CDZ Why is democracy a good form of government?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course it is not in the interests of manipulators that the manipulated be educated enough to recognize manipulation. Democracy, to function, requires an educated populace.
An educated electorate would never have tolerated the deterioration of American democracy to its present level.
We wonder, therefore, what happens in our society that such a percentage of adults can be so ill instructed. The lamentable level of 'reasoning', 'evaluating', 'debating' demonstrates that a distrust of democracy is justified.
In a society, such as America's, where economic power is considered the highest measure, democratic institutions devolve to carefully controlled oligarchic ones. Thus, even a republican democracy loses its representative sense in the broadest term and becomes representative only of an élite.
They have given us an oligarchy, if they can keep it.

manipulators?

 

[lake avenue]

Are you speaking about direct democracy or representative democracy?

I would argue that direct democracy would not be a very good system, because it allows votes to be influenced more by the media and current events. Votes may be sensationalized.

In a direct democracy, the people can call for a vote practically any time they like, unless they vote for them to be held on a schedule, and even then, they can vote for them to be able to call a vote whenever they wish.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are voted to lead.

 

[dcraelin]

Are you speaking about direct democracy or representative democracy?

I would argue that direct democracy would not be a very good system, because it allows votes to be influenced more by the media and current events. Votes may be sensationalized.

In a direct democracy, the people can call for a vote practically any time they like, unless they vote for them to be held on a schedule, and even then, they can vote for them to be able to call a vote whenever they wish.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are voted to lead.

actually a partial system of direct democracy would improve things. Candidates can lie....or rely on voters misplaced perceptions of what party affiliation means (RINOs & DINOs) or they can be bought or influenced with special interest money.... issue based voting doesnt have those weaknesses at least not to the same extent I dont think. Switzerland does well with their nationwide initiative option.

 

[lake avenue]

Are you speaking about direct democracy or representative democracy?

I would argue that direct democracy would not be a very good system, because it allows votes to be influenced more by the media and current events. Votes may be sensationalized.

In a direct democracy, the people can call for a vote practically any time they like, unless they vote for them to be held on a schedule, and even then, they can vote for them to be able to call a vote whenever they wish.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are voted to lead.

actually a partial system of direct democracy would improve things. Candidates can lie....or rely on voters misplaced perceptions of what party affiliation means (RINOs & DINOs) or they can be bought or influenced with special interest money.... issue based voting doesnt have those weaknesses at least not to the same extent I dont think. Switzerland does well with their nationwide initiative option.

I'm not familiar with switzerland's form of democracy, could you elaborate?

 

[dcraelin]

Are you speaking about direct democracy or representative democracy?

I would argue that direct democracy would not be a very good system, because it allows votes to be influenced more by the media and current events. Votes may be sensationalized.

In a direct democracy, the people can call for a vote practically any time they like, unless they vote for them to be held on a schedule, and even then, they can vote for them to be able to call a vote whenever they wish.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are voted to lead.

actually a partial system of direct democracy would improve things. Candidates can lie....or rely on voters misplaced perceptions of what party affiliation means (RINOs & DINOs) or they can be bought or influenced with special interest money.... issue based voting doesnt have those weaknesses at least not to the same extent I dont think. Switzerland does well with their nationwide initiative option.

I'm not familiar with switzerland's form of democracy, could you elaborate?

It has a national initiative option and has had aspects of direct democracy for as I understand it over 600 years.
Voters, by gathering enough signatures can get issues on a nationwide ballot.

 

[|electric|foxy|]

Our system might be called democracy if some societal actions like #Occupy would be considered as referendums.

 

[dcraelin]

Our system might be called democracy if some societal actions like #Occupy would be considered as referendums.

we have a poor democracy/impure Republic .... and we need what Switzerland has to blunt the effect of the crooks in DC.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Is no instance anywhere in the world or history or a large-population democracy working. Get too many people and you need to govern them absolutely. Why throughout history monarchies and dictatorships worked. Look at the modern middle east, dictators kept multiple tribes in check. Wasn't until the idealist democracies meddled that the entire region descended into chaos. And when those democracies do even worse things than the dictators did, it's not like democracies were morally superior. May not have been Eden, but at least things were stable.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

At the peak of its' power and influence, and when it invented democracy classical Greece has less than a million people. When the US was founded we had about 2.5 million. That's the upper limit of democractic population sustainability.

