Democracy and Freedom

[paulitician]

Here's more takes from Franklin on why we are a Republic and not a Democracy...


"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

The Greatest Benjamin Franklin Quotes

 

[Dragon]

I already did

No, you didn't. Do you want an aristocracy or a democracy? If you want a republic, it's one or the other. There is no third alternative.

 

[The T]

Obviously no. If you don't like that article,you're free to go research what Benjamin Franklin had to say on the subject. He explains it much better than i can. We are a Republic,not a Democracy. There is a difference.

There is a difference, but there is no opposition. A republic is a form of government in which elected representatives pass the laws. A DEMOCRATIC republic is one in which the representatives are chosen by popular election and the people have ultimate sovereignty. An ARISTOCRATIC republic is one in which only a privileged few determine the course of government.

Again: a republic is either democratic or aristocratic. When you say that you want a republic, not a democracy, you are saying you want an aristocratic republic, because there is no third alternative; a republic that is not a democracy IS an aristocracy.

Do you want an aristocracy?

It was supposed to be neither...but too bad you can't shke the hands of the Progressives from 1913 that steered us here.

They'd really like you.

 

[Dragon]

Here's more takes from Franklin on why we are a Republic and not a Democracy...

Those quotes show that Franklin preferred an aristocracy.

Do you?

 

[Dragon]

It was supposed to be neither.

It's not possible for it to be neither. A republic is either democratic or aristocratic. Which do you want?

 

[paulitician]

Here's more takes from Franklin on why we are a Republic and not a Democracy...

Those quotes show that Franklin preferred an aristocracy.

Do you?

No and your interpretation is profoundly inaccurate. Do some more of your own research on what Benjamin Frankling had to say in creating our Republic. I'm pretty sure he knew what he was talking about since he was there and helped create our Nation. And i would say our Republican form of Government has been incredibly successful. What do you say?

 

[georgephillip]

We are a Republic. I don't think most Americans understand that. It's not a perfect form of Government but it's as good as we're gonna get on this Earth. It has been an incredibly successful form of Government.

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

 

[paulitician]

We are a Republic. I don't think most Americans understand that. It's not a perfect form of Government but it's as good as we're gonna get on this Earth. It has been an incredibly successful form of Government.

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

Well then i guess the rest of the Planet better get onboard and become Republics themselves. Because it is an incredibly successful form of Government. That's just fact. Go with what works. And it definitely works.

 

[Dragon]

No

You don't want an aristocracy? Very well, then you want a democracy. There is no third alternative (except dictatorship, and I assume you don't want that).

and your interpretation is profoundly inaccurate.

No, sir, it is not. In fact, the Founding Fathers DID want an aristocracy. (With the exception of Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a democracy, and perhaps of James Madison, who was much of Jefferson's party.)

That's why the states originally limited voting to wealthy landowners. That's why the Senate was originally chosen by the state legislatures and not by the voters. That's why the president was not elected by the people. It was all to protect the privileges of the rich.

To say that the Founders did not want a democracy is accurate, but the implication is that they wanted an aristocracy. They did. There is no third alternative.

 

[bripat9643]

We're a republic with special rights for property that sometimes conflict with human rights.

Property rights are human rights. What are these "special rights" you refer to?

So far it's been incredibly successful for 5% of the planet's population and considerably less successful for their victims.

Who are the "victims" of capitalism?

 

[georgephillip]

What people do not understand is that democracy is not a government, it is just a process to get to the desired government.

"Democracy is generally defined as a form of government in which all adult citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives."

Democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

No

You don't want an aristocracy? Very well, then you want a democracy. There is no third alternative (except dictatorship, and I assume you don't want that).

There is an abundance of alternatives. For instance, there are monarchies without aristocracies and there is the private law society.

No, sir, it is not. In fact, the Founding Fathers DID want an aristocracy. (With the exception of Thomas Jefferson, who wanted a democracy, and perhaps of James Madison, who was much of Jefferson's party.)

That's why the states originally limited voting to wealthy landowners. That's why the Senate was originally chosen by the state legislatures and not by the voters. That's why the president was not elected by the people. It was all to protect the privileges of the rich.

To say that the Founders did not want a democracy is accurate, but the implication is that they wanted an aristocracy. They did. There is no third alternative.

Yes, they did want an aristocracy, but they wanted an aristocracy of merit, not one of birth. That's what they tried to setup. It worked remarkably well until the Civil War and the 16th and 17th Amendments were passed. That's when we headed down the road to unlimited democracy and oblivion.

