The trouble with democracy...
 

Branching off from another thread...

It's taken for granted by many that democracy is best, and that the USA is supposed to be one.

The political debates all center around "the gov't should do this, do that", which is really about the majority (or sometimes minority), imposing its will on everyone else. You can see the circus that is the RNC and the DNC. This is supposed to be "the will of the people"?

We should all question the very idea of democracy wherein on every issue of our lives the majority set the rules.
The problem is that on many issues, each of us is in the minority.

51% think ultralow speed limits are good? 55 mph limits! 51% think marijuana is bad? Jail for users! And so on.
You have to ask, why does the majority have to rule over the minority on every issue?

The alternative to democracy is NOT dictatorship. The right alternative to democracy is a system based on freedom:

Beyond democracy

$0.99 Kindle edition:

The problem I have with democracy is that the majority of voters are too worried about "liking" stuff on facebook. I call these people "the blind", because to them, the presidential election is just another episode of American idol. I love it when people like this reply with "I vote because it's my right as an American". So is lighting yourself on fire...it doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The trouble with democracy:

Chicago Bled Dry by Striking Teachers’ Unions - By John Fund - The Corner - National Review Online


Maybe I suggest a book for you Joe?

Democracy is mob-ocracy. As many here have noted, the mob is ill-informed and easily propagandized, by the people in power, no less. So democracy degenerates into rule by the ruling elite.

Unfortunately, our constitutional representative republic is devolving into a democracy. Democracy is the antithesis of individual rights. It is something to be feared. And it has been pushed in that direction by certain ideological groups from shortly after the inception of the Constitution.

The progressives pushed the Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution through under Woodrow Wilson in 1913, thereby stripping the state legislatures of their voice in Congress. This devolved the bi-cameral Congress into two groups beholden to essentially the same constituent body, the mob of open majority, as opposed to one house of Congress being elected as representatives of the people and the other house of Congress being appointed to serve the interests of the state legislatures. This move to usurp the federal government's accountability to the various states was part of the progressives' plan to further undermine states' rights and push toward mob rule.

IB4 Bob calls you a facist.

First I was like:
:cry:

then i was like:
:facepalm:

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...ine=1347305550


- Ben Franklin

I vote for:

Everyone gets one vote automatically

The moment you pay $5,000 in taxes (less receipts from government), you get another vote.

Another at $10,000, then $20,000, then $40,000, then $80,000, then $160,000

So someone who pays $175,000 in total TAXES MINUS RECEIPTS gets 7 votes.

It's genious I tell you.

The masses still have the power to overwhelm the wealthy, but it becomes much harder when the high income earners have much more say over where there money goes than the low income earners.

:popcorn:

We are a Liberal Democracy. The definition of which is a Democracy with Safeguards and rules in place for the preservation of human rights and civil liberties from the tyranny of the masses as might be found in a direct democracy.

Several concepts of our government protect us from being a pure democracy such as

1) Representative democracy as appose to direct democracy
2) Seperation of powers
3) Branches of government
4) Constitution with a Bill of Rights
5) Rule of Law

I will leave out Republic because I think the concept of Republic which also describes us because of our states rights does next to nothing to preserve liberty and more often preserves tyranny such as it tried to do with slavery for instance. After all The Peoples Republic of China, and The United Soviet Socialist Republic are also republics. It's not like it is a concept of our government to be proud of for it's awsomness.

lol. Have you not been paying attention to politics lately? The wealthy in this nation are in no danger of not having their views represented.

Wait, what? I didn't even post in this thread.

This isnt a democracy, its a republic.
Im glad this isnt a democracy or we would be even more fucked, which is an impressive level of fucked considering how fucking fucked we fucking are.

While we are indeed a republic the term doesn’t come close to describing our form of government. By definition, republic simply means we don’t have a monarch and government is considered a "public matter" (Latin: res publica), The Type of republic we are is a Liberal Democracy. Republics can also be socialist and not have safeguards for liberty and civil rights again Russia and China are also republics. I prefer living in a republic that is a liberal democracy.

Lol at Russia and China being Republics.

That's your worst argument to date Bob, but as always, the laugh factor is very very high on the BBundy scale of fun.

That's like saying the Supreme Being of Iran has declared himself a Unicracy.

The People's Republic of China, the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the former German Democratic Republic have one important overriding common feature, one party rule. When one party controls all aspects of a government those controlling the party have all of the power, and the rule of law is most often the first casualty (see: Franklin Roosevelt).

Constitutional Republic - Rule by a government whose powers are limited by law or a formal constitution, and conducted by representatives chosen by a vote amongst at least some sections of the populace (Ancient Sparta was in its own terms a republic, though most inhabitants were disenfranchised. The United States is a federal republic).

Democracy - A form of government characterized by the direct vote of the populace for the adoption of laws and policies.

So Bob, do we elect representatives to vote on our behalf or do we as a citizenry vote for the adoption or refutation every law ourselves?

