Democracy, the big lie

[The Sage of Main Street]

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.
I do not fixate on what other people have. I fixate on creating an egalitarian society. My understanding of Marx is that he desired much the same.

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

Business Is a Team, Not a One-Man Show

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the wealth, and the owners collect it. So it is no different from Communism, where the one-party dictatorship that owns all businesses collects the wealth produced by those not in the loop. That's more proof that Communism was created by the impatient spoiled brats of the Capitalists. "Heiristocracy" is the enemy of democracy and must have its privileges abolished.

what a crock of bs

AUSTRALIAN: Crocodile Dundee
HITLERIAN AUSTRIAN: Crock of Dung Tea

That's the way Low IQs who have nothing to say in objection substitute for a detailed and logical analysis.

 

[Votto]

Yes and those interests are the extreme wealthy, those connected to them and government.

Sure, the government was fashioned to work that way from the start. In that regards the OP is correct. Democracy in America is a sham.

Someone give me an example where democracy has worked well.

Democracy in the US worked much better when local governments ran things. Now that it is centralized the "rich" only need to buy off a select number of lawmakers in the Federal government to run things. Perhaps this was the motivation of the Progressive movement. It sure beats buying off a myriad of lawmakers at the state and local level.

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

 

[Votto]

How can you have an egalitarian society without fixating on what other have? The game is, you take a tally of wealth and riches and decide to divvy it up the way you see fit.

For example, those in the US who are poor are rich in comparison to those in Haiti. However, in the US egalitarians seek to give more redistribution to the poor in the US as where if the poor in the US were in Haiti, they would be seeking to take from them to give to the poor in Haiti.

So the egalitarian concept is only dependent on what other people have.

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

Business Is a Team, Not a One-Man Show

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the wealth, and the owners collect it. So it is no different from Communism, where the one-party dictatorship that owns all businesses collects the wealth produced by those not in the loop. That's more proof that Communism was created by the impatient spoiled brats of the Capitalists. "Heiristocracy" is the enemy of democracy and must have its privileges abolished.

A business is collectivist. A church is collectivist. A family is collectivist.

The issue here is using collectivism in the form of a centralized government that rules over everyone.

The Founding Fathers attempted to create a Republic with checks and balances to try to prevent a centralized dictatorship.

What problem do you have with that?

Founding an American House of Lords

Like the other collectives from the same privileged class, businesses have a central self-appointed authority that decides everything for everybody else. Your defiance is selective; therefore, it only represents your cult's slavish bootlicking of those you exempt from criticism.

The checks and balances are used only by one part of the ruling class against another and give the people no power against the united ruling regime.

Let's cut to the chase, are you anarchist?

 

[task0778]

Sure, the government was fashioned to work that way from the start. In that regards the OP is correct. Democracy in America is a sham.

Someone give me an example where democracy has worked well.

Democracy in the US worked much better when local governments ran things. Now that it is centralized the "rich" only need to buy off a select number of lawmakers in the Federal government to run things. Perhaps this was the motivation of the Progressive movement. It sure beats buying off a myriad of lawmakers at the state and local level.

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

 

[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.

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.

Yes and those interests are the extreme wealthy, those connected to them and government.

Sure, the government was fashioned to work that way from the start. In that regards the OP is correct. Democracy in America is a sham.

Someone give me an example where democracy has worked well.

Democracy in the US worked much better when local governments ran things. Now that it is centralized the "rich" only need to buy off a select number of lawmakers in the Federal government to run things. Perhaps this was the motivation of the Progressive movement. It sure beats buying off a myriad of lawmakers at the state and local level.

A republic works when its people are moral and honest.

 

[Votto]

Someone give me an example where democracy has worked well.

Democracy in the US worked much better when local governments ran things. Now that it is centralized the "rich" only need to buy off a select number of lawmakers in the Federal government to run things. Perhaps this was the motivation of the Progressive movement. It sure beats buying off a myriad of lawmakers at the state and local level.

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

 

[Tehon]

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

I fail to see the significance of your concern about how senators are selected by each state.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Sure, the government was fashioned to work that way from the start. In that regards the OP is correct. Democracy in America is a sham.

Someone give me an example where democracy has worked well.

Democracy in the US worked much better when local governments ran things. Now that it is centralized the "rich" only need to buy off a select number of lawmakers in the Federal government to run things. Perhaps this was the motivation of the Progressive movement. It sure beats buying off a myriad of lawmakers at the state and local level.

