Have we become a nation of demagogues?

[ABikerSailor]

3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.

...Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Yep, that's demagoguery sure enough!

I didn't say they are, I said that it appears. Read some of the stuff by Uncensored 2008 or MudWhistle sometime.

Both are far right and use a lot of emotional rhetoric in their posts.

I don't believe that the use of emotional language is exclusive to one party or another. They both use it regularly to make a point. I just feel as if the left use it more, not in reference to this forum, but in general.

Really? Hannity, Limbaugh and Alex Jones are all demagogues. So is Coulter.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, the tax system was never supposed to be ran like it is. The people decided to set up a representative government, and give them power from "consent of the governed". In that, government was created, as well as our constitution, which allowed for an amendment process. One of those amendments was to lay and collect taxes.

Inherently, the people, by extension, allowed the government to write laws, and among those laws is taxation. Individually, a person has no power to tax another, as the scenario you laid out suggests, but collectively, through the esablishment of said government, the people gave the government the right of taxation as a whole.

I don't agree with where the taxation of this country has gone, it's far away from the original intent, but, if the population as a whole agreed to allow governance from a body of people, then I guess that is how they also gave the government the right to tax it's people.

You and I agree on most of this, and we see things from a similar perspective, so I think it’s possible for us to understand each other. Right now, I do not understand how you suppose this “consent of the governed” works. First of all, even if every person gave their consent at the time the Constitution’s signing, are we to believe that this contract between parties who have long since died is binding to every person existing within the boundaries of this land for all eternity? Are we to believe that simply by being born and not fleeing this massive area that all such people have “implied” their consent, even while expressly deny it, as I do now? How does your reason not balk at this flagrant violation of individual liberty and natural autonomy?

Also, you say the people “gave” government power by their consent. Was the government they created only to have power over the specific individuals who expressly offered their consent, or was it expected to rule over others whether they gave their consent or not? We know the answer to that. So we have one group of people giving consent on behalf of others who have not willingly empowered them as their agents - Is this how consent works? Can I offer your consent to a rapist on your behalf and thereby make his actions against you perfectly just? Of course not.

And again, even if they gave their consent, how did they grant power to government when they didn’t have that power the first place? They didn’t even have the power to make another man a rightful authority over themselves, no less anyone else. Of course, they could agree to let someone boss them around, and promise not to disobey (as does every employee); but the moment they change their mind and choose to dissolve the arrangement, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The “master” has no authority to stop them, and no legitimate complaint against them. He never had a valid claim to authority in the first place; he merely had the moment-to-moment consent of his servant, and these are not the same thing.

People cannot grant rights and powers they don’t have any more than they can donate money they don’t have. Consent has nothing to do with it. Man simply does not have the ability to create non-existent rights and grant them to others. This is only logical, is it not?

This recognition invalidates the very notion of government that the Constitution seeks to create. It seeks to establish the rightful authority of one man over another, and this is a thing wholly imaginary - it simply does not exist - and to me, it seems a moral imperative not to support an illusory authority exacting its fallacious power upon others. Do you agree, or do you have answers to the above objections? I, for one, am compelled to my position by an inability to reason any way around them.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Easy Observation:

Democrats: Klan, Nation of Islam, La Raza, Black Panthers, Muslim Brotherhood, racist Aztlán Nationalist, racist BLM separatist, hate and racism

Republicans: Chamber of Commerce, PTA, Rotary Club, American Legion, 4H Club, Lion’s Club, Boy Scouts, Little League, VFW, great neighborhoods, good schools, National Honor Society, Junior League…… juuuuust grilling and chilling…..

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

 

[ThisIsMe]

Again, the tax system was never supposed to be ran like it is. The people decided to set up a representative government, and give them power from "consent of the governed". In that, government was created, as well as our constitution, which allowed for an amendment process. One of those amendments was to lay and collect taxes.

Inherently, the people, by extension, allowed the government to write laws, and among those laws is taxation. Individually, a person has no power to tax another, as the scenario you laid out suggests, but collectively, through the esablishment of said government, the people gave the government the right of taxation as a whole.

I don't agree with where the taxation of this country has gone, it's far away from the original intent, but, if the population as a whole agreed to allow governance from a body of people, then I guess that is how they also gave the government the right to tax it's people.

You and I agree on most of this, and we see things from a similar perspective, so I think it’s possible for us to understand each other. Right now, I do not understand how you suppose this “consent of the governed” works. First of all, even if every person gave their consent at the time the Constitution’s signing, are we to believe that this contract between parties who have long since died is binding to every person existing within the boundaries of this land for all eternity? Are we to believe that simply by being born and not fleeing this massive area that all such people have “implied” their consent, even while expressly deny it, as I do now? How does your reason not balk at this flagrant violation of individual liberty and natural autonomy?

Also, you say the people “gave” government power by their consent. Was the government they created only to have power over the specific individuals who expressly offered their consent, or was it expected to rule over others whether they gave their consent or not? We know the answer to that. So we have one group of people giving consent on behalf of others who have not willingly empowered them as their agents - Is this how consent works? Can I offer your consent to a rapist on your behalf and thereby make his actions against you perfectly just? Of course not.

And again, even if they gave their consent, how did they grant power to government when they didn’t have that power the first place? They didn’t even have the power to make another man a rightful authority over themselves, no less anyone else. Of course, they could agree to let someone boss them around, and promise not to disobey (as does every employee); but the moment they change their mind and choose to dissolve the arrangement, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The “master” has no authority to stop them, and no legitimate complaint against them. He never had a valid claim to authority in the first place; he merely had the moment-to-moment consent of his servant, and these are not the same thing.

People cannot grant rights and powers they don’t have any more than they can donate money they don’t have. Consent has nothing to do with it. Man simply does not have the ability to create non-existent rights and grant them to others. This is only logical, is it not?

This recognition invalidates the very notion of government that the Constitution seeks to create. It seeks to establish the rightful authority of one man over another, and this is a thing wholly imaginary - it simply does not exist - and to me, it seems a moral imperative not to support an illusory authority exacting its fallacious power upon others. Do you agree, or do you have answers to the above objections? I, for one, am compelled to my position by an inability to reason any way around them.

I guess my answer to that is, every person has the right to govern themselves. However, at some point in time, the people decided they needed a body of people to provide a certain form of structure. I don't claim to know the constitution inside and out.

If a group of people, who have the right to self governance decide to bestow some of that right to other people, that is how they have the right to grant authority to the government.

I know where you are coming from in regards to people who lived long ago having authority to lay claim to people's money and liberties long after they are gone, however, the constitution was written to protect the citizens and guarantee freedom and liberty, for perpetuity.

In other words, the constitution is supposed to make the government work for the people. Unfortunately that is no longer the case, which is why I recommend voting all of them out of office, in order to send a message.

Perhaps my explanation is inadequate, but it's the best way I know to explain it. Believe me, I'm all for small government, but what we have is what we have. Doubtful it will ever change.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Again, the tax system was never supposed to be ran like it is. The people decided to set up a representative government, and give them power from "consent of the governed". In that, government was created, as well as our constitution, which allowed for an amendment process. One of those amendments was to lay and collect taxes.

Inherently, the people, by extension, allowed the government to write laws, and among those laws is taxation. Individually, a person has no power to tax another, as the scenario you laid out suggests, but collectively, through the esablishment of said government, the people gave the government the right of taxation as a whole.

I don't agree with where the taxation of this country has gone, it's far away from the original intent, but, if the population as a whole agreed to allow governance from a body of people, then I guess that is how they also gave the government the right to tax it's people.

You and I agree on most of this, and we see things from a similar perspective, so I think it’s possible for us to understand each other. Right now, I do not understand how you suppose this “consent of the governed” works. First of all, even if every person gave their consent at the time the Constitution’s signing, are we to believe that this contract between parties who have long since died is binding to every person existing within the boundaries of this land for all eternity? Are we to believe that simply by being born and not fleeing this massive area that all such people have “implied” their consent, even while expressly deny it, as I do now? How does your reason not balk at this flagrant violation of individual liberty and natural autonomy?

Also, you say the people “gave” government power by their consent. Was the government they created only to have power over the specific individuals who expressly offered their consent, or was it expected to rule over others whether they gave their consent or not? We know the answer to that. So we have one group of people giving consent on behalf of others who have not willingly empowered them as their agents - Is this how consent works? Can I offer your consent to a rapist on your behalf and thereby make his actions against you perfectly just? Of course not.

And again, even if they gave their consent, how did they grant power to government when they didn’t have that power the first place? They didn’t even have the power to make another man a rightful authority over themselves, no less anyone else. Of course, they could agree to let someone boss them around, and promise not to disobey (as does every employee); but the moment they change their mind and choose to dissolve the arrangement, they are perfectly within their rights to do so. The “master” has no authority to stop them, and no legitimate complaint against them. He never had a valid claim to authority in the first place; he merely had the moment-to-moment consent of his servant, and these are not the same thing.

People cannot grant rights and powers they don’t have any more than they can donate money they don’t have. Consent has nothing to do with it. Man simply does not have the ability to create non-existent rights and grant them to others. This is only logical, is it not?

This recognition invalidates the very notion of government that the Constitution seeks to create. It seeks to establish the rightful authority of one man over another, and this is a thing wholly imaginary - it simply does not exist - and to me, it seems a moral imperative not to support an illusory authority exacting its fallacious power upon others. Do you agree, or do you have answers to the above objections? I, for one, am compelled to my position by an inability to reason any way around them.

I guess my answer to that is, every person has the right to govern themselves. However, at some point in time, the people decided they needed a body of people to provide a certain form of structure. I don't claim to know the constitution inside and out.

If a group of people, who have the right to self governance decide to bestow some of that right to other people, that is how they have the right to grant authority to the government.

I know where you are coming from in regards to people who lived long ago having authority to lay claim to people's money and liberties long after they are gone, however, the constitution was written to protect the citizens and guarantee freedom and liberty, for perpetuity.

In other words, the constitution is supposed to make the government work for the people. Unfortunately that is no longer the case, which is why I recommend voting all of them out of office, in order to send a message.

