CDZ Isn't smaller governance better?

[rightwinger]

Then we must live in a democracy, because right now 1% are stealing from the other 99%.

There are about 60 million welfare queens in this country that are using the filthy government to steal the money that I make. That is more than 1%.

I have never had a rich person steal money from me but these filthy ass welfare queens that elect Democrats and RINOs to give them my tax money do it every day. Despicable, isn't it?

Yes, the folks who are robbing you of the big bucks are pointing fingers towards a small few who may be skimming you for crumbs suckers fall for it because they are suckers.

People robbing me?

You mean like the richer than sin Hollywood Limousine Liberals that donate tons of money to the Democrats, who in turn take my money and use it to give to the welfare queens and the Illegals? The Tom Steyers of the world that is using his money to fund Democrats to screw up the economy with the AGW scam? How about rich anti right to keep and bear arms people like Bloomberg or the crazy Leftest like Soros? They all effect me in some way or another.

Welfare queens take pennies from your pocket

It is the wealthy who rob you blind and you thank them for it

I think you are confused about this.

The welfare queens cost us hundreds of billions every year and it come out of the pockets of taxpayers like me.

The combined cost of government is the largest expenditure of my family and most families in America.

The big out of control government (combined) is almost 40% of the GDP and it supports a filthy welfare state. A welfare state where worthless 3th generation welfare queens and illegals get subsidies health care and food and housing and even free cell phones. That is despicable, isn't it?

The cost of the government in the US is greater than the GDP of all but three other countries on the face of the earth and all that money comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers.

Our problem in this country is that it is a democracy that allows the majority (that is usually only a voting plurality) the ability to use the government to steal what they are unwilling to provide for themselves. It is morally wrong and it is an economic disaster.

Welfare queens play the system they are given to get every penny they can get out of it

Billionaires play the system they are given......only they have an army of accountants, lawyers and politicians to help them

Guess who comes out with more?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Oh, well, it's obvious, surely. It means nonrepresentative democracy, "pure" democracy as with the Greek demos was, at least theoretically. And it means democracy not corrupted by ....

Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.

Unlimited democracy refers democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution).

Which brings me right back to the question I first asked you...In light of your having asserted that...

History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

[Please] identify instances from history when there were "unlimited democracies" where from it subsequently has been learned that "unlimited democracies" are a disaster.

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history.

Thank you.

John Stuart Mill, not history, explained to us the ills and ethical inadequacy of majoritarian rule.

And, preceding him a bit, Aristotle. Followed by pretty much everyone who's given it much thought.

is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations?

No. I wasn't advocating for anything. I simply wanted to know whether you were aware of some historical events that had escaped me.

Ah... ok. Nevermind then.

Do you think that would be a good idea?

From the essay above, I think you can tell my answer to this question is, "no."

Sorry. tl;dr - but I'll take your word for it.

And, preceding him a bit, Aristotle. Followed by pretty much everyone who's given it much thought.

And yet even as you decry the legitimacy of majoritarian approaches to public policy decision making, you yet cited what may be most often used phrase to invoke the use of majoritarianism.....Odd....

Majoritarian pablum. History has shown that unlimited democracy is a disaster.

The thing is, "We the People" already decided the scope and limits of government power. And we can change those limits, by amending the Constitution, but it takes more than a simple majority vote.

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

 

[dblack]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

 

[rightwinger]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

 

[usmbguest5318]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority

Have you read Mill's essay on the matter? Or is that another writing that you considered too long and thus you didn't read it? Tyranny of the majority and your euphemism for it, "majoritarian pablum," are exactly the same philosophical notion. That they are is precisely why I posted the remarks I did in post 173.

Hell, the only awareness I have of [the specific term "unlimited democracy"] comes from a guy named Tibor Machan. Were the other member to have referenced Machan, I'd know what he means by it. That said, in other venues, most notably among my colleagues and others whom I know to be very deeply versed in economics and political philosophy, yes, the reference given by "majoritarian pablum" would trigger me to think of Machan (with Mill's "Tyranny of the Majority" ideas as the antecedent) and intuit aptly what is meant.

Here on USMB, too often I encounter posts from folks who haven't any real clue of what they're talking about, so I want a bit more reliable a "clue" than just that, something that assures me the member hasn't just stumbled upon some odd bit of political philosophy's esoterica....something such as an attestation akin to "I'm referring to Machan's use of the term 'unlimited democracy' " or "I'm referring to Mill's tyranny of the majority ideas" would be sufficient. Hell, even the phrase "tyranny of the majority" would do.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

We do indeed have those checks, but they are to no avail against the tyranny of the majority, which may well be the most opprobrious of all forms and foistings of tyranny. The only real check democracy has against the tyranny of the majority is republicanism (small "R"), and as modern American political history and events indicate, republicanism is far from a perfect check.