320 million or so of today is just a bad joke. Democracy doesn't work when you have more than a few million.

 

[dcraelin]

Is no instance anywhere in the world or history or a large-population democracy working. Get too many people and you need to govern them absolutely. Why throughout history monarchies and dictatorships worked. Look at the modern middle east, dictators kept multiple tribes in check. Wasn't until the idealist democracies meddled that the entire region descended into chaos. And when those democracies do even worse things than the dictators did, it's not like democracies were morally superior. May not have been Eden, but at least things were stable.

Switzerland has 8 million people...does fine with a direct democracy/pure republic option

part of the problem with the middle east is the oil resource which invites foreign meddling. If the US population had been directly asked whether they wanted to intervene in say Libya..they would have said no, and the nation would be in better shape today.

 

[Josf]

If someone claims that democracy is equal to, or means the same thing as, mob rule, or majority rule, or any idea along the lines of absolute power commanded by one group of people upon another group of people against the will of the weaker people who are subjected to the will of the stronger people, then the accurate word for that type of arrangement is organized crime under the color of law.

The initial idea of rule of law is the natural condition of mankind. The initial idea of crime, which then becomes organized crime when more, and more, and more, and more people agree, or volunteer, to be criminals, alone, or in cooperation with each other, is an unnatural condition of mankind. The idea of government is a reaction to the idea of crime by people still existing in the natural condition of mankind, and the reaction is to defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals.

Many competitive forms of government have been discovered, employed, forgotten, rediscovered, employed again, and again, over time.

If you want to know one of the meanings of democracy then here is one source that explains the definition of democracy according to those who exemplified what democracy was when these people employed democracy:
The Athenian

A relevant quote is next offered in the context of this Clean Debate that is Open Source (a.k.a. open to the public at large, under certain rules and conditions enforced by a form of government exemplified right here on this public access forum):

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

That information was handed down at least to Thomas Paine who published both Common Sense, in 1776, and Rights of Man in 1791/1792, and again relevant to this Clean Debate the following quote is taken out of Rights of Man, and offered to dispel these changes in the meanings of words from their original organic meanings, to the new counterfeit meanings:

Quote Below:____________________________________________________________________________
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.

Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]

Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.

Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.

The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.

But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.

Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?

It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.

It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.

It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.
Quote End_________________________________________________________________________________

Next is a relevant quote out of Common Sense by Thomas Paine before the representatives of the people working within a working Federal Voluntary Union or Confederated Government of Independent States penned the first Statute of that newly formed Federation in a form known as a Declaration of Independence. So the timeline here is important.

Common Sense was written before the Voluntary Union of people in 13 Republics formed an organic government known as a Federation or Confederation of Independent States, and one of the first documents produced by employees (chosen by meritocracy, or erupting into office out of necessity) of the new Federation was a Declaration of Independence that ought to be understood by everyone as the founding document, and therefore that document precedes any other, later, creation of Statute.

From Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, before the creation of a Federal Government in 1776 in that same year writes:

Quote below:____________________________________________________________________________
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
Quote above:____________________________________________________________________________

If the term democracy is misused, then those who misuse the term do so either knowingly, or unknowingly, and the cure for ignorance is not more ignorance.

 

[dcraelin]

If someone claims that democracy is equal to, or means the same thing as, mob rule, or majority rule, or any idea along the lines of absolute power commanded by one group of people upon another group of people against the will of the weaker people who are subjected to the will of the stronger people, then the accurate word for that type of arrangement is organized crime under the color of law.

The initial idea of rule of law is the natural condition of mankind. The initial idea of crime, which then becomes organized crime when more, and more, and more, and more people agree, or volunteer, to be criminals, alone, or in cooperation with each other, is an unnatural condition of mankind. The idea of government is a reaction to the idea of crime by people still existing in the natural condition of mankind, and the reaction is to defend the innocent victims from the guilty criminals.

