And there is the beauty of itI think you or anyone would be very hard pressed to show that to be an accurate statement.
"We the people" decide whom to emplace as our representatives and, in turn, those representatives get to decide how large or small be the government. Such is the nature of a republic. Even there, however, the elected representatives don't directly decide on size, but rather on the scope of activities the government will undertake, size being merely a consequence of how much or how little the government attempts to accomplish.
We the People routinely vote out those representatives who go against our wishes
The scope of government has been increasing for generations. If the people disapproved, we would have let our feelings be known
The people like government programs
Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.
The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.
If we're too impatient for that, we can cheat. We can elect leaders and judges who will ignore the Constitution. We can 'reinterpret' it to accommodate our current goals for society. But doing that comes at a price. Dependable limits on government power are what make democracy possible. Those limits are what make losing an election a tolerable outcome. Without them, losing to an opposing party can literally be a matter of life or death, and people will act to defend themselves. They won't accept rule of law and sovereignty crumbles. We're seeing that happen now.Really? When in history has there ever been an "unlimited democracy," let alone several of them, whereby history, in turn, has so shown?History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.
I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.
Hardly....our Constitution has worked for hundreds of yearsWe the People created the Constitution in order to form a more perfect unionSorry, you already dismissed the Constitution with all your "We the People" horseshit. No take-backs. If you want everything to be a matter of majority rule, you don't get any protection from a court system. That's the trade-off. You can't have it both ways.
The courts were a major part of that Constitution
Ok, so you're just trolling again. Keep chanting.
Not in the mood for trolling today, rw. Flip-flop on someone else's dime.What you were discussing is what it is -- you could as well have been discussing genetic variation in fruit flies, for all I care -- what you were discussing doesn't obviate the need for your assertion to nonetheless be accurate.I was discussing the role of the Constitution with rw - he seems to think that majority rule is all that matters.
I just want you to identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.
They are utilized all the time at the local and state level where the people vote for referendums, tax increases, bond issues, etc. and at that level they are the most democratic method to decide issues on which there are differences of opinion.
To the best of my knowledge no recognized nation has ever used the majority rule concept. Even American Indian tribes of old and the most primitive peoples in Africa, etc. have chosen a governing body or leader to speak and decide for all. As civilization developed, we have had dictators, monarchs, feudal lords, popes/religious rule, and other forms of totalitarian governments. Marx proposed a true democratic system but it required totalitarian dictatorship to accomplish it and as things go, once a government has totalitarian power, it does not voluntarily relinquish it.
And whenever there has been a democratic vote to decide a controversial issue--think California's Proposition 8--and it doesn't go the way the politically correct want it to go, such votes are quickly overturned by lawsuits and activist courts. They won't even allow a democratic vote on such things as abortion or gun control out of fear of how the people might vote.
And in truth, in many, perhaps most matters, a tyranny of the majority can trample on the unalienable rights of the minority, as can a tyranny of the minority that holds the power and ability to dictate to all.