Is democracy good?

Augustine_ said:
When conservatives constantly tell you for decades that they want a fascist, police state because they hate democracy; at what point do you stop convincing yourself they're not serious?
Click to expand...
With this going on for decades, will you provide a few sources that demonstrate this?
 
The Founders knew that "democracy" was the worst possible system for running a country, and the U.S. Constitution gives not a single route for the General Public to vote on public policy. To do so would be folly, as demonstrated every election cycle in California when they pass their always-stupid "Propositions."

No, we elect representatives to do our bidding both in Congress and the White House, and we recognize that they will sometimes do things that the General Public would not do, because they are smarter and better informed than most of us, and the masses are easily swayed by charlatans and happy thoughts.

Consider: If there were a national plebiscite to mandate a minimum wage of $25.00/hr, it would pass in a landslide. And yet it would be fantastically stupid. A similar vote to end all immigration; again it would pass easily and would be disastrous in the long term. A vote to send all "Negros" to Alabama and Mississippi? I would not bet on that one losing.

Democracy is praised more in theory than in practice. Not the worst form of government, but right down there near the. bottom.
 
Crazy Horse and Geronimo are hunting Buffalo and run into Larry Bird?
 
sartre play said:
You must be young, ALL my life & most every AMERICAN used the word DEMOCRACY as a good word.
Until someone decided it sounded to DEMOCRATIC.
Click to expand...
Actually, Democrats tarnished "democracy". They abused it by expanding government power, such that more and more of our lives is governed by majority rule.

That said, democracy is not a problem. It's a fine way to make decisions, as a society, that require conformity. When we need to all agree to one answer to a question (eg "Who shall be President") democracy is a decent way to make decisions that society can support. But when conformity isn't required, no one should be forced to follow the will of the majority.

Democrats don't get that. They think that any and all social problems would best be solved by taking a vote and forcing everyone down the same path. That might sound like a great plan to politicians, but most of us would rather make our own decisions about the important things in life.
 
Last edited:
1764539030879.webp
 
Sir Lance-a-lot and Spear Chucker from the M.A.S.H. movie see Bullseye from Daredevil down range.
 
Democracy is two(2) poor guys and a rich guy voting on who pays for lunch.

Republic is two(2) poor guys and a rich guy voting on who decides on who pays for lunch.
 
there4eyeM said:
A republic, as anyone possessing a dictionary would know, is a sub-set of democracy.
Click to expand...
The Founders were horrified of a democracy, which is why they avoided it.

At the same time, they felt that the people should have a voice, which is why they were allowed to vote for members of the House while Senators were appointed by the states.

But Progressives, as they always do, move toward a pure democracy, as much as they can, because they are experts at manipulating the vote for their own benefit. This is why the changed the Constitution to have Senators elected directly by voters, like those in the House. It is also why they are after dismantling the Electoral College

The Senate was supposed to represent state interests while the House in Congress was supposed to represent the people. But once you undercut the state interests by disallowing them to choose Senators, why even have a Senate?

It makes zero sense.

But as we saw, the Founders gave those in the Senate far more power than those in the House, because they valued the opinion of educated men, assumed to be, that is, because of their ability to acquire their position of authority. They served for longer terms and there are only two per state, and they have abilities like approving members to SCOTUS, to name a few of the increased powers given to them, and it was all based on something that no longer exists.

But to the Progressive, the Founders have no wisdom because they were all a bunch of corrupt slave owners, so they piss on their wisdom as they arrogantly provide their own.

Meanwhile, these same arrogant lawmakers ignore the fact that there are now more active slaves in the world than at any other time in human history, while they virtue signal about slavery that happened hundreds of years ago that they can do nothing about.
 
Last edited:
Votto said:
The Founders were horrified of a democracy, which is why they avoided it.

At the same time, they felt that the people should have a voice, which is why they were allowed to vote for members of the House while Senators were appointed by the states.

But Progressives, as they always do, move toward a pure democracy, as much as they can, because they are experts at manipulating the vote for their own benefit. This is why the changed the Constitution to have Senators elected directly by voters, like those in the House. It is also why they are after dismantling the Electoral College

The Senate was supposed to represent state interests while the House in Congress was supposed to represent the people. But once you undercut the state interests by disallowing them to choose Senators, why even have a Senate?

It makes zero sense.