Many competitive forms of government have been discovered, employed, forgotten, rediscovered, employed again, and again, over time.

If you want to know one of the meanings of democracy then here is one source that explains the definition of democracy according to those who exemplified what democracy was when these people employed democracy:
The Athenian

A relevant quote is next offered in the context of this Clean Debate that is Open Source (a.k.a. open to the public at large, under certain rules and conditions enforced by a form of government exemplified right here on this public access forum):

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

That information was handed down at least to Thomas Paine who published both Common Sense, in 1776, and Rights of Man in 1791/1792, and again relevant to this Clean Debate the following quote is taken out of Rights of Man, and offered to dispel these changes in the meanings of words from their original organic meanings, to the new counterfeit meanings:

Quote Below:____________________________________________________________________________
Though the ancient governments present to us a miserable picture of the condition of man, there is one which above all others exempts itself from the general description. I mean the democracy of the Athenians. We see more to admire, and less to condemn, in that great, extraordinary people, than in any thing which history affords.

Mr. Burke is so little acquainted with constituent principles of government, that he confounds democracy and representation together. Representation was a thing unknown in the ancient democracies. In those the mass of the people met and enacted laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person. [note: look up the word sortition for a possible greater understanding of this time period]

Simple democracy was no other than the common hall of the ancients. It signifies the form, as well as the public principle of the government. As these democracies increased in population, and the territory extended, the simple democratical form became unwieldy and impracticable; and as the system of representation was not known, the consequence was, they either degenerated convulsively into monarchies, or became absorbed into such as then existed.

Had the system of representation been then understood, as it now is, there is no reason to believe that those forms of government, now called monarchical and aristocratical, would ever have taken place. It was the want of some method to consolidate the parts of society, after it became too populous, and too extensive for the simple democratical form, and also the lax and solitary condition of shepherds and herdsmen in other parts of the world, that afforded opportunities to those unnatural modes of government to begin.

As it is necessary to clear away the rubbish of errors, into which the subject of government has been thrown, I shall proceed to remark on some others.

It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism; but what republicanism was, or is, they never attempt to explain. Let us examine a little into this case.

The only forms of government are, the democratical, the aristocratical, the monarchical, and what is now called the representative.

What is called a republic, is not any particular form of government. It is wholly characteristical of the purport, matter, or object for which government ought to be instituted, and on which it is to be employed, res-publica, the public affairs, or the public good; or, literally translated, the public thing.

It is a word of a good original, referring to what ought to be the character and business of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy, which has a base original signification. It means arbitrary power in an individual person; in the exercise of which, himself, and not the res-publica, is the object.

Every government that does not act on the principle of a republic, or in other words, that does not make the res-publica its whole and sole object, is not a good government. Republican government is no other than government established and conducted for the interest of the public, as well individually as collectively. It is not necessarily connected with any particular form, but it most naturally associates with the representative form, as being best calculated to secure the end for which a nation is at the expense of supporting it.

Various forms of government have affected to style themselves a republic. Poland calls itself a republic, which is an hereditary aristocracy, with what is called an elective monarchy. Holland calls itself a republic which is chiefly aristocratical, with an hereditary stadtholdership.

But the government of America, which is wholly on the system of representation, is the only real republic in character and practise, that now exists. Its government has no other object than the public business of the nation, and therefore it is properly a republic; and the Americans have taken care that this, and no other, shall always be the object of the government, by their rejecting everything hereditary, and establishing government on the system of representation only.

Those who have said that a republic is not a form of government calculated for countries of great extent, mistook, in the first place, the business of a government for a form of government; for the res-publica equally appertains to every extent of territory and population. And, in the second place, if they meant any thing with respect to form, it was the simple democratical form, such as was the mode of government in the ancient democracies, in which there was no representation. The case therefore, is not, that a republic cannot be extensive, but that it cannot be extensive on the simple democratical form; and the question naturally presents itself, What is the best form of government for conducting the RES-PUBLICA, or the PUBLIC BUSINESS of a nation, after it becomes too extensive and populous for the simple democratical form?

It cannot be monarchy, because monarchy is subject to an objection of the same amount to which the simple democratical form was subject.

It is possible that an individual may lay down a system of principles, on which government shall be constitutionally established to any extent of territory. This is no more than an operation of the mind, acting by its own powers. But the practise upon those principles, as applying to the various and numerous circumstances of a nation, its agriculture, manufacture, trade, commerce, etc., requires a knowledge of a different kind, and which can be had only from the various parts of society.

It is an assemblage of practical knowledge, which no one individual can possess; and therefore the monarchical form is as much limited, in useful practise, from the incompetency of knowledge, as was the democratical form, from the multiplying of population. The one degenerates, by extension, into confusion; the other, into ignorance and incapacity, of which all the great monarchies are an evidence. The monarchical form, therefore, could not be a substitute for the democratical, because it has equal inconveniences.

Much less could it when made hereditary. This is the most effectual of all forms to preclude knowledge. Neither could the high democratical mind have voluntarily yielded itself to be governed by children and idiots, and all the motley insignificance of character, which attends such a mere animal system, the disgrace and the reproach of reason and of man.

As to the aristocratical form, it has the same vices and defects with the monarchical, except that the chance of abilities is better from the proportion of numbers, but there is still no security for the right use and application of them.

Referring, then, to the original simple democracy, it affords the true data from which government on a large scale can begin. It is incapable of extension, not from its principle, but from the inconvenience of its form; and monarchy and aristocracy, from their incapacity. Retaining, then, democracy as the ground, and rejecting the corrupt systems of monarchy and aristocracy, the representative system naturally presents itself; remedying at once the defects of the simple democracy as to form, and the incapacity of the other two with respect to knowledge.

Simple democracy was society governing itself without the aid of secondary means. By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population; and that also with advantages as much superior to hereditary government, as the republic of letters is to hereditary literature.

It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy. It has fixed the form by a scale parallel in all cases to the extent of the principle. What Athens was in miniature, America will be in magnitude. The one was the wonder of the ancient world; the other is becoming the admiration and model of the present. It is the easiest of all the forms of government to be understood, and the most eligible in practise; and excludes at once the ignorance and insecurity of the hereditary mode, and the inconvenience of the simple democracy.

It is impossible to conceive a system of government capable of acting over such an extent of territory, and such a circle of interests, as is immediately produced by the operation of representation. France, great and popular as it is, is but a spot in the capaciousness of the system. It adapts itself to all possible cases. It is preferable to simple democracy even in small territories. Athens, by representation, would have outrivaled her own democracy.

That which is called government, or rather that which we ought to conceive government to be, is no more than some common center, in which all the parts of society unite. This cannot be accomplished by any method so conducive to the various interests of the community, as by the representative system.

It concentrates the knowledge necessary to the interests of the parts, and of the whole. It places government in a state of constant maturity. It is, as has been already observed, never young, never old. It is subject neither to nonage, nor dotage.
Quote End_________________________________________________________________________________

Next is a relevant quote out of Common Sense by Thomas Paine before the representatives of the people working within a working Federal Voluntary Union or Confederated Government of Independent States penned the first Statute of that newly formed Federation in a form known as a Declaration of Independence. So the timeline here is important.

Common Sense was written before the Voluntary Union of people in 13 Republics formed an organic government known as a Federation or Confederation of Independent States, and one of the first documents produced by employees (chosen by meritocracy, or erupting into office out of necessity) of the new Federation was a Declaration of Independence that ought to be understood by everyone as the founding document, and therefore that document precedes any other, later, creation of Statute.

From Thomas Paine, in Common Sense, before the creation of a Federal Government in 1776 in that same year writes:

Quote below:____________________________________________________________________________
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.

Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.
Quote above:____________________________________________________________________________

If the term democracy is misused, then those who misuse the term do so either knowingly, or unknowingly, and the cure for ignorance is not more ignorance.

is the first lengthy quote from the rights of man?

"It has always been the political craft of courtiers and court-governments, to abuse something which they called republicanism;" ....

This is happening today with those that make a separation between Democracy and Republicanism,

I disagree a bit with him but summerize as follows.
Paine basically says that representation allows government instituted to act in the public good (republicanism) to apply to a larger extent of territory. It was previously limited to a small territory and instituted mostly with sortition, a type of democracy.

I tend to side a little more with Rousseau in this " [T]he moment a people allows itself to be represented, it is no longer free: it no longer exists.”

 

[Josf]

xThe sentence quoted is from The Rights of Man and much is confused on this subject matter. The example of representation was not known, according to Paine, until much later than democracy was known, and therefore the following quote is another example of misunderstanding:

"Paine basically says that representation allows government instituted to act in the public good (republicanism) to apply to a larger extent of territory. It was previously limited to a small territory and instituted mostly with sortition, a type of democracy."

It, or "representation," was (according to Paine) not used until much later than the use of sortition. I agree though that sortition was a form of representation; so the words are failing to express meaning well enough to avoid confusion - perhaps.

The point I wanted to make clear, beyond reasonable doubt, was the point at which the term democracy twisted into the precise opposite of what democracy was at the time the Greeks employed democracy for whatever the Greeks had in mind with that process they called democracy.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

The twist from statistically understood "proportional" representation included that type of government by the people, for the people, and of the people, in "trial by the country" which survives today in the form of trial by jury, where the idea remains on the books (Bill of Rights) and in practice wherever people volunteer, and are then randomly selected, as jurists. That was called the Palladium of Liberty by the people who were against the criminal take-over of America in 1787. Trial by the country is very well explained in the work of Lysander Spooner titled Trial by Jury.

The idea was to employ a method by which the criminals were accused and found to be criminals without handing all the decision making power (guilt or innocence) to one man, or to one exclusive group, and therefore the selection process of jurists was again random, and again a statistical or "proportional" representation of the whole country of people (at least what people called free people, not slaves, or women at first, or children, or known criminals, or insane people, or domesticated animals, or wild animals, or mad dogs, or sociopaths, or psychopaths, or even sycophants), but the concept of voir dire survives today, again only where it does in an original form, not were it is counterfeited into a false form, as a means of governing who becomes the decider in chief. Other surviving features of said trial by jury (palladium of Liberty government by the people, of the people, and for the people, not the criminals hiding behind a false color of law) is the idea of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the requirement of unanimous agreement (the whole country agrees through those representatives randomly selected), and each individual, therefore, has the power to set another individual free, by acquittal (but not without some liability if an individual fraudulently sets someone free); as the idea was, and still is, to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help us us, or so help us anyone, including God, if there is one.

The idea is to take the dick out of dictatorship; pick randomly, and then make sure whoever does the deciding is incapable of deciding to repeat crimes while acting as chief garbage collector, jurist, city planner, chief bad guy finder, chief military recruiter, or whatnot. Meritocracy works like the volunteer aspect and the voir dire process in trial by jury; whereby those volunteering to get on the list to be picked for the job are not rocks, plants, mad dogs, wild animals, domesticated animals, sycophants, psychopaths, sociopaths, infants, infirm, or just not capable of doing a competitive job, rather volunteers are the first cut in a reasonable (not criminal) selection process, and then, as in trial by jury, after selection by lot, the merits of one or the other in competition among the members of the pool pare down to the one making the single decision, or the many making the unanimous decision in some way finding agreement; again voluntary.

So where does this majority rule idea find its way into the brains of otherwise smart people?

When the criminals take over they take over everything including the choice to pick them as an accused, but presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, member of the whole people in need of trial by the country in a real form such as trial by jury?

In fact that happened in secret meetings in Philadelphia in 1787.

 

[dcraelin]

xThe sentence quoted is from The Rights of Man and much is confused on this subject matter. The example of representation was not known, according to Paine, until much later than democracy was known, and therefore the following quote is another example of misunderstanding:

"Paine basically says that representation allows government instituted to act in the public good (republicanism) to apply to a larger extent of territory. It was previously limited to a small territory and instituted mostly with sortition, a type of democracy."

It, or "representation," was (according to Paine) not used until much later than the use of sortition. I agree though that sortition was a form of representation; so the words are failing to express meaning well enough to avoid confusion - perhaps.

The point I wanted to make clear, beyond reasonable doubt, was the point at which the term democracy twisted into the precise opposite of what democracy was at the time the Greeks employed democracy for whatever the Greeks had in mind with that process they called democracy.

"That is why the Athenians saw elections as an oligarchical rather than a democratic phenomenon. Above all, the Athenians feared the prospect of government officials forming a privileged class with separate interests of their own. Through reliance on sortition, random selection by lot, the Council could be guaranteed to represent a fair cross-section of the Athenian people — a kind of proportional representation, as it were. Random selection ensured that those selected would be representatives of the people as a whole, whereas selection by vote made those selected into mere representatives of the majority."

The twist from statistically understood "proportional" representation included that type of government by the people, for the people, and of the people, in "trial by the country" which survives today in the form of trial by jury, where the idea remains on the books (Bill of Rights) and in practice wherever people volunteer, and are then randomly selected, as jurists. That was called the Palladium of Liberty by the people who were against the criminal take-over of America in 1787. Trial by the country is very well explained in the work of Lysander Spooner titled Trial by Jury.

The idea was to employ a method by which the criminals were accused and found to be criminals without handing all the decision making power (guilt or innocence) to one man, or to one exclusive group, and therefore the selection process of jurists was again random, and again a statistical or "proportional" representation of the whole country of people (at least what people called free people, not slaves, or women at first, or children, or known criminals, or insane people, or domesticated animals, or wild animals, or mad dogs, or sociopaths, or psychopaths, or even sycophants), but the concept of voir dire survives today, again only where it does in an original form, not were it is counterfeited into a false form, as a means of governing who becomes the decider in chief. Other surviving features of said trial by jury (palladium of Liberty government by the people, of the people, and for the people, not the criminals hiding behind a false color of law) is the idea of presumption of innocence until proven guilty, the requirement of unanimous agreement (the whole country agrees through those representatives randomly selected), and each individual, therefore, has the power to set another individual free, by acquittal (but not without some liability if an individual fraudulently sets someone free); as the idea was, and still is, to find the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help us us, or so help us anyone, including God, if there is one.

The idea is to take the dick out of dictatorship; pick randomly, and then make sure whoever does the deciding is incapable of deciding to repeat crimes while acting as chief garbage collector, jurist, city planner, chief bad guy finder, chief military recruiter, or whatnot. Meritocracy works like the volunteer aspect and the voir dire process in trial by jury; whereby those volunteering to get on the list to be picked for the job are not rocks, plants, mad dogs, wild animals, domesticated animals, sycophants, psychopaths, sociopaths, infants, infirm, or just not capable of doing a competitive job, rather volunteers are the first cut in a reasonable (not criminal) selection process, and then, as in trial by jury, after selection by lot, the merits of one or the other in competition among the members of the pool pare down to the one making the single decision, or the many making the unanimous decision in some way finding agreement; again voluntary.

So where does this majority rule idea find its way into the brains of otherwise smart people?

When the criminals take over they take over everything including the choice to pick them as an accused, but presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, member of the whole people in need of trial by the country in a real form such as trial by jury?

In fact that happened in secret meetings in Philadelphia in 1787.

well...Not sure I'm following you.....but I dont see majority rule as the problem really, within any deliberating body anyway. ...The electing of "representatives" is a problem, especially when we allow those with a lot of money to have a larger voice. A proportional election system for legislators would improve our system, I agree with that.

 

[Josf]

Confusion during information exchange is an accurately measurable problem with many obvious competitive solutions. In this case I can offer a competitive solution. The idea of rule by criminals is one idea. Call that any name so long as the name used will serve the purpose of covering up the fact that it is rule by criminals.

I think those words above are competitive words that express an idea well enough so as to avoid any further confusion. I can of course be very wrong often. Expressed agreement helps solve the problem of confusion during information exchange. I can ask if you agree with the above idea, and then if there is no agreement, then I can identify a specific problem area where confusion is happening precisely instead of generally.

Is it true that the idea of rule by criminals is an idea that includes the employment of words that serve the purpose of covering up the fact that the idea is the idea of rule by criminals?

