Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

I repeat. The Founders saw unalienable or God-given rights as those that have always existed. Things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren't human inventions. They've been around since the beginning of time. They have not been made available to everybody, however, as some people were strong enough to deny them to others.

The U.S. Constitution was to recognize these as rights that nobody would be able to take away from somebody else without consequence.

To me that is pretty simple.

Bulls Eye, but you know that. The distinction between a Just and an Unjust Society. What a ride it's been.

A just society
is that anything like social justice?

*cue Glenn Beck*

 

[JBeukema]

Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

Getting back to the original question, the answer appears to be a big "NO".

Seems that if the Jacobin mob can't lay authoritative claim to the rights of free men, to dispense them as they see fit, they'll take the tack that such rights don't even exist to begin with.

In their world, the concept of "ethics" is purely situational.

Thank God We are a Constitutional Republic.

three cheers for our constitutionally limited representative democracy!

 

[JBeukema]

.

Therefore, the very concept of rights within a democracy are mutually exclusive.

Yet they were espoused by the founders of our nation, which is grounded in representative what?

democracy

 

[Oddball]

Wrong, yet again, Buckwheat.

If you've been listening to me for any length of time you will know .. and you'll be among the very few that do know .. .that it was NEVER the intention of our founding fathers to create a democracy. They despised democracy. They feared democracy. They feared democracy much the same way a man in jail, wrongfully accused, would fear a lynch mob. I hate to be the one to break this to you, if you haven't already figured it out, but we do not live in a democracy ... and for this you should be eternally grateful. IF you search the founding documents of this country - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution - you will notice that the word "democracy" appears nowhere in these documents. This is because it was a dirty word. Remember that according to historian Joseph Ellis in his book "A History of the American People," "... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'" What a beautiful definition .. if that doesn't fit the Democrat Party, and quite a few members of the Republican Party, than no phrase possibly could.

Are you wondering why politicians now settle on the word "democracy" instead of "Republic" when they define America? They do it for the same reason Illinois Democrat Congressman Phil Hare screamed "I don't care about the Constitution" at a town hall meeting full of constituents angry over ObamaCare. These people truly don't care about the rule of law and they don't care about any provision in the Constitution that deprives them of power and authority. To these dangerous fools the Constitution is a hindrance - an inconvenient document that gets in the way of politicians who want to grow the federal government and to enhance their own power. A politician like Hare shouting "I don't care about the Constitution" to the crowd needs a reason - some color of authority for his actions. That reason is the will of the masses; the will of the majority. These politicians will excuse every excess, every raw grab for power, every new government wealth seizure and redistribution program on the basis that this is what the people want, and to hell with the rule of law. There's a reason democracy is called "the tyranny of the majority," and the sooner Americans figure that out the better the chances of saving our Republic.

Nealz Nuze on boortz.com

 

[Intense]

I have a way of defining good and evil:

In order to make primitive tribes (and modern soceities) more adaptable, nature gives us different personality types

Nature is not a sentient thing that acts with any purpose.

By what authority do you speak for nature?

 

[Intense]

.

Therefore, the very concept of rights within a democracy are mutually exclusive.

Yet they were espoused by the founders of our nation, which is grounded in representative what?

democracy

I think the Founders were more concerned with Justice's triumph over Tyranny, rather than who the tyrant is, be it a monarch or angry mob.

 

[Intense]

I repeat. The Founders saw unalienable or God-given rights as those that have always existed. Things like life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those aren't human inventions. They've been around since the beginning of time. They have not been made available to everybody, however, as some people were strong enough to deny them to others.

The U.S. Constitution was to recognize these as rights that nobody would be able to take away from somebody else without consequence.

To me that is pretty simple.

Bulls Eye, but you know that. The distinction between a Just and an Unjust Society. What a ride it's been.

A just society
is that anything like social justice?

*cue Glenn Beck*

I think Social Justice, the way it is being played is an oxymoron. One does not serve Justice by not respecting the Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness, of each and every individual member.

 

[Foxfyre]

Bulls Eye, but you know that. The distinction between a Just and an Unjust Society. What a ride it's been.

A just society
is that anything like social justice?

*cue Glenn Beck*

I think Social Justice, the way it is being played is an oxymoron. One does not serve Justice by not respecting the Life, Liberty, Property, and the pursuit of Happiness, of each and every individual member.

Social Justice to the conservative in America today means nobody is denied the chance to try, to achieve, to accomplish, to succeed, to rise as far above where they started as they are able. It recognizes that life isn't always fair and that some have ability to achieve more than others and that some will have a leg up in the process to begin with because somebody else made that possible for them. But only in encouraging people to be the most and best they can be will we get better and more prosperous as a society.

Social Justice to the liberal in America today is usually maniffested as more equality of outcome regardless of intelligence, ambition, work ethic, choices, actions, or goals. It is not the intention, but it has the affect of rewarding lack of effort and accomplishment and punishing success and excellence. It regards unequal status as unfair and immoral and that nobody should have more opportunity than anybody else or substantially more of anything than anybody else.

 

[JBeukema]

Wrong, yet again, Buckwheat.

If you've been listening to me for any length of time you will know .. and you'll be among the very few that do know .. .that it was NEVER the intention of our founding fathers to create a democracy. They despised democracy. They feared democracy. They feared democracy much the same way a man in jail, wrongfully accused, would fear a lynch mob. I hate to be the one to break this to you, if you haven't already figured it out, but we do not live in a democracy ... and for this you should be eternally grateful. IF you search the founding documents of this country - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution - you will notice that the word "democracy" appears nowhere in these documents. This is because it was a dirty word. Remember that according to historian Joseph Ellis in his book "A History of the American People," "... the term "democrat" originated as an epithet and referred to 'one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.'" What a beautiful definition .. if that doesn't fit the Democrat Party, and quite a few members of the Republican Party, than no phrase possibly could.

