Democracy, the big lie

[Votto]

So how do you explain that we have an individualistic society full of ignorant people who are shackled to the selfish desires of the ruling class?

Easy enough ... Virtue doesn't come from government ... Nor can government provide virtue.
The ignorant will be led and shackled to the desires of whomever promises them security and protection from their individual failures.

.

Nor does virtue come from democracy.

 

[Votto]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

And governments use the corporate structure for power. After all, the corporate structure is a government construct.

This has gone on for as long as the colonists revolted against the East Indies company by dumping their tea into the Boston Harbor.

Most people think that the colonists were revolting over an increase in taxes over the tea. In reality, the East Indies companies attempting monopoly on the tea actually drove the costs down. The colonists were fighting over control of the selling of tea.

The British crown used the East Indies company to take over India, they even had their own private army.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

And governments use the corporate structure for power. After all, the corporate structure is a government construct.

This has gone on for as long as the colonists revolted against the East Indies company by dumping their tea into the Boston Harbor.

Most people think that the colonists were revolting over an increase in taxes over the tea. In reality, the East Indies companies attempting monopoly on the tea actually drove the costs down. The colonists were fighting over control of the selling of tea.

The British crown used the East Indies company to take over India, they even had their own private army.

collusion is not capitalism

 

[Votto]

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

And governments use the corporate structure for power. After all, the corporate structure is a government construct.

This has gone on for as long as the colonists revolted against the East Indies company by dumping their tea into the Boston Harbor.

Most people think that the colonists were revolting over an increase in taxes over the tea. In reality, the East Indies companies attempting monopoly on the tea actually drove the costs down. The colonists were fighting over control of the selling of tea.

The British crown used the East Indies company to take over India, they even had their own private army.

collusion is not capitalism

When did I mention capitalism?

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

And governments use the corporate structure for power. After all, the corporate structure is a government construct.

This has gone on for as long as the colonists revolted against the East Indies company by dumping their tea into the Boston Harbor.

Most people think that the colonists were revolting over an increase in taxes over the tea. In reality, the East Indies companies attempting monopoly on the tea actually drove the costs down. The colonists were fighting over control of the selling of tea.

The British crown used the East Indies company to take over India, they even had their own private army.

collusion is not capitalism

When did I mention capitalism?

sure looked like that was where you are headed

fact is when the interest of two parties intersect cooperation results in transactions

 

[Tehon]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

 

[jon_berzerk]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

no matter how much cooperation a profit making activity has

the socialist will claim that it is competitive rather than cooperative

which is untrue

 

[Votto]

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

And governments use the corporate structure for power. After all, the corporate structure is a government construct.

This has gone on for as long as the colonists revolted against the East Indies company by dumping their tea into the Boston Harbor.

Most people think that the colonists were revolting over an increase in taxes over the tea. In reality, the East Indies companies attempting monopoly on the tea actually drove the costs down. The colonists were fighting over control of the selling of tea.

The British crown used the East Indies company to take over India, they even had their own private army.

collusion is not capitalism

When did I mention capitalism?

sure looked like that was where you are headed

fact is when the interest of two parties intersect cooperation results in transactions

The left insists government is the problem and the right insists that corporate America is the problem

Really they are two sides to the same coin. They are both right and wrong at the same time.

In fact, corporations are nothing more than mini governments created by government.

 

[BlackSand]

Forced compliance is not a cooperative endeavor for all involved.

.

 

[Votto]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

 

[Tehon]

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.

You can appreciate that de Tocqueville was born in the year 1805, right? His father was a noble peer in a monarchical, hierarchical system.

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.

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

continued

But man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the far

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

no matter how much cooperation a profit making activity has

the socialist will claim that it is competitive rather than cooperative

which is untrue

Adam Smith was a socialist then?

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

 

[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.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for supper

Which is part of why democracy does not work and never will work.

I'm still wondering if a Republic is even possible for very long.

Ben Franklin was convinced that eventually it would dissolve once the morality of society waned.