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

Political Elitist Bark to Hide Their Birch

The state legislatures are controlled by the state's 1%. That's why Constitutionazis want to take back the 99%'s natural right to elect its own Senators. Another protection for the plutocracy is the Divide and Conquer tactic that would pit each of the state's Representative districts against the others, while the elected Senators would unite the whole state.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I am not interested in redistributing wealth. I am interested in transforming the mode of production and developing a cooperative society.

despite your refusal to recognize It

Capitalism Is founded on cooperation

Business Is a Team, Not a One-Man Show

Capitalism is collectivist. The employees create the wealth, and the owners collect it. So it is no different from Communism, where the one-party dictatorship that owns all businesses collects the wealth produced by those not in the loop. That's more proof that Communism was created by the impatient spoiled brats of the Capitalists. "Heiristocracy" is the enemy of democracy and must have its privileges abolished.

A business is collectivist. A church is collectivist. A family is collectivist.

The issue here is using collectivism in the form of a centralized government that rules over everyone.

The Founding Fathers attempted to create a Republic with checks and balances to try to prevent a centralized dictatorship.

What problem do you have with that?

Founding an American House of Lords

Like the other collectives from the same privileged class, businesses have a central self-appointed authority that decides everything for everybody else. Your defiance is selective; therefore, it only represents your cult's slavish bootlicking of those you exempt from criticism.

The checks and balances are used only by one part of the ruling class against another and give the people no power against the united ruling regime.

Let's cut to the chase, are you anarchist?

Ismism

Ideologies are self-serving power-hungry agendas concocted in confusion, contradiction, and smug ignorance.

 

[task0778]

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well.

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

OK, I gotcha. Mob rule, tyranny of the majority, doesn't make you right. Very True. But you say that this doesn't work best. So I'm thinking, well what does, what's better? The alternative is a totalitarian state or oligarchy isn't it? That can't be good. Rolling with the majority may not always be the best thing, mistakes will be made even catastrophic ones. But the same is true for any other form of gov't, check out North Korea or Venevuela.

In any case, direct democracy isn't feasible anyway in any really large nation. The Swiss come sorta close, but they've voted for some really bad decisions IMHO. In this modern world it's too damn hard just to deal with everyday life without also having to decide every decision your country needs to make. Too many issues that are too complex, there just aren't easy answers in nearly every case. So, direct democracy won't work, but many of it's principles can be used in a republican democracy like what we have, and that's about as close to a working democracy as is possible in today's world.

 

[Votto]

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

I fail to see the significance of your concern about how senators are selected by each state.

It was a way to help centralize the Federal government by taking away state power of appointing a Senator.

All tyrannies are centralized collectivist night mares.

 

[Votto]

Do you know any democracies? I know of Republics that have an element of democracy.

From my viewpoint, the Republic the Founders created leads the pack.

For example, what other government created anything close to the Bill of Rights that restricted government?

Was this Bill of Rights a creation of democracy?

No, no it was not.

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

OK, I gotcha. Mob rule, tyranny of the majority, doesn't make you right. Very True. But you say that this doesn't work best. So I'm thinking, well what does, what's better? The alternative is a totalitarian state or oligarchy isn't it? That can't be good. Rolling with the majority may not always be the best thing, mistakes will be made even catastrophic ones. But the same is true for any other form of gov't, check out North Korea or Venevuela.

In any case, direct democracy isn't feasible anyway in any really large nation. The Swiss come sorta close, but they've voted for some really bad decisions IMHO. In this modern world it's too damn hard just to deal with everyday life without also having to decide every decision your country needs to make. Too many issues that are too complex, there just aren't easy answers in nearly every case. So, direct democracy won't work, but many of it's principles can be used in a republican democracy like what we have, and that's about as close to a working democracy as is possible in today's world.

I assert that the Constitution was the right mix of representation and democracy, but Progressives tinkered with it to where the Federal government is in full control of everything. Progressives mock the notion of too much democracy, just liked they mock the Founding Fathers concerns regarding it.

That's not good, or do you disagree?

 

[Tehon]

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

I fail to see the significance of your concern about how senators are selected by each state.

It was a way to help centralize the Federal government by taking away state power of appointing a Senator.

All tyrannies are centralized collectivist night mares.

A Clifford Berryman cartoon illustrates the recurring problem of state legislatures that could not agree on who to elect to the Senate. Party differences and machine politics often prevented a state from deciding on a senator for months or even years. Berryman shows four states which left an empty Senate seat because they could not agree on a candidate.


It seems that politics haven't changed much over the years.

I don't really see how popularly elected Senators are less representative of their states. Much ado about nothing.