Perhaps my explanation is inadequate, but it's the best way I know to explain it. Believe me, I'm all for small government, but what we have is what we have. Doubtful it will ever change.

I don’t doubt your ability to explain things well; you did a great job pointing out how our current system is off the rails. I think we’re having trouble getting the bottom of these issues because there is a fundamental inconsistency that makes any valid logical explanation impossible. Your ability to describe is not the problem, it’s that the thing being described is inherently broken.

If you’re going to support a system of authoritarian rule over yourself and your family (and me and my family), it behooves you to have a damn good reason, supported by clear-cut answers to the objections made, don’t you think?

You said that people have the right to govern themselves, which is true, but that right is not what’s being delegated. If it were, then everyone who votes would get an ID card, and the laws made by the person they voted for would only apply to hos supporters. But nobody votes so they can be ruled; they vote to have others ruled according to their own desires. You don’t need government to make you do what you already want to do, you need it to make others do what you want. Isn’t this the only reason anyone votes?

You also said that people made government because they desired structure. But businesses have structure without using violent coercion. So do little league teams. Structure is not what makes government government. The right to coerce by violence is the only defining characteristic of government. Remove that, and what’s left is no longer government. Think of any example, and you will see that it is so.

You say the Constitution is designed to “protect the citizens and guarantee freedom and liberty”. We just established that the only thing government adds is the right to use violent coercion - so how can this be described as protection, freedom, or liberty? Every person has the right to protect themselves and others from aggressors, so you don’t need “authority” for that. And the only thing law can ever do is restrict freedom and liberty - by definition! It can only say, “Do this, and don’t do that, or we will punish you” - Isn’t this so?

And yet, extremely smart people buy into this flagrantly illogical faux-philosophy. I know I did for most of my life, and my only excuse is that I never really thought it through. But we must have answers to these questions if we’re going to support this institution exerting authority on our fellow man, and still think of ourselves as moral and responsible. It simply won’t do to hold a belief of such immense consequence without being able to justify it. So, let’s get to the bottom of it... how do you answer for these things?

 

[Contumacious]

First, it helps to start off with the actual definition of the word, so that people who may be unfamiliar with it will know what it is and what it means.........................................

the definition of demagogue

demagogue

or demagog
[dem-uh-gog, -gawg]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
verb (used with object), demagogued, demagoguing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
verb (used without object), demagogued, demagoguing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.



Okay, there it is................we all know what the definition of a demagogue is.

Have you people noticed that there are a lot of posters on here who instead of using facts and actual things happening, they instead prefer to offer up opinion, emotional language and insults?

Me? I prefer to discuss things with people who use facts, logic and reason instead of emotion, rhetoric and opinion. Even if you disagree with me, if you use facts and reason, you have a much better chance of convincing me that your side is right. And, I might even learn something new in the process and will be grateful to you for the instruction.

But you will never convince me of anything if you only use insults and opinion instead of fact.

Interestingly enough, it appears that more conservatives are demagogues than their liberal counterparts, because they appear to be more prejudiced.

Politicians have become demagogues because Americans are stupid or narcotized.

Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

"He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass[Obama Hellcare] ."

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Politicians have become demagogues because Americans are stupid or narcotized.

Stupidity' of voters helped bill pass

"He suggested that many lawmakers and voters didn't know what was in the law or how its financing worked, and that this helped it win approval.

"Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Gruber said. "And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass[Obama Hellcare] ."

Absolutely, and the “deliberate dumbing down” illustrates the dangers of abdicating responsibility to governments to solve every problem, and commercial media to keep us informed. How can it be that people continue to watch news sources that run advertisements? Clearly there is a conflict of interests. How could such a critical factor be overlooked?

And most people will admit to the transparent fear-mongering, but continue to watch it because, “Well, you have to stay informed”. This makes no sense at all. You acknowledge the blatant manipulation, but continue to cite this program as a source of reliable information.

For God’s sake, you can tell you’re being conned in the first 10 seconds of hearing how newscasters talk - that’s not how a human being sounds when they speak. So why the affectation? Clearly they’re trying to present some kind of false image. That’s not ok. That’s not just some minor point to be blown off and accepted.

No, you’re f’n lying to me, which means you want something from me that you don’t think I would give willingly under honest circumstances. You’re trying to circumvent my consent. That makes you an agressor - an enemy - and I don’t willingly place myself into the hands of enemies every single day like some kind of hopeless masochist!

This is the level of lucidity, self-respect and self-responsibility that’s required to be a mature, adult human being on this planet; and it’s precisely what the media, the educational system, and government are working in tandem to destroy. The question to ask yourself is: Why?

 

[BlackSand]

...

you have a much better chance of convincing me that your side is right.

...

We are but one People ... Your "sides" are not consistent with fact ...

How you decide to manage your desires for order ... Is not simply compliant with basic fact.
What you do with facts is paramount ... Directions, responsibility and awareness are paramount.

Example ... We can agree that poverty exists as a fact ... How we manage that fact is all that matters though.
If we eliminate all forms of currency and all private property ... Then poverty based on measurable wealth would cease to exist.
That is a fact ... But it doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

.