Are you wondering why politicians now settle on the word "democracy" instead of "Republic" when they define America? They do it for the same reason Illinois Democrat Congressman Phil Hare screamed "I don't care about the Constitution" at a town hall meeting full of constituents angry over ObamaCare. These people truly don't care about the rule of law and they don't care about any provision in the Constitution that deprives them of power and authority. To these dangerous fools the Constitution is a hindrance - an inconvenient document that gets in the way of politicians who want to grow the federal government and to enhance their own power. A politician like Hare shouting "I don't care about the Constitution" to the crowd needs a reason - some color of authority for his actions. That reason is the will of the masses; the will of the majority. These politicians will excuse every excess, every raw grab for power, every new government wealth seizure and redistribution program on the basis that this is what the people want, and to hell with the rule of law. There's a reason democracy is called "the tyranny of the majority," and the sooner Americans figure that out the better the chances of saving our Republic.

Nealz Nuze on boortz.com

Boortz?



The moron who was just ranting about how 'government tells you you can't pour sand on a wet spot in your back yard because that's a wetland and you can go to jail'




Again, I give you Princeton University

S: (n) democracy, republic, commonwealth (a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them)
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=democracy


Here, I'll start simple for you

Are you saying that Americans don't have democratic elections to choose those who represent them in D.C.? The FF never formed Congress?

A representative democracy is democracy by definition.

The FF never condemned all democracy. They condemned Democracy or direct democracy (which was and is still practiced at the local level).

But far be it from you to have any clue what you're talking about.

 

[JBeukema]

I have a way of defining good and evil:

In order to make primitive tribes (and modern soceities) more adaptable, nature gives us different personality types

Nature is not a sentient thing that acts with any purpose.

By what authority do you speak for nature?

You're claiming that 'nature' is a sentient being?

You've any evidence to support your idiotic assertion?

 

[Oddball]

There are uncounted quotes from the framers about their revulsion toward democracy....All it takes is the intellectual honesty (of which you have none) to use Google to look them up.

Your line of argumentation is a big fat FAILURE.

 

[JBeukema]

Do cite the FF when they say the people shouldn't vote on anything and we should have no representatives.

Do tell us where they condemned Congress as an evil entity.

Do show us where they railed against the election of representatives.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

When the FF said 'democracy', they were specifically speaking of direct, unfettered democracy, not about all democratic types of government. Else they wouldn't have formed a nation ruled by a form of representative democracy.


Here, the introduction to this book explains it in a way that your peabrain might comprehend

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Federalist-Constitutional-Convention-Debates-Classics/dp/0451528840]Amazon.com: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics) (9780451528841): Ralph Ketcham: Books[/ame]

 

[Oddball]

*yawn*

You're wrong and you know it because it is a fact...The framers' railing against mob rule is rife in virtually all of their writings and speeches venturing anywhere near the tropic.

Leading back to the answer to the OP:

No.

 

[Foxfyre]

*yawn*

You're wrong and you know it because it is a fact...The framers' railing against mob rule is rife in virtually all of their writings and speeches venturing anywhere near the tropic.

Leading back to the answer to the OP:

No.

Do you sometimes feel like we're all beating our heads against a brick wall trying to explain some concepts?

I recommend Excedrin stock. Should be a very good year.

 

[boedicca]

Do cite the FF when they say the people shouldn't vote on anything and we should have no representatives.

Do tell us where they condemned Congress as an evil entity.

Do show us where they railed against the election of representatives.

Reading for comprehension isn't your strong suit, I see.

When the FF said 'democracy', they were specifically speaking of direct, unfettered democracy, not about all democratic types of government. Else they wouldn't have formed a nation ruled by a form of representative democracy.


Here, the introduction to this book explains it in a way that your peabrain might comprehend

Amazon.com: The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates (Signet Classics) (9780451528841): Ralph Ketcham: Books

What a maroon.

Your own post now proves that what you have been advocating is incorrect.

The Founders favored a representative republic. Your arguments that they supported Democracy Pin the Bogometer.

 

[JBeukema]

The Founders favored a representative republic. Your arguments that they supported Democracy Pin the Bogometer.

damn, you people are thick

representative government in which the representatives are democratically elected = representative democracy

you people are saying that the family pet is a German Shepard and not a dog

 

[JBeukema]

What a maroon.

Your own post now proves that what you have been advocating is incorrect.

Oh? did you actual try reading it?

This republicanism of the 1780s was not in principle different from what in Britain and America by mid-nineteenth century was generally called representative democracy. The founders would not have been opposed to the modern connotations of the word "democracy", nor would they have used the word "republic" to mark a distinction from those connotations.
​

The Founders favored a representative republic

As I've said numerous times now.

Your arguments that they supported Democracy Pin the Bogometer.

You know that all dogs are mammals but not all mammals are dogs, right?

 

[JBeukema]

*yawn*

You're wrong and you know it because it is a fact...The framers' railing against mob rule is rife in virtually all of their writings and speeches venturing anywhere near the tropic.

Leading back to the answer to the OP:

No.

Only you and bodumbass are talking of 'mob rule'.

 

[boedicca]

I do know that you just keep digging yourself into a deeper rhetorical hole by claiming that the Founders designed the U.S. to be a democracy. We're not. We're a federalized constitutional (representative) republic.

 

[JBeukema]

Representative democracy | Define Representative democracy at Dictionary.com

modern representative democracies are by and large republics.

republic (government) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia