Democracy and Freedom

[Dragon]

Yes but the lobbyists are voters and Citizens too. They do have the right to lobby representatives. It's just the way it is. You also have the right to lobby any represtnative you like as well. Lobbying to get what you want from Government is as American as Apple Pie. Like i said earlier,Freedom & Liberty can be messy. It is what it is.

We have to distinguish, then, between lobbying and money. Lobbying can consist of nothing more than communicating one's desires to the government. But when it comes backed by money, that's not lobbying, that's bribery. It's not legally bribery because the politician puts the money in his campaign fund rather than his personal bank account. But it's still a payment for services, which means it matches illegal bribery where it counts.

 

[Dragon]

So my rights do not depend upon the discretion of democratic majorities or 5 to 4 SCOTUS decisions

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether we're supposed to be a democratic republic.

 

[Dragon]

A pure DEMOCRACY doesn't necessarily equate to freedom. It rather tends to lead to mob rule and pity you should you be on the short end of the stick of the mob.

What exactly do you mean by "pure" democracy?

All government must be restrained by protections of rights. That's just as true of democracy -- although no more true of it -- as it is of monarchy or aristocracy. So if by "pure" you mean a democracy without such protections, then you're right, but nobody is proposing that.

If you mean direct as opposed to representative democracy, there's no evidence supporting a claim that this is more dangerous to individual rights than any other form of government.

And if you mean democracy as opposed to aristocracy, for most people that is inherently more liberating, since the privileges of aristocrats are gained at the expense of the people's freedom. We still need protections against government abuse regardless, but it's clear which of those two forms is inherently worse.

 

[paulitician]

Yes but the lobbyists are voters and Citizens too. They do have the right to lobby representatives. It's just the way it is. You also have the right to lobby any represtnative you like as well. Lobbying to get what you want from Government is as American as Apple Pie. Like i said earlier,Freedom & Liberty can be messy. It is what it is.

We have to distinguish, then, between lobbying and money. Lobbying can consist of nothing more than communicating one's desires to the government. But when it comes backed by money, that's not lobbying, that's bribery. It's not legally bribery because the politician puts the money in his campaign fund rather than his personal bank account. But it's still a payment for services, which means it matches illegal bribery where it counts.

Everyone loves trying to get their Government to do what they want. That's been going on since the founding of our Nation. That's what Freedom & Liberty is all about. We all have the right to lobby representatives to do what we want them to do. The System isn't perfect but Freedom & Liberty does trump everything else. We have to take the good along with the bad. Because that guarantees we all have Freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have a Bill of Rights for a reason…

That reason has nothing to do with democracy.

It has to do with democracy to the extent one’s Constitutional rights are not subject to majority rule; the BoR protects each citizen from the tyranny of the majority.

…the Bill of Rights isn't there to protect against dangers that are particular to democracy. They're there to protect against dangers that emerge in all forms of government, democratic or otherwise.

Or to protect against the tyranny of the majority in the context of elected representatives or referenda.

In theory, in a Constitutional Republic subject to the rule of law, one need not be overly concerned if ‘his side’ loses an election – president, Congress, what have you, his Constitutional rights are still protected although he’s in the minority and has limited representation.

In a Constitutional Republic the consequence of ‘losing the election’ shouldn’t be the potential loss of one’s civil liberties.

 

[Defiant1]

So my rights do not depend upon the discretion of democratic majorities or 5 to 4 SCOTUS decisions

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether we're supposed to be a democratic republic.

A democratic republic is a country which is both a republic and a democracy. However, in practice countries which describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections. An example of this was the German Democratic Republic, a communist state commonly known as East Germany.

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens. Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.
In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.
The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes the state a republic.


Wikipedia

 

[The T]

A pure DEMOCRACY doesn't necessarily equate to freedom. It rather tends to lead to mob rule and pity you should you be on the short end of the stick of the mob.

What exactly do you mean by "pure" democracy?

All government must be restrained by protections of rights. That's just as true of democracy -- although no more true of it -- as it is of monarchy or aristocracy. So if by "pure" you mean a democracy without such protections, then you're right, but nobody is proposing that.

If you mean direct as opposed to representative democracy, there's no evidence supporting a claim that this is more dangerous to individual rights than any other form of government.

And if you mean democracy as opposed to aristocracy, for most people that is inherently more liberating, since the privileges of aristocrats are gained at the expense of the people's freedom. We still need protections against government abuse regardless, but it's clear which of those two forms is inherently worse.

WE live in a Democratic Republic where we live by mutually agreed to law by concensus...by representation...LAW rules rather than emotion...where the LAW must be followed no matter what YOU think of it.

