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.

Cowardice Is the Crime That Enables All Others

Submission to the plutocrats you want us to worship is not a virtue.

I don't worship them. I agree with them in that we all have inalienable rights given to us by God.

Moreover, I believe that only man seeks to take these rights from us.

What say you?

The Founding Fathers fought a bloody war to be free from the abuses of a centralized collectivist state. However, they then inexplicably adopted the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to speak out against the colonial government. They had, in effect, become what they had just fought so hard to be free from.

Luckily, Jefferson fought this, but not before taking advantage of the laws himself. Unfortunately, Jefferson did not strike down all of those Acts and what was left FDR used to imprison innocent Japanese Americans during WW2.

So no, I don't worship them in the least. They have the same flaws and problems we have today. That does not diminish their accomplishments and wisdom and insight into human nature and truth.

 

[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

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

 

[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

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

Is it?

What if a corporation took over the entire government?

The issue is totalitarian rule. It is the most efficient form of government but also the one capable of the most abuse of its citizens.

In a perfect world with perfect people, it would be the most ideal form of government. But since men are not angels, their needs to be decentralization and checks and balances to help off set such potential abuses.

 

[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

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

Is it?

What if a corporation took over the entire government?

The issue is totalitarian rule. It is the most efficient form of government but also the one capable of the most abuse of its citizens.

In a perfect world with perfect people, it would be the most ideal form of government. But since men are not angels, their needs to be decentralization and checks and balances to help off set such potential abuses.

the what ifs -LOL

 

[task0778]

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

Is it?

What if a corporation took over the entire government?

The issue is totalitarian rule. It is the most efficient form of government but also the one capable of the most abuse of its citizens.

In a perfect world with perfect people, it would be the most ideal form of government. But since men are not angels, their needs to be decentralization and checks and balances to help off set such potential abuses.

Totalitarianism is the most efficient form of gov't? Maybe that depends on whose perspective you're looking at it from. Not many totalitarianistic regimes are all that wonderful from the standpoint of it's citizens. And whether it would be the most ideal form of gov't is debatable even in a perfect world with perfect people, which as we know does not exist and never will.

 

[BlackSand]

Is it?

What if a corporation took over the entire government?

The issue is totalitarian rule. It is the most efficient form of government but also the one capable of the most abuse of its citizens.

In a perfect world with perfect people, it would be the most ideal form of government. But since men are not angels, their needs to be decentralization and checks and balances to help off set such potential abuses.

How about when a company functions like its own little government ... Like the Honorable East India Company?
At one point the East India Company controlled more than half the world's trade.

.

 

[Tehon]

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

Is it?

What if a corporation took over the entire government?

The issue is totalitarian rule. It is the most efficient form of government but also the one capable of the most abuse of its citizens.

In a perfect world with perfect people, it would be the most ideal form of government. But since men are not angels, their needs to be decentralization and checks and balances to help off set such potential abuses.

Now the OP decrying democracy starts to come into focus.

 

[gipper]

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

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

It is run by individual interests.

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

 

[Tehon]

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

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

It is run by individual interests.

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.

 

[Votto]

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

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.

 

[task0778]

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.

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

 

[task0778]

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.

How about Switzerland? How about you give me an example of a form of gov't other than democracy that has worked well. Democracy may not be all tht great, but it's gotta be way ahead of any other form of gov't when it ocmes to what is best for it's people.

 

[Votto]

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.

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.

 

[Votto]

I wonder if jillian has the gonads to actually debate in this forum rather than just troll with smiley faces.

My guess is no.

 

[task0778]

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.

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.

 

[anotherlife]

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.

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 and prevent a centralized dictatorship. Washington himself declined to be made king in an effort to decentralize power.

What problem do you have with that?

By taxation, especially European style, all assets can be migrated from private to government ownership. So much for checks and balances against totalitarian government.

 

[Tehon]

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

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

It is run by individual interests.

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.

Democracy doesn't stand a chance in any society built on competition for the necessities and niceties of life. Competition for the material necessities of life has historically been necessary due to the underdeveloped processes of production. That time has come and gone. Now we do it by choice.

Democracy is flawed and I believe for the reason I have given. But fundamentally, it is the proper form of governance.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

As Purposely Destructive As Letting Ten-Year-Olds Vote

You're blaming democracy for the distant, ignorant, and self-serving oligarchy set up by your anti-democratic Sacred Cow, the U.S Constitution. Only pathetic losers want to worship some system that makes them feel superior to the majority, not realizing that the minority in power considers them, too, as being part of the inferior majority.

And majority in a legitimate democracy must be understood to mean the majority of those allowed to vote by the majority. The enemies of democracy want it to mean the best governed by the worst, which proves that, despite what their position is in public, the self-appointed ruling class gave the vote to those who they knew would give "democracy" a bad name by leeching off the previous and deserving majority. But the Civil Rights for the Uncivilized Laws were forced on us by the 1% against the will of the majority, so the present state represents an intentional perversion of democracy.

Your disdain for the Constitution and Bill of Rights is duly noted.

What about them rubs you the wrong way?

The Founding Fodder Gave Us Oats, Not Votes

You must have disdain for the Bill of Rights, which were excluded from the original of the document you glorify. That anti-democratic manifesto established a bossy and bickering oligarchic clique and took legislative power away from the people. Free men get together and determine their own destiny; they don't delegate authority to self-appointed guardians. Only sheep need a Good Shepherd. Your preaching reeks of disdain for your fellow Americans. Anyone with that attitude will easily betray us.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

A Republic Is a Foster Government

Establishing a political oligarchy, which bickers only about which pet ideology will suck the most power away from the majority, was the assignment of the lawyers for the 18th Century 1% who wrote the elitist Constitution behind closed doors. By the way, quit lying about the Bill of Rights. You know the Founding Fodder didn't include that in their clients' Constitution; that's why it is a list of Amendments.

Did you prefer the Articles of Confederation?

The Bill of Rights were written to protect the citizens from government.

Constitutionalists, Like Religious Fanatics, Need a Supreme and Everlasting Document

How typical of a pushy and dishonest argument. In order to seem logical, you imply that the Articles were the only alternative. The government claims to be the will of us, the people. The fact that it was needed shows that this form of government represents only a tyrannical and preordained class. Besides, the rulers' mercenary preachers don't want us to realize how easily our rights can be suppressed, because they are enforced by the same Constitutional dictatorship.

 

[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.

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.