Is Democracy Compatible with Natural Rights?

[JBeukema]

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.

Which is, by definition, a democratic type of government.

the representative republic is to democracy as canine familiarus is to mammila

I'm not surprised that the poster who advocates an oligarchy is clueless, but you, Bo, could at least go learn what you're talking about

 

[Oddball]

 

[boedicca]

Can we substitute an ice pick for the french fry?

Really, he is just being incredibly disingenuous.

 

[Intense]

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.

Like I said, it is an Oxymoron.

 

[Intense]

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)
WordNet Search - 3.0


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.

We are first a Constitutional Republic, secondly democratic in nature. We are a Nation of Laws. We subscribed to Federalism. You know that inside out, what's up???

Are you attempting to set up a foundation that undermines the Constitution???

Is this an Albert Pike thing???

If not, what is your perspective on the Constitution and the Amendment process to address reform???

 

[Intense]

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?

There is a Biblical reference as to Nature being subservient to God's will. It's not an idiotic claim. Pray for rain why don't you!!! There are Religions that pray to the Elements, Fire, Air, Earth, Water.

 

[Intense]

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

We have rules that Govern. Some made and changed by simple majorities, some by super majorities. We have a Constitutional process. We are a Constitutional Republic. The Constitution receiving It's Power and Authority by the consent of the governed, through due process.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

The Federal government is yes. And each of the 50 states has some form of that same concept as well. And as the Founders first concern was to defend and protect unalienable rights, they knew that such rights would not be protected under any feudal system, monarchy, democracy, or even a constitutional republic in which the government was not severely restricted in size, scope, and authority other than in its duty to protect those rights.

Democracies are just fine to decide any issue other than those that do impact the rights of the people.

 

[hortysir]

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.

WADR, Boe
We weren't actually "federalized" as a constitutional republic until Lincoln got ahold us were we??

 

[Intense]

The Federalist Papers
Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

Federalist Papers in Numerical Order, with Frames

Federalist Papers in Numerical Order, without Frames

Indices by author:

Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay

Federalist Papers

 

[Intense]

I think we need more charter schools ASAP!!!

 

[Dante]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

 

[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.

WADR, Boe
We weren't actually "federalized" as a constitutional republic until Lincoln got ahold us were we??

No. That is historically inaccurate.

 

[Dante]

The Federalist Papers
Welcome to our Federalist Papers e-text. The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.

In total, the Federalist Papers consist of 85 essays outlining how this new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed "PUBLIUS" and the actual authors of some are under dispute, but the general consensus is that Alexander Hamilton wrote 52, James Madison wrote 28, and John Jay contributed the remaining five.

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

Federalist Papers in Numerical Order, with Frames

Federalist Papers in Numerical Order, without Frames

Indices by author:

Alexander Hamilton
James Madison
John Jay

Federalist Papers

I've met more ignorant fools that have read the Federalist than have not. You assume too much of people. Reading is not equal to comprehension. And then there is human nature---miscomprehending.

 

[Dante]

I think we need more charter schools ASAP!!!

latest news is Charter schools are failing to make the grade.

 

[Intense]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

We have an indirect say through our representatives and freedom of speech, which is Constitutionally protected, even sometimes in spite of the easily swayed angry mob. Even time and due process effect reason and fair play.

 

[hortysir]

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.

WADR, Boe
We weren't actually "federalized" as a constitutional republic until Lincoln got ahold us were we??

No. That is historically inaccurate.

Intense's post corrected me.
Lincoln just made it his personal mission!!

 

[Dante]

According to the concept of natural rights a person's rights are unremoveable from them hence the term inalienable rights but is democracy compatible with that? Consider that these rights belong to you and can't be removed from you then how is it possible that they can be voted on by everyone else? When everyone else decides you don't have those rights anymore and uses the democratic process to remove them from you then how can you say that those rights were inalienable to begin with?

you're an idiot.

If a state denies a supposed inalienable right, that does not mean one surrendered it. The concept you speak of---inalienable rights---concerns supposed rights one cannot forfeit. A state denying one a right is not equal to giving up that right.

The signers of out national documents thought democracy was compatible with the concept you speak of, and they were all more versed in the concept and more learned men than you.

We have an indirect say through our representatives and freedom of speech, which is Constitutionally protected, even sometimes in spite of the easily swayed angry mob. Even time and due process effect reason and fair play.

I agree, but my faith in man is not blind to the possibilities. If man ceases to exist I think it will be by his own hand. Our struggle to survive is strong, but our emotions may kill us.

I am not an alarmist. I am also not naive. I think the founders were wise beyond their years and their time. I am convinced they fought off their urges and nature when they struggled to provide a foundation for the nation. After each of the documents they left us were signed Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, Constitution...), they reverted back to their natures, which wasn't pretty.

do we have men like them now, profiles in courage who can lead and persuade? do we have leaders amongst us who would do what men did during the Constitutional Convention? They put aside their differences, even as they conspired to do what was right and good, and without the proper authority. They were brave men, but also well respected men.

Our downfall if it comes, will come out of a lack of respect, for diversity, differences and commonality---for shared goals.

I have tried for years to get others to believe that opponents are not enemies. It is a difficult sell.

 

[JBeukema]

We have rules that Govern.

We have the People who govern

Some made and changed by simple majorities, some by super majorities

Majority rules?

. We have a Constitutional process. We are a Constitutional Republic.

A particular form of government that falls under the democratic type.

The republic is the breed, representative democracy if the species, and democracy is the genus or order

 

[JBeukema]

The Federalist Papers remain today as an excellent reference for anyone who wants to understand the U.S. Constitution.

You cannot fully understand the matter unless you read also the Anti-Federalist Papers.

The Right, which (supposedly) abhors the concentration of power, would do well to remember the antifederalists.