WE got something quite special courtesy of the Founders that the Statist Democratic Progressives are trying to ruin by sidestepping the Constitution.

 

[dblack]

We are suppose to be a Republic not a Democracy.

We are supposed to be a democratic republic. Those who say things like the above, as if there were a conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, are revealing their support for aristocracy, because a republic that is not democratic is automatically aristocratic -- there is no third alternative.

Excuse me ding dong, but what historical fact did you rely upon for that conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Maybe it was that ranting wingnut, Thomas Jefferson?

 

[Flopper]

It seems that one of the principle issues we've been struggling with as a country lately (if you call the last hundred years or so 'lately') is the proper role of Democracy in a free society. If anyone else is interested I'd like to discuss that - with an eye toward what our goals should be in the US.

I won't pretend to have anything profound to say on the topic, but i'll present my biases up front: I don't see democracy as a very big deal. I don't think it provides any kind of guarantee of the good life, and is about as likely to positively or negatively impact our lives as any other form of government. In my view, the main selling point for democracy is stability, but that's in no way inconsequential. It allows us, in theory at least, to 'throw the bums out' without resorting to violent conflict. Which is why I remain a strong supporter of democracy when it comes to deciding who will govern.

Beyond that, my enthusiasm wanes. I don't see anything particularly virtuous about majority rule and I don't think I'd want to see more direct democracy in our government. This is becoming more of an issue because we're overcoming some of the hurdles that have made it technically impossible in the past. It's getting to the point where we could open virtually every public decision to majority vote. But would it be a good idea?

(FWIW, my distrust of majority rule doesn't come from the position of protecting privilege. I'm not one of the one percenters. I have little wealth to speak of and no real ambition in that regard. I do, however, almost always find myself in the minority when ti comes to my values and goals in life. I have no desire to impose my values on others, but neither do I want theirs imposed on me.)

What is a better alternative form of government?

I don't know. As I said, I support democracy as means of choosing leaders. It's the push for more, and more direct, democracy that I have doubts about.

The forms of direct democracy that are applicable to our society are referendums, initiatives, and recalls. In my state initiatives are very common. The outcome is usually determined by the amount of money spent on TV ads which often has little to do with the initiative.

 

[Contumacious]

So my rights do not depend upon the discretion of democratic majorities or 5 to 4 SCOTUS decisions

That has absolutely nothing to do with whether we're supposed to be a democratic republic.

Of course it does Vernon.

For example, whether or not I will be COMPELLED to pay for Obama Hellcare depends on whether 5 "Justices" are conviced that my rights to life, liberty , property and to pursue happiness ought to be honored.

.

 

[Contumacious]

We are supposed to be a democratic republic. Those who say things like the above, as if there were a conflict between being a republic and being a democracy, are revealing their support for aristocracy, because a republic that is not democratic is automatically aristocratic -- there is no third alternative.

Excuse me ding dong, but what historical fact did you rely upon for that conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Maybe it was that ranting wingnut, Thomas Jefferson?

I believe that new enhanced "patriot" act criminalizes quoting and/or referencing Thomas Jefferson. The new marxist mandate orders the destruction of his monument and removes all historical references to his presidency.

He is being replaced as a founding father by one Karl Marx.

.

.

 

[Dragon]

A democratic republic is a country which is both a republic and a democracy. However, in practice countries which describe themselves as democratic republics do not always hold free or fair elections. An example of this was the German Democratic Republic, a communist state commonly known as East Germany.

The GDR may have described itself as a democratic republic, but that was a pretense. In reality, it was an aristocratic republic -- which is also true of the United States, but for a completely different reason.

A constitutional republic is a state in which the head of state and other officials are representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over all of its citizens.

This is a wildly idiosyncratic definition. By any normal understanding of the term, a "constitutional republic" is simply a republic whose operations are prescribed in a written constitution. You have incorporated elements of democracy (officials being "representatives of the people") and protections of rights ("limits the government's power over all of its citizens"), neither of which is a necessary or sufficient condition for constitutionality.

In fact, "constitutional republic" is a redundancy. There is no such thing as a non-constitutional republic. The important distinction among republics is whether they are aristocratic or democratic, not whether they are constitutional, because all republics are.

Because the head of the state is elected, it is a republic and not a monarchy.

No, that doesn't follow. The Kings of England prior to the Norman invasion of 1066 were elected by the Witenagemot, a precursor to Parliament in which the nobility voted. Election of the monarch was a fairly common procedure, about as common throughout history as hereditary succession.

What distinguishes a republic from a monarchy is that under a republic no one person holds absolute rule. A republic is collective government, at least to some degree. It may be that only a privileged few can exercise real political power, but it is never a single person.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches.