 

[Foxfyre]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

Only when the President and/or the courts are independent of he/her/those who hold the power.

 

[rightwinger]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

We do indeed have those checks, but they are to no avail against the tyranny of the majority, which may well be the most opprobrious of all forms and foistings of tyranny. The only real check democracy has against the tyranny of the majority is republicanism (small "R"), and as modern American political history and events indicate, republicanism is far from a perfect check.

Republicans rule from a minority ...what does that do to your theory

 

[Foxfyre]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

We do indeed have those checks, but they are to no avail against the tyranny of the majority, which may well be the most opprobrious of all forms and foistings of tyranny. The only real check democracy has against the tyranny of the majority is republicanism (small "R"), and as modern American political history and events indicate, republicanism is far from a perfect check.

A tyranny of the majority is often not a good thing or seen as a good thing for the minority. Because the Founders put so much emphasis and importance on the unalienable rights of the individual, they did their best to put a system in place that would recognize and respect those unalienable rights so that there would be no tyranny of the majority but also no tyranny of a minority, especially a small one, that is much, much worse. No oligarchy was intended to have power to make law or policy that would be binding on the people.

A President assuming power to issue orders/policy/law that are binding upon the people makes of him a dictator, a power the Constitution never intended him to have.

The courts, mostly unelected and unaccountable to the people, assuming power to issue orders/policy/law that are binding upon the people makes of them a totalitarian oligarchy with powers the Constitution never intended them to have.

The bureaucracy assuming power to issue regulations and policy that are treated as law binding upon the people makes of them a larger oligarchy of unelected, mostly faceless, mostly nameless, that is given power the Constitution never intended it to have.

The Constitution intended that all law and all matters that affect the people be originated with and ordered by their lawfully elected representatives with the President given authority to temper a tyranny of the majority with a veto, but the veto can be overridden by a 2/3rds vote of both chambers of Congress. And the jurisdiction of all components of the federal government are limited to the specific authority given to it by the U.S. Constitution.

The Constitution has largely been rendered null and void in fact, if not legally, by a massively overreaching federal government beginning with the Teddy Roosevelt administration and getting progressively worse over the subsequent decades.

And now we have a massive, unfathomable, unmanageable, horrendous monstrosity of a federal government with essentially unlimited powers that serves itself more than it ever serves the people, and that is progressively consuming more and more of the nation's resources year by year.

Yes. Small government is much better.

 

[usmbguest5318]

If holds true the notion that the will of the majority is tyrannical, thus unethical, with regard to the minority, then that must be so regardless of what particular policy/provision be enacted on the basis of the majority's will. That fact that one concurs with the majority doesn't make the imposition any less tyrannical; it merely makes it be not a tyrannical imposition on oneself. Derrying the tyranny of the majority on such grounds is neither moral nor ethical; its merely conveniently, opportunistically selfish.

I didn't claim the will of the majority is tyrannical. Unlimited government is. The "majoritarian pablum" is the notion that anything government does is fine as long as it's supported by the majority, that there's no need for any formal checks on government power other than the ballot box.

We also have Presidential veto and the courts to check abuses of power

We do indeed have those checks, but they are to no avail against the tyranny of the majority, which may well be the most opprobrious of all forms and foistings of tyranny. The only real check democracy has against the tyranny of the majority is republicanism (small "R"), and as modern American political history and events indicate, republicanism is far from a perfect check.

Republicans rule from a minority ...what does that do to your theory

Nothing.

And let me be clear. It's not my political philosophy theory; it's John Stuart Mill's.

 

[Circe]

Not as obvious as all that, I guess. You're talking direct vs representational democracy. Unlimited democracy refers to democratic government without clear, pre-determined limits on its power (eg without a dependable constitution). Under such a government, minorities are completely at the mercy of the majority.

No, that is what I meant, and said --- no limits on the power of referenda, no protection for minorities. The current overconcern for disruptive minorities and criminals is the basis for the division and crime and rioting and everything bad going on. I'd like to try the opposite.

You make an interesting and good point about constitutions being the natural limits on pure democracies. That situation did occur once, when the French national assembly did not ratify the Constitution of 1793 --- they never did, in fact. In that case what eventually happened was dictatorship (Napoleon, 1799).

 

[Circe]

And in truth, in many, perhaps most matters, a tyranny of the majority can trample on the unalienable rights of the minority, as can a tyranny of the minority that holds the power and ability to dictate to all.

That's it, what we have now is indeed a tyranny of the minority. Good post.

You might say all oligarchs, national assemblies, parliaments are always a tyranny of the minority, such as our do-nothing Congress. But that's not really what you mean here, I think. It's letting minorities such as trannies, homosexuals, snowflake college students, Latinos who want to come over the borders freely, Latinos who want to recover the Southwest for Mexico, criminals being treated far better than victims, rioters being catered to as "protestors," the whole catalog of misgovernance going on, all of them taking power over normal citizens.