But as we saw, the Founders gave those in the Senate far more power than those in the House, because they valued the opinion of educated men, assumed to be, that is, because of their ability to acquire their position of authority. They served for longer terms and there are only two per state, and they have abilities like approving members to SCOTUS, to name a few of the increased powers given to them, and it was all based on something that no longer exists.

But to the Progressive, the Founders have no wisdom because they were all a bunch of corrupt slave owners, so they piss on their wisdom as they arrogantly provide their own.

Meanwhile, these same arrogant lawmakers ignore the fact that there are now more active slaves in the world than at any other time in human history, while they virtue signal about slavery that happened hundreds of years ago that they can do nothing about.
Click to expand...
A while back I was reading the "What is Democratic Socialism" article at DSA. I was struck by the primacy of "democracy" in everything they're aiming for. They wanted virtually aspect of society subject to majority rule. But I think they have a blindspot for the fact that putting something under "democratic" control, in the real world, means its controlled by government.

So, they want nearly everything controlled by government - and that just seems like a recipe for totalitarianism. At the very least, in means that everything you want out of life is subject political negotiation. :(
 
dblack said:
A while back I was reading the "What is Democratic Socialism" article at DSA. I was struck by the primacy of "democracy" in everything they're aiming for. They wanted virtually aspect of society subject to majority rule. But I think they have a blindspot for the fact that putting something under "democratic" control, in the real world, means its controlled by government.

So, they want nearly everything controlled by government - and that just seems like a recipe for totalitarianism. At the very least, in means that everything you want out of life is subject political negotiation. :(
Click to expand...
Just know that they don't really want majority rule, they just want the majority to elect them to rule

For example, about 80% of Americans favor term limits for those in Congress, as well as a balanced budget for Congress, but the majority will never be given the opportunity to vote for such things. No, those issues will just be ignored is all and never see the light of day.

The same people that hold "No Kings" signs, what just that in the form of a faceless and nameless bureaucracy that will be their new king that Trump helped expose with things as USAID. Think of it, the government was using taxpayer money to fund media outlets like Reuters, so they could control Legacy media.
 
Votto said:
Just know that they don't really want majority rule, they just want the majority to elect them to rule
Click to expand...
I don't really buy that. I think most of them at least think they want majority rule. It's their unwavering faith in the wisdom of the majority I don't get. Even if government perfectly represents the will of the majority, I don't want it running my life. I don't want it to provide me with my needs and I don't want it dictating my employment.
Votto said:
Think of it, the government was using taxpayer money to fund media outlets like Reuters, so they could control Legacy media.
Click to expand...
Or "partnering" with companies by bullying them, or buying up their stock. It's socializing business under a different guise.

 
15th post
dblack said:
I don't really buy that. I think most of them at least think they want majority rule. It's their unwavering faith in the wisdom of the majority I don't get. Even if government perfectly represents the will of the majority, I don't want it running my life. I don't want it to provide me with my needs and I don't want it dictating my employment.

Or "partnering" with companies by bullying them, or buying up their stock. It's socializing business under a different guise.

Click to expand...
Faith in the wisdom of the majority has some merit.



But going with the herd is not always right.

For the Left, however, majority opinion means everything, because for them, majority opinion equals justification.

The problem for them is, when majority consensus does not agree with the Left. At that point, they usually ignore it and try to bend and manipulate to their perspective so that they can justify it through the gospel of democracy.
 
Votto said:


It is presented in Legacy media and academia as the highest of virtues. In fact, the gospel of democracy they preach seemingly makes society pure and righteous somehow. But is this accurate?
Click to expand...

.

I'll stick with the old, but true, line -- "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner".

Mob rule.

.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Are voters stupid?

< Previous Thread

Oregon Gov. Threatens to Investigate, Prosecute Federal Agents Enforcing Immigration Laws

Next Thread >

Similar threads

Votto
The gospel of democracy
Replies
4
Views
98
RoshawnMarkwees
RoshawnMarkwees
Raynine
How I see our current state.
Replies
10
Views
130
Raynine
Raynine
excalibur
The most insane chart you'll see today
2 3
Replies
43
Views
480
Woodznutz
Woodznutz
Doc7505
When They Say "Democracy," They Don't Mean "Democracy"
2 3
Replies
54
Views
675
rightwinger
rightwinger
M
Machado/Trump and the Nobel: Feel Good Story of the Year.
2
Replies
32
Views
374
Mashmont
M

New Topics

Latest Discussions

Back
Top Bottom