I can assume that the above is agreed upon too; so as to try to avoid wasting time.

If the criminals get their criminal rule going, with or without the false labels that cover up the facts that the criminals have taken over, then the names used mean the opposite of the actual meaning.

Take democracy for example.

Opps the work bell rang so I have to go at this time.

 

[dcraelin]

Confusion during information exchange is an accurately measurable problem with many obvious competitive solutions. In this case I can offer a competitive solution. The idea of rule by criminals is one idea. Call that any name so long as the name used will serve the purpose of covering up the fact that it is rule by criminals.

I think those words above are competitive words that express an idea well enough so as to avoid any further confusion. I can of course be very wrong often. Expressed agreement helps solve the problem of confusion during information exchange. I can ask if you agree with the above idea, and then if there is no agreement, then I can identify a specific problem area where confusion is happening precisely instead of generally.

Is it true that the idea of rule by criminals is an idea that includes the employment of words that server the purpose of cover up the fact that the idea is the idea of rule by criminals?

I can assume that the above is agreed upon too; so as to try to avoid wasting time.

If the criminals get their criminal rule going, with or without the false labels that cover up the facts that the criminals have taken over, then the names used mean the opposite of the actual meaning.

Take democracy for example.

Opps the work bell rang so I have to go at this time.

political words are often used to manipulate perceptions, as Paine said of the word "republic" or "republicanism"

I think your being excessively negative but it reminds me of a quote by some famous theologian I think, something along the lines of, 'what is government but a gang of thugs under another name'

 

[Josf]

Accusations are either acted upon or ignored. In this case I will not ignore the accusation that I am "being excessively negative," and the reason for me to focus attention on that accusation is to point out one competitive version of government that is offered voluntarily by people for people instead of the rule by criminals idea.

Someone accuses someone else of having done something wrong.

Example:
"I think your being excessively negative but it reminds me of a quote by some famous theologian I think, something along the lines of, 'what is government but a gang of thugs under another name'"

You are now the accuser. I am the accused. The version of government that is in competition with the criminal version of government was called by various names such as Legem Terrae, or in English the law of the land, and then that same version of government was also called trial by jury, and due process, and the common law. This due process stuff involved an accuser, which can be anyone, and a process by which accusations were handled, so as to avoid the often repeated problem of criminals running amok in the area unopposed by any individual or any group.

If the accusation goes nowhere, obviously, the accusation could be false, and there is no cause for action, or the accusation could be true, and the accusation goes no where, resulting in the lack of any opposition to the possible continued activity of the criminal perpetrating more, and more, and more, crimes upon innocent victims.

The work bell I went to happened to be a case where someone renting a home was away from the home and the place was robbed. Was someone actually robbed, or was it an insurance scam, a false claim of robbery, where the accuser sold the items and then claimed that the items were stolen? As it happens there are other people interested in this event, me included, as an employee of the one who holds title of the bond on the property, or the loan/mortgage/title/claims of ownership, and the evidence, so far, indicates that a crime was perpetrated and the innocent victim is the renter who phoned my employer.

So now there are two obvious cases of two types of government involving two accusations. I am accused of being too negative in one case. A renter is accusing an as yet identified individual who now has a few televisions that were once in the rented home. There is then a demand for agreement where there is disagreement, conflict of interest, and claims of right or wrong.

I do not see myself as being negative at all, never mind being too negative, since there are obvious, workable, solutions to these disagreements, and the processes by which agreement can be found where there is a demand for agreement, are due to those who want them, voluntarily, so why not be positive about it, and why not offer those solutions to those problems instead of being, in any way, negative about it?

That handles my defense against the accusation that I am too negative, so far as I am able at this point, but who judges the case in that case? Someone claims that I am too negative and perhaps that causes a very minor discredit to what I think is something worth defending, which is the perception of me by other people, or "my good name," or my reputation. I, me, becomes the subject matter, not the topic of the discussion, and I am claimed to be too negative, for some reason.

Is that the early stages of character assassination, so as to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the facts offered in the message? Who is the judge in this case, or how is this Forum governed?