 

[task0778]

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

OK, I gotcha. Mob rule, tyranny of the majority, doesn't make you right. Very True. But you say that this doesn't work best. So I'm thinking, well what does, what's better? The alternative is a totalitarian state or oligarchy isn't it? That can't be good. Rolling with the majority may not always be the best thing, mistakes will be made even catastrophic ones. But the same is true for any other form of gov't, check out North Korea or Venevuela.

In any case, direct democracy isn't feasible anyway in any really large nation. The Swiss come sorta close, but they've voted for some really bad decisions IMHO. In this modern world it's too damn hard just to deal with everyday life without also having to decide every decision your country needs to make. Too many issues that are too complex, there just aren't easy answers in nearly every case. So, direct democracy won't work, but many of it's principles can be used in a republican democracy like what we have, and that's about as close to a working democracy as is possible in today's world.

I assert that the Constitution was the right mix of representation and democracy, but Progressives tinkered with it to where the Federal government is in full control of everything. Progressives mock the notion of too much democracy, just liked they mock the Founding Fathers concerns regarding it.

That's not good, or do you disagree?

I'm with you, the federal gov't has assumed too much power and control over the states and local gov't and each citizen. And the legislative branch has ceded too much of it's power to the Executive IMHO, so the checks and balances that are supposed to be there actually aren't.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

A republic is a form of a democratic gov't. We seem to be getting into semantics here, if you're just talking about true democracies then we haven't had one of those in what, 2500 years? Which kinda makes your request for an example where democracy has worked well kind of moot.

Semantics? What it semantics that caused the Founding Fathers to create a Republic rather than a Democracy? Was it semantic that caused them to only give those in the House directly elected by the people only 2 years to serve and those appointed in the Senate 6 years?

No.

From Wikipedia:

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 battle over ratification of the U.S. Constitution, and crafted to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically delegated to Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people.

The Bill of Rights is precisely democracy in action, representatives hammered out an agreement over the distribution of power between the federal and state and local gov'ts, along with the guarantees of individual rights and freedoms. There's no better example in world history where democracy has worked any better, and certainly FAR better than any other form of gov't that has ever existed. So I don't know what you are complaining about, if you're looking for perfection you ain't going to find it in any gov't past or present. The framework we have is as good as it gets, our problems do not stem from our form of gov't but instead are derived from our own failures.

When you say the founders created a Republic rather than a Democracy, well of course they did. What the hell else were they going to do? A Republic IS a form of Democracy, so I'm asking what are you trying to say? Surely you realize a pure democracy where the people directly rule themselves is ridiculously impossible in a society of any size.

I suppose my main objection is the notion that mob rule works best or that simply being in the majority make you right.

For example, the majority of colonialists were not involved in fighting the British. The minority took up that mantle. Nor did the majority conceive of the Constitution. These events were not shaped by democracy. If put to a vote the nation probably would never have gone to war with the British crown.

A Republic may have certain aspects of democracy within it but clearly democracy made the Founders uneasy. This uneasiness can be seen as they created two chambers of Congress. Congressmen were both voted directly by the people and appointed by state representatives. It is rather telling that Senators, who were appointed by state representatives, were given more power and longer terms. This tells us how dim a view the Founders had regarding direct democracy and how Progressives glibly dismissed their reservations by changing how Senators achieved office via direct election.

OK, I gotcha. Mob rule, tyranny of the majority, doesn't make you right. Very True. But you say that this doesn't work best. So I'm thinking, well what does, what's better? The alternative is a totalitarian state or oligarchy isn't it? That can't be good. Rolling with the majority may not always be the best thing, mistakes will be made even catastrophic ones. But the same is true for any other form of gov't, check out North Korea or Venevuela.

In any case, direct democracy isn't feasible anyway in any really large nation. The Swiss come sorta close, but they've voted for some really bad decisions IMHO. In this modern world it's too damn hard just to deal with everyday life without also having to decide every decision your country needs to make. Too many issues that are too complex, there just aren't easy answers in nearly every case. So, direct democracy won't work, but many of it's principles can be used in a republican democracy like what we have, and that's about as close to a working democracy as is possible in today's world.

I assert that the Constitution was the right mix of representation and democracy, but Progressives tinkered with it to where the Federal government is in full control of everything. Progressives mock the notion of too much democracy, just liked they mock the Founding Fathers concerns regarding it.

That's not good, or do you disagree?

Here We Go Again

Flunkies of the plutocracy want to establish something similar to a theocratic state, with the Constitution as its Bible and the Framers as its Apostles. Any ambitious bootlicker who incessantly preaches Constitutional Supremacy can become part of its hierarchy.