mentioned that he thought that the Constitution would succeed for a number of years until the morality of society waned to the point it be rendered useless and cast aside for a tyranny of some kind. HIs view was that society would eventually become so corrupt, that a tyranny would be needed to restrain it.

Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the Founding Fathers set up a Republic instead of a democracy. As John Adams once said, "Democracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few" Why then does everyone continue to refer to the US as a democracy with the added implication that this has lead to the greatness of the nation? This is a total fabrication.

Does this description of John Adams not sound like society within the US today? Looking at our leaders who seem to routinely break the law with impunity, the US has become a nation of men and not laws. The nation no longer seeks after wisdom and virtue, but after power, wealth, beauty, and knowledge and science. It's almost as if knowledge is equal to wisdom and virtue, if not even better than the two combined. However, a mind full of knowledge that embraces evil is the worst nightmare society could hope for. Knowledge is merely a tool, or weapon depending on the morality of the individual in which it resides.

So the next time you hear democracy being used to describe the United States, or being used to describe the ideal form of government, ask yourself why. What are they trying to sell because the gospel of democracy is a lie.

You posted a lot of stuff, and it's going to take awhile to work through all of it. First - who the heck is saying that democracy automatically leads to virtue, anybody who thinks that is a fool because democracies are still run by people and people are subject to corruption. Democracy is a form of gov't, and is only as good as the people who govern and the people who elect them to govern. It's gotta be done right or it's no better than anything else. That said, while democracy has it's faults, at least it allows for a society to govern itself rather than a monarchy or oligarchy where only a few rule. An informed and responsible people can reduce gov't corruption quite a bit more than any other gov't. Communism or socialism is no better, they end up being totalitarian states that are just as bad or worse than other forms of gov't with a lot less restraint on corruption. So while democracy doesn't have the best history, every other form of gov't is far worse. Not many democracies have the same history of murdering it's own people as the rest of them do, and most democracies have far less suffering and a better standard of living.

 

[task0778]

So am I hear just to bash democracy? No. There is some good in it. After all, none of us are as smart as all of us. Instinctually, we recognize that the law of averages indicates that the majority often fare better than those who strike out on their own. This is why the Founding Fathers included some democratic elements within government. This is why the House of Representatives was chosen to be elected directly by the people. However, the Senate was not. The Senate was chosen to be appointed by the state representatives so that they could represent the wishes of state leaders. This way both the common man and the states in which they resided both had a voice in the Federal government. However, Progressives did not see the virtue in this and decided to have those in the Senate elected directly by the people as those in the House.

So let us compare the House, chosen to be elected by the people, and the Senate, those chosen to be appointed by the states.

Those in the Senate were chosen to serve 6 years and those in the House only 2 years

Those in the Senate were only to have two Congressmen and those in the House as many as the population would dictate.

It would appear that those in the Senate were given far more power and sway. They had longer terms and there were only two per state. They were also appointed by the states.

Considering these facts, I would only wager that had the Founding Fathers got wind of these Senators being elected directly by the people, they would have been very concerned to say the least, for they feared a direct democracy.

Progressives often disdained the Founding principles upon which the nation was based, and the appointment of Senators by the states was no exception. For you see, Progressives only wanted a centralized all powerful government, and to do this they would have to subvert power from the states, which they did.

In short, the embrace of "democracy" by Progressives was only a tool to weaken the power of the states, nothing more. They did not think that democracy empowered the people, far from it, they simply recognized that it would weaken the states.

You are essentially describing why we have the Electoral College, so that the major population states do not run roughshod over the rural, less populated ones. This is why every state gets 2 senators regardless of how big or how populous it is. There is a concept called the tyranny of the majority party, where a simple majority gets it's way and the minority party has no say or power. Our republican democracy is designed to try to make sure the minority party isn't shut out of the governing process. I think we are in some agreement here, you can't have true democracy.

 

[task0778]

One of the biggest problems of a democracy is the abuse inflicted on the minority. How can a minority avoid being targeted by the majority?

The Founding Fathers came up with what is known as the Bill of Rights. They recognized us as having inalienable rights, something that a democracy cannot take from us, nor can a Republic.