 

[dcraelin]

Accusations are either acted upon or ignored. In this case I will not ignore the accusation that I am "being excessively negative," and the reason for me to focus attention on that accusation is to point out one competitive version of government that is offered voluntarily by people for people instead of the rule by criminals idea.

Someone accuses someone else of having done something wrong.

Example:
"I think your being excessively negative but it reminds me of a quote by some famous theologian I think, something along the lines of, 'what is government but a gang of thugs under another name'"

You are now the accuser. I am the accused. The version of government that is in competition with the criminal version of government was called by various names such as Legem Terrae, or in English the law of the land, and then that same version of government was also called trial by jury, and due process, and the common law. This due process stuff involved an accuser, which can be anyone, and a process by which accusations were handled, so as to avoid the often repeated problem of criminals running amok in the area unopposed by any individual or any group.

If the accusation goes nowhere, obviously, the accusation could be false, and there is no cause for action, or the accusation could be true, and the accusation goes no where, resulting in the lack of any opposition to the possible continued activity of the criminal perpetrating more, and more, and more, crimes upon innocent victims.

The work bell I went to happened to be a case where someone renting a home was away from the home and the place was robbed. Was someone actually robbed, or was it an insurance scam, a false claim of robbery, where the accuser sold the items and then claimed that the items were stolen? As it happens there are other people interested in this event, me included, as an employee of the one who holds title of the bond on the property, or the loan/mortgage/title/claims of ownership, and the evidence, so far, indicates that a crime was perpetrated and the innocent victim is the renter who phoned my employer.

So now there are two obvious cases of two types of government involving two accusations. I am accused of being too negative in one case. A renter is accusing an as yet identified individual who now has a few televisions that were once in the rented home. There is then a demand for agreement where there is disagreement, conflict of interest, and claims of right or wrong.

I do not see myself as being negative at all, never mind being too negative, since there are obvious, workable, solutions to these disagreements, and the processes by which agreement can be found where there is a demand for agreement, are due to those who want them, voluntarily, so why not be positive about it, and why not offer those solutions to those problems instead of being, in any way, negative about it?

That handles my defense against the accusation that I am too negative, so far as I am able at this point, but who judges the case in that case? Someone claims that I am too negative and perhaps that causes a very minor discredit to what I think is something worth defending, which is the perception of me by other people, or "my good name," or my reputation. I, me, becomes the subject matter, not the topic of the discussion, and I am claimed to be too negative, for some reason.

Is that the early stages of character assassination, so as to shoot the messenger instead of dealing with the facts offered in the message? Who is the judge in this case, or how is this Forum governed?

JIMINY!! .....Soorrrrry

 

[Josf]

Demonstrating how true defensive, voluntary, government works is useful, so I do not know why someone would be "sorry" if that is the case here, and back to the subject matter I can offer voluntarily a few more words relevant to the specifics of the Topic.

Democracy as it is being defined by guilty criminals as they perpetrate crimes of specific injuries done to innocent victims is nothing but crime hidden behind the false name of democracy, also known as the color of law. That inspires discredit aimed at whatever may have been the genuine defining of democracy done by anyone anytime anyplace; including those defining the meaning of democracy in Athens Greece and those 13 areas called by names such as States, Republics, Democracies, Countries, and Legal Fictions, formed by people who had enough of the crimes done by people who called themselves such names as The British, Loyalists, Rulers who rule by Divine Authority, Tax Collectors, or whatnot.

So which definition does the topic starter intend to convey, which meaning is meant, when choosing the word democracy? I'm curious; but the available evidence appears to prove beyond a reasonable doubt to me, that the definition is the counterfeited version where rule of law is no longer the idea, and in place of that good idea there is the idea of rule by criminals.

 

[Agit8r]

A friend of mine was talking about how he thinks democracy is a bad way to run government because it's just a 'popularity contest, like electing 5th grade class president except with a world super power.' He says that whoever governs us should be chosen based on how qualified they are, i.e. meritocracy.
What do participants think? Do any of you agree?
http://

The alternative you have described is technocracy. China is an example of such a system.