 

[paulitician]

We have a Government that exhibits Democratic principles but our form of Government is a Republic. We are not a direct-Democracy. Our Founding Fathers had many reasons for avoiding direct-Democracy and chose to create a Republican form instead. It is very interesting. More people should check out why our Founding Fathers created our form of Governemnt. Starting with Benjamin Franklin is a great start.

 

[Dragon]

There is an abundance of alternatives. For instance, there are monarchies without aristocracies and there is the private law society.

Actually I don't think you can point to a historical monarchy without an aristocracy, but yes, if one does not want a republic, there are alternatives. A monarchy is not a republic at all, neither democratic nor aristocratic. And I know you have already said you're a monarchist.

However, for those who do want a republic, the alternatives are a democratic republic or an aristocratic republic. Those republicans (small "r") who say they don't want a democracy therefore want an aristocracy, and vice-versa.

Yes, they did want an aristocracy, but they wanted an aristocracy of merit, not one of birth.

What they wanted was an aristocracy of WEALTH, neither merit nor birth. And yet to an extent, at least among the southern planters, an aristocracy or birth did result.

But let's see what others say. As noted above, you're a monarchist anyway so you don't want any kind of republic. But most posters here, especially the conservative ones, keep saying "republic not a democracy" as if there was a conflict between the two.

If you want a republic, then you want either a democracy or an aristocracy. And so I ask again of those who do want a republic: which kind do you prefer?

 

[Contumacious]

If you had only two choices, would you choose to live in Cuba or Haiti?

Both countries have corrupt anti-free market governments .

.

I notice you didn't answer the question.
Both countries are afflicted with elites who abuse their authority.
Which one do capitalists choose?

And you came to the conclusion that "CAPITALISTS" use either one of those countries how?

.

 

[The T]

We have a Government that exhibits Democratic principles but our form of Government is a Republic. We are not a direct-Democracy. Our Founding Fathers had many reasons for avoiding direct-Democracy and chose to create a Republican form instead. It is very interesting. More people should check out why our Founding Fathers created our form of Governemnt. Starting with Benjamin Franklin is a great start.

And nowhere in the Founding documents will you find avocacy for a pure Democracy.

 

[Dragon]

We have a Government that exhibits Democratic principles but our form of Government is a Republic. We are not a direct-Democracy.

That means we have a democratic republic -- or at least, we are supposed to. And a democratic republic, although indeed it is not a DIRECT democracy, is a form of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy.

There are only two reasons why the Founders avoided direct democracy. One, it was impossible to implement with the technology of that time. And two, it would have been a threat to the privileges of the rich and powerful. But the latter was also true of representative democracy, which they also avoided.

Direct democracy on a large scale is not possible without the Internet. Obtaining the consent of the governed is limited to the speed at which discussion, debate, and decision-making can take place, and at the turn of the 19th century required face-to-face discussion. That meant democracy was only possible by proxy, through representatives, who could all gather in the same big room and discuss matters, which the people as a whole could not. Nowadays, this technical obstacle has been overcome, but there is no blame to the Founders for not implementing what would not have worked anyway.

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

 

[Contumacious]

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

The rich deserves to have its wealth confiscated by political majorities because ..........>

.

 

[paulitician]

We have a Government that exhibits Democratic principles but our form of Government is a Republic. We are not a direct-Democracy.

That means we have a democratic republic -- or at least, we are supposed to. And a democratic republic, although indeed it is not a DIRECT democracy, is a form of democracy. Representative democracy is still democracy.

There are only two reasons why the Founders avoided direct democracy. One, it was impossible to implement with the technology of that time. And two, it would have been a threat to the privileges of the rich and powerful. But the latter was also true of representative democracy, which they also avoided.

Direct democracy on a large scale is not possible without the Internet. Obtaining the consent of the governed is limited to the speed at which discussion, debate, and decision-making can take place, and at the turn of the 19th century required face-to-face discussion. That meant democracy was only possible by proxy, through representatives, who could all gather in the same big room and discuss matters, which the people as a whole could not. Nowadays, this technical obstacle has been overcome, but there is no blame to the Founders for not implementing what would not have worked anyway.

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

They didn't avoid creating a direct-Democracy for the reasons you stated. Now I have a feeling you're just intentionally misinterpreting their stated reasons. No Founding Father stated the reasons you attributed to them. Like i said,do some more research on the subject.

 

[Dragon]

But they can be blamed for avoiding representative democracy in order to protect the privileges of the rich and powerful. That's an unworthy motive, and definitely not one we should continue to pursue.

The rich deserves to have its wealth confiscated by political majorities because ..........>

.

The rich deserve to be the only voices listened to by government because . . . .

Answer that question and you will have the answer to yours.