Yes, this is often true -- or rather, in a republic, that is the case. (All republics are "constitutional.") However, it's not absolutely true. What is absolutely and always true is that in a republic no one person holds the executive, legislative, and judicial powers by himself. Power in a republic is always shared.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional.

No. The constitution prescribes the government's functioning; it does not necessarily limit the government's power.

 

[dblack]

Excuse me ding dong, but what historical fact did you rely upon for that conclusion?!?!?!?!?

.

Maybe it was that ranting wingnut, Thomas Jefferson?

I believe that new enhanced "patriot" act criminalizes quoting and/or referencing Thomas Jefferson. The new marxist mandate orders the destruction of his monument and removes all historical references to his presidency.

He is being replaced as a founding father by one Karl Marx.

.

.

My point was that Dragon was right. And none other than the libertarian's hero (he's certainly one of mine) Thomas Jefferson was a principal advocate for the cause of making this a democratic republican and not one ruled by aristocracy (that was Hamilton's thing). It's equally correct to say that our nation is a democracy and a republic - the concepts don't stand in opposition.

 

[dblack]

I don't think anyone is advocating pure democracy as our system of government but I am puzzled by those who seem to think that we presently have too much democracy in our system.

I got the impression you were advocating just that - from your previous post:

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

Perhaps I read to much into that, or you're making some distinction between 'direct' and 'pure' democracy.

 

[dblack]

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional.

No. The constitution prescribes the government's functioning; it does not necessarily limit the government's power.

When it comes to the US Constitution, it does. If you're suggesting it doesn't, then democracy (or, as you point out, monarchy and aristocracy) becomes a potential threat to liberty. The Bill of Rights, and the structure of checks and balances, simply don't offer enough protection on their own.

 

[Mr.Nick]

Maybe it was that ranting wingnut, Thomas Jefferson?

I believe that new enhanced "patriot" act criminalizes quoting and/or referencing Thomas Jefferson. The new marxist mandate orders the destruction of his monument and removes all historical references to his presidency.

He is being replaced as a founding father by one Karl Marx.

.

.

My point was that Dragon was right. And none other than the libertarian's hero (he's certainly one of mine) Thomas Jefferson was a principal advocate for the cause of making this a democratic republican and not one ruled by aristocracy (that was Hamilton's thing). It's equally correct to say that our nation is a democracy and a republic - the concepts don't stand in opposition.

Hamilton was a federalist tyrant... I cant say I'm shocked Burr challenged him to a duel - I would have done the same..

Not to mention I have no idea why the **** his face is on our currency....

 

[occupied]

I don't think anyone is advocating pure democracy as our system of government but I am puzzled by those who seem to think that we presently have too much democracy in our system.

I got the impression you were advocating just that - from your previous post:

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

Perhaps I read to much into that, or you're making some distinction between 'direct' and 'pure' democracy.

Perhaps I should be clear, I do not advocate changing anything structural about the current system, just some underlying problems such as to clear out undue lobbyist influence, making everything as transparent as possible and invalidating blatantly partisan gerrymandering. Some on this thread were suggesting we give up our right to vote for senators and other measures designed to concentrate power away from the people.

 

[dblack]

Perhaps I should be clear, I do not advocate changing anything structural about the current system, just some underlying problems such as to clear out undue lobbyist influence, making everything as transparent as possible and invalidating blatantly partisan gerrymandering. Some on this thread were suggesting we give up our right to vote for senators and other measures designed to concentrate power away from the people.

Then I stand corrected. I'm right there with you on this.

 

[Mr.Nick]

I don't think anyone is advocating pure democracy as our system of government but I am puzzled by those who seem to think that we presently have too much democracy in our system.

I got the impression you were advocating just that - from your previous post:

Yes, without the people constantly pushing for democracy, power will concentrate in ever fewer hands, direct democracy is probably an impossibility but it is the goal we must work towards or before we know it we will not even have the illusion of democracy.

Perhaps I read to much into that, or you're making some distinction between 'direct' and 'pure' democracy.

Perhaps I should be clear, I do not advocate changing anything structural about the current system, just some underlying problems such as to clear out undue lobbyist influence, making everything as transparent as possible and invalidating blatantly partisan gerrymandering. Some on this thread were suggesting we give up our right to vote for senators and other measures designed to concentrate power away from the people.

The only natural process in which that can be done is by shrinking federal government and giving states their Tenth Amendment rights...

People will vote with their feet.

 

[Contumacious]

. It's equally correct to say that our nation is a democracy and a republic - the concepts don't stand in opposition.

"Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."


James Madison
Thursday, November 22, 1787