And it makes sense, put a moral people in control of a bad system and they will fix it. Put an amoral society in charge of a perfect system and they will destroy it.

 

[regent]

So if the US is a republic, are the states more of a democracy?

 

[rightwinger]

So if the US is a republic, are the states more of a democracy?

Mini Republics

 

[jon_berzerk]

So if the US is a republic, are the states more of a democracy?

to join the Union they are guaranteed a Republican form of government

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence."

 

[Votto]

So if the US is a republic, are the states more of a democracy?

The states are closer to a democracy than the Federal government for two reasons, there are fewer votes, making your vote count more, and they actually live in the state in which you live, giving them more focus on local needs and wanting to improve the state in which they reside as you do.

Democracy works much better at the local level, which was I think the intention of the Founding Fathers and why state officials appointed those to the Senate at the Federal level.

 

[Votto]

As we saw in ancient Athens, even when you have intelligent and well informed voters, the system is still prone to their lack of virtue and wisdom and will eventually fail once morality wanes.

But just look at the US Federal government in terms of voting. Voters are not voting on the issues of the day as they voted in ancient Athens, they are voting to elect someone to vote on the issues for them. This seems hard enough to work right but add to the fact that the voters are lied to continually with impunity.

How then can we even refer to the US as a democracy or even a representative Republic for that matter?

The only thing we seem to get to vote on directly, other than electing representatives , is if we should fund our children's education by voting more money for schools.

That is pretty sick if you ask me.

 

[Tehon]

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

That is not quite true. And its driving force is competition.

Whether this propensity be one of those original principles in human nature, of which no further account can be given; or whether, as seems more probable, it be the necessary consequence of the faculties of reason and speech, it belongs not to our present subject to enquire. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals, which seem to know neither this nor any other species of contracts. Two greyhounds, in running down the same hare, have sometimes the appearance of acting in some sort of concert. Each turns her towards his companion, or endeavours to intercept her when his companion turns her towards himself. This, however, is not the effect of any contract, but of the accidental concurrence of their passions in the same object at that particular time. Nobody ever saw a dog make a fair and deliberate exchange of one bone for another with another dog.*42 Nobody ever saw one animal by its gestures and natural cries signify to another, this is mine, that yours; I am willing to give this for that. When an animal wants to obtain something either of a man or of another animal, it has no other means of persuasion but to gain the favour of those whose service it requires. A puppy fawns upon its dam, and a spaniel endeavours by a thousand attractions to engage the attention of its master who is at dinner, when it wants to be fed by him. Man sometimes uses the same arts with his brethren, and when he has no other means of engaging them to act according to his inclinations, endeavours by every servile and fawning attention to obtain their good will. He has not time, however, to do this upon every occasion. In civilized society he stands at all times in need of the cooperation and assistance of great multitudes, while his whole life is scarce sufficient to gain the friendship of a few persons. In almost every other race of animals each individual, when it is grown up to maturity, is entirely*43independent, and in its natural state has occasion for the assistance of no other living creature. *44
Smith: Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapters 1-4 | Library of Economics and Liberty, Ch.2, Of the Principle which gives Occasion to the Division of Labour

Animals join pacts for selfish reasons. Wolf packs form because they can encircle prey that can run faster. It is better to share food than not get any.

And that is the key to collectivism. You join a group in order to exert power over other groups. The goal is the gain a leg up on your fellow man. Sure, you may have to share the bounty when your side wins, but at least you are winning on a material level.

Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Progressivism, etc., they are all different brands of the exact same thing leaving a trail of death and destruction along the way.

It is no different for an individualist system like capitalism. It is competition for resources. The goal is to gain a leg up on the competition, your fellow man.

Which is why I am not a proponent of a competitive system such as capitalism. It leaves death and destruction in its wake.

 

[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.

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.

The US waged wars in the Middle East with the notion of starting "democracies". It was almost as if to imply that this act alone justified the blood shed because democracy is just that virtuous. In fact, you also seem to agree that some democracy is better than no democracy. However, what if all the voters were amoral and wicked?