We all recognize the injustice of targeting people of race who are a minority, such as FDR throwing Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 simply because they had slanted eyes like those they were fighting in the Pacific, but what about those who have great wealth? What about those with property? Should they be targeted as well or be respected as a minority?

This is one of the reasons the left despises the Bill of Rights. Democracy has no right to make minorities a target. God makes right and wrong and not lawmakers who seek to exploit minorities for their own political power, whether it be to demagogue for them, or abuse them for personal gain, much like Barak Obama using the IRS to target the minority of Conservatives in the US.

Does any other form of gov't have a Bill of Rights for it's citizens? Only democracy affords citizens those inalienable rights that were not given to them by the gov't nor can gov't legally take them away. Injustices have been done, mistakes made; but let's be clear, no gov't is perfect because it's run by people and sometimes people do bad things out of fear or greed or other reasons. Democracy cannot prevent that without also restricting the freedoms and liberties we enjoy, which no other type of gov't can provide. Democracy continually gives us the opportunity to do better by electing different people to replace the incumbents who were somewhat unsatisfactory. If that doesn't happen it's not the fault of democracy, the responsibility for a failed democratic gov't ultimately lies with it's people who allowed themselves to be abused.

 

[bgrouse]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

 

[Votto]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

Exactly!

I guess the point of my thread is, Progressives are the ones who are engaged in the lie of democracy being the basis for government in the US, and the key to solving injustice around the world.

Now that they have changed the Constitution and made Senators elected directly by the people, why even have two Houses of Congress? The least they could do is change their terms to only 2 years, as those in the House.

 

[Votto]

One of the biggest problems of a democracy is the abuse inflicted on the minority. How can a minority avoid being targeted by the majority?

The Founding Fathers came up with what is known as the Bill of Rights. They recognized us as having inalienable rights, something that a democracy cannot take from us, nor can a Republic.

We all recognize the injustice of targeting people of race who are a minority, such as FDR throwing Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2 simply because they had slanted eyes like those they were fighting in the Pacific, but what about those who have great wealth? What about those with property? Should they be targeted as well or be respected as a minority?

This is one of the reasons the left despises the Bill of Rights. Democracy has no right to make minorities a target. God makes right and wrong and not lawmakers who seek to exploit minorities for their own political power, whether it be to demagogue for them, or abuse them for personal gain, much like Barak Obama using the IRS to target the minority of Conservatives in the US.

Does any other form of gov't have a Bill of Rights for it's citizens? Only democracy affords citizens those inalienable rights that were not given to them by the gov't nor can gov't legally take them away. Injustices have been done, mistakes made; but let's be clear, no gov't is perfect because it's run by people and sometimes people do bad things out of fear or greed or other reasons. Democracy cannot prevent that without also restricting the freedoms and liberties we enjoy, which no other type of gov't can provide. Democracy continually gives us the opportunity to do better by electing different people to replace the incumbents who were somewhat unsatisfactory. If that doesn't happen it's not the fault of democracy, the responsibility for a failed democratic gov't ultimately lies with it's people who allowed themselves to be abused.

Reminds me of a Barry Goldwater quote:

"How did it happen? How did our national government grow from a servant with sharply limited powers into a master with virtually unlimited power? In part, we were swindled. There are occasions when we have elevated men and political parties to power that promised to restore limited government and then proceeded, after their election, to expand the activities of government. But let us be honest with ourselves. Broken promises are not the major causes of our trouble. Kept promises are. All too often we have put men in office who have suggested spending a little more on this, a little more on that, who have proposed a new welfare program, who have thought of another variety of 'security.' We have taken the bait, preferring to put off to another day the recapture of freedom and the restoration of our constitutional system. We have gone the way of many a democratic society that has lost its freedom by persuading itself that if 'the people' rule, all is well."

Keep in mind, the United States government did not come about via democracy. In fact, the majority of Americans did not even favor revolution, nor was the Constitution adopted via a democracy. As a result, for many Progressives the Constitution and government is thus illegitimate. For the Progressive, direct democracy is nothing more than a means of bringing about socialism, as the people vote more and more for themselves as a whole. Naturally, this involves stepping on the individual rights of those who have material possessions to redistribute.