 

[Circe]

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

Yes. I'd like to find out. This is the first time in history a large population could do it, via votes on the Internet (if secured).

I would want it localized, like the Electoral College is. Cities must not make laws for the country, or vice versa.

 

[Foxfyre]

[

And in truth, in many, perhaps most matters, a tyranny of the majority can trample on the unalienable rights of the minority, as can a tyranny of the minority that holds the power and ability to dictate to all.

That's it, what we have now is indeed a tyranny of the minority. Good post.

You might say all oligarchs, national assemblies, parliaments are always a tyranny of the minority, such as our do-nothing Congress. But that's not really what you mean here, I think. It's letting minorities such as trannies, homosexuals, snowflake college students, Latinos who want to come over the borders freely, Latinos who want to recover the Southwest for Mexico, criminals being treated far better than victims, rioters being catered to as "protestors," the whole catalog of misgovernance going on, all of them taking power over normal citizens.

Well that is part of it though I actually had in mind presidential executive orders that constitute binding law, courts who exercise social or political activism, unelected bureaucracies that besiege us with hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations that are treated like laws complete with fines, loss of rights, and even jail time.

But granted if certain of special interests and activist groups are successful in putting their own onto the bench or into elected office, the Constitutional restrictions on legal authority can break down quickly.

 

[Circe]

Says the sniveling little kunt that runs from simple questions.

Good God, another one-line obscenity insult poster --- how did someone like this make it to gold level? Misogynist, too. I have a little list for these types.

 

[rightwinger]

[

And in truth, in many, perhaps most matters, a tyranny of the majority can trample on the unalienable rights of the minority, as can a tyranny of the minority that holds the power and ability to dictate to all.

That's it, what we have now is indeed a tyranny of the minority. Good post.

You might say all oligarchs, national assemblies, parliaments are always a tyranny of the minority, such as our do-nothing Congress. But that's not really what you mean here, I think. It's letting minorities such as trannies, homosexuals, snowflake college students, Latinos who want to come over the borders freely, Latinos who want to recover the Southwest for Mexico, criminals being treated far better than victims, rioters being catered to as "protestors," the whole catalog of misgovernance going on, all of them taking power over normal citizens.

Republicans are a minority

 

[Circe]

Well that is part of it though I actually had in mind presidential executive orders that constitute binding law, courts who exercise social or political activism, unelected bureaucracies that besiege us with hundreds of thousands of rules and regulations that are treated like laws complete with fines, loss of rights, and even jail time.

But granted if certain special interests and active groups are successful in putting their own onto the bench or into elected office, the Constitutional restrictions on legal authority can break down quickly.

! Good examples that I didn't think of. I like your thinking.

 

[Circe]

What is wrong with the CDZ? That kunt-caller is posting freely. Apparently that's one of the few words he knows. Has this thread been moved to the Flamethrower Forum and nobody told me?


Sheeeeeesh.

 

[dblack]

I think you may have me there! There probably are no instances of unlimited democracy recorded in history. So maybe there is no proof, whatsoever, that it would be a disaster. Maybe it would be awesome.


Is that what you're advocating for - democracy with no constitutional limitations? Do you think that would be a good idea?

Yes. I'd like to find out. This is the first time in history a large population could do it, via votes on the Internet (if secured).

I would want it localized, like the Electoral College is. Cities must not make laws for the country, or vice versa.

I'd like it to be localized in your neighborhood. I'm not giving up my rights to majority rule.

 

[Foxfyre]

But, as far as I can tell, government is better when it's smaller and more localized.

Shouldn't you show data demonstrating US education was better before a federal education agency was formed?

Only if you assume that making education better is something government should be doing.

Which it could be supposed to do that via social contract. For instance, the early colonies and the frontier towns as the nation expanded, agreed that rather than each family educating their own kids, it would be profitable for the kids to have an educated school marm who would teach all the kids. So the community voted, and those who utilized the school were expected to pay for the school building, its maintenance and upkeep, and compensation for the school marm. That is what social contract is--people coming together in cooperation to accomplish a mutual goal. Fire protection, law enforcement, shared water supply etc. all used to be accomplished the same way.

And even into more modern times, the concept of social contract has continued. Local school boards were elected to set policy and standards for the school, parents and teachers and most of the community cooperated and shared responsibility to make those schools effective, and during that time, the USA enjoyed the finest education system in the world.

It began to deteriorate when states started implementing one-size-fits-all systems and it has really suffered since the federal government got involved. It was within the prerogative of the states, however badly they did it, but it was never constitutionally given to the federal government authority to fund or control public education in any way. And now there are more than 30 countries rated with better education over all than the USA.

Small government is better for education along with pretty much everything else.