 

[Votto]

The Progressive uses only one phrase of the Constitution to justify their unlimited redistribution across the country, namely the general welfare clause. You can arguably redistribute anything and take anything to help justify the general welfare is at stake.

However, the Founding Father Madison, who wrote the Constitution, had already written that this was not the design of the general welfare clause. In fact, it is a blatant violation of it as he later wrote:

"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare,
and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare,
they may take the care of religion into their own hands;
they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish
and pay them out of their public treasury;
they may take into their own hands the education of children,
establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union;
they may assume the provision of the poor;
they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads;
in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation
down to the most minute object of police,
would be thrown under the power of Congress.... Were the power
of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for,
it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature
of the limited Government established by the people of America."

By all account, the Republic has been subverted.

 

[Tehon]

Individualism destroys democratic society.


I HAVE shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1

 

[BlackSand]

Individualism destroys democratic society.


I HAVE shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1

Crock of shit ...

Community is not a virtue ... There are and have been several communities and societies that are/were in no way virtuous.
Furthermore ... An individual does not require a community effort to be virtuous.

.

 

[Tehon]

There are and have been several communities and societies that are/were in no way virtuous.

Can they be named?

 

[BlackSand]

The Nazis, Khmer Rouge, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Aztecs, Mayans, Californians ...
If you need any specific number, genre or form of community ... I can add more ...

.

 

[Tehon]

The Nazis, Khmer Rouge, People's Temple, Branch Davidians, Aztecs, Mayans, Californians ...
If you need any specific number, genre or form of community ... I can add more ...

.

No bother. None of these refute the point that individualism destroys democratic society.

 

[gipper]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

The US is not a democracy or a republic. It is an empire run by and for the extreme wealthy.

 

[Tehon]

The US is not a democracy, it's a republic, and a republic is only as good as the voters are smart and the politicians are honest.

The US is not a democracy or a republic. It is an empire run by and for the extreme wealthy.

It is run by individual interests.

 

[BlackSand]

No bother. None of these refute the point that individualism destroys democratic society.

I posted that "community is not a virtue" ... And that "an individual does not require a community effort to be virtuous".

 

[Votto]

Individualism destroys democratic society.


I HAVE shown how it is that in ages of equality every man seeks for his opinions within himself; I am now to show how it is that in the same ages all his feelings are turned towards himself alone. Individualism is a novel expression, to which a novel idea has given birth. Our fathers were only acquainted with egoisme (selfishness). Selfishness is a passionate and exaggerated love of self, which leads a man to connect everything with himself and to prefer himself to everything in the world. Individualism is a mature and calm feeling, which disposes each member of the community to sever himself from the mass of his fellows and to draw apart with his family and his friends, so that after he has thus formed a little circle of his own, he willingly leaves society at large to itself. Selfishness originates in blind instinct; individualism proceeds from erroneous judgment more than from depraved feelings; it originates as much in deficiencies of mind as in perversity of heart.

Selfishness blights the germ of all virtue; individualism, at first, only saps the virtues of public life; but in the long run it attacks and destroys all others and is at length absorbed in downright selfishness. Selfishness is a vice as old as the world, which does not belong to one form of society more than to another; individualism is of democratic origin, and it threatens to spread in the same ratio as the equality of condition.
Tocqueville: Book I Chapter 1

Wait....wut?

Our fathers were only acquainted with selfishness? Is this why George Washington refused to be made king? Is this why George Washington reluctantly became the first President and demanded to step down after two terms, something that all others after him followed until the blight of the power hungry FDR? Thankfully Congress limited the terms after FDR because of FDR and his abuses.

Equally puzzling is the notion that we are somehow different. Do people such as yourself have selfishness? Did Karl Marx have selfishness? Of course they did and of course you do. You might even say that people like yourself and Karl Marx are the most selfish of all. You are eternally fixated on how much other people have and desire it, a sin called coveting that the Bible warns us about. Yes, people like you and it is all rooted in selfishness.

Well guess what, there are far more important aspects to our existence that material possessions, something that is foreign to people like you. For example, freedom is far more important than having a really nice car like your neighbor.