So don't argue with me, argue with Ben.

acutally, we might as well be considered a liberal democracy now, if you look at it objectively.

But those who believe the US is such, also believe that the American and French Revolutions share common ground, which is silly beyond comprehension.

The Communist Party controls everything. That's the anti-republic.


China is a RINO; Republic in name only.

I meant Jason. I'm bad at names.

We are not a "Democracy" we are a "Liberal Democracy" There is a Difference. Republic is way too broad of term to describe our government. Liberal Democracies typically are Republics that have safeguards to protect individual Liberty of the few from the Tyranny of the masses as with a direct democracy. A representative form of democracy is one of those safeguards, a constitution with a bill of rights is another, along with rule of law, seperation of powers, etc.

This form of government was born out of the 18th century age of enlightenment. Or Age of reason, from Wikapidia “Its purpose was to reform society using reason (rather than tradition, faith and revelation) and advance knowledge through science. It promoted science and intellectual interchange and opposed superstition,[1] intolerance and some abuses by church and state.”

It seems to me many on the right want to go back to the Dark Ages for their form of government. No real central government and feudal lords who in owning all the capital are able to dictate terms of employment and access to societal things we take for granted like infrastructure, education, and social safety nets. And it is also interesting they like to use irrational religion to control peoples behavior and make laws.

that works for me.

but China still isn't a republic.

I'd like to go back to the dark ages? If by that you mean to return to an earlier time in American history before many of the rights of American citizens had been stripped away by an all-consuming federal government, yes. To go back to a time before the government overstepped its bounds with an unconstitutional confiscatory tax policy, yes. To go back to a time when common men still feared and were suspicious of a powerful centralized government rather than counting it as their societal savior and longing to suckle its teat, yes. And to go back to a time when so few funds were controlled by the federal government and so plain were its duties that there were no favors for friends, companies, or wealthy individuals to buy or coerce, yes.

I also long for those dark times when men considered it an honor and a duty to serve their fellow men and their hard-won country as elder statesmen, and not as beggars seeking bribes (contributions) or as little kings lusting for power. I long for a time when the Senators and Congressmen were not paid as they were only to gather on rare occasion when it was very necessary.

The People’s Republic of China does not have a Monarch, Its leader is chosen by party officials. Party officials are typically appointed rather than democratically elected but it is a public party not owned by an individual ruling family or monarch. This is a Republic.

One thing I think they have embraced in China is western capitalism. They seem to have embraced it with even less scruples than we have.

Bob

the socialist party has full control over everything, you cant do crap without their approval.

Well it’s impossible to go back to the frontier days, we’ve already killed off and concentrated the natives and the land is all claimed up and altered likely forever unless we experience a civilization collapse and or mass die off of the human population.

We could eliminate allot of regulation and go back to industrial revolution days with no labor laws and disregard for the environment stuff I guess.

That is certainly not something I want to do. I don’t think those were better times at all. But I’m sure the oligarchs trying to buy the government would profit handsomely. Heck Sheldon Adelson is looking for a 2 billion dollar reduction in his taxes for the 100 million he is throwing at Romney.

Child Labor

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...%2520labor-jpg

Love Canal

https://www.miataturbo.net/attachmen...love-canal-jpg

That is not contrary to the definition of republic.

The reason child labor existed was because families needed the additional income.
Child labor was on the way out, due to improved productivity, when gov't made it illegal.

Re: the Environment. A system of Common Law (de-centralized power) is arguably better than Statute Law (a central authority) at protecting the environment. A central authority is easy to subvert - look at how all the lobbyists descend in one place, washington DC. In a system of Common Law, power would be far more de-centralized. Here is one book that makes that argument:

The Common Law and the Environment: Rethinking the Statutory Basis for Modern Environmental Law (The Political Economy Forum): Roger E. Meiners,Andrew P. Morriss: 9780847697090: Amazon.com: Books

The Common Law and the Environment: Rethinking the Statutory Basis for Modern Environmental Law (The Political Economy Forum): Roger E. Meiners,Andrew P. Morriss: 9780847697090: Amazon.com: Books

And here's a PDF:
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/facu...Law_Butler.pdf

America til about the early 1800s had a system of mostly Common Law, and this was systematically dismantled and replaced with Statute Law. It was an early form of Corporatism - the pressure to move away from Common Law came from businessmen:

Here's a book about how Common Law was subverted into Statute Law. Check out the description in the reviews. Interestingly the author is a Marxist:

Amazon.com: The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 (Studies in Legal History) (9780674903715): Morton J. Horwitz: Books

Amazon.com: The Transformation of American Law, 1780-1860 (Studies in Legal History) (9780674903715): Morton J. Horwitz: Books

The free market always has a way:

http://www.ecanadanow.com/wp-content...boo-family.jpg

is an actual book written by an Economist that goes over a large majority of the problems democracy has, and why people vote for stupid policies.

I haven’t read that book obviously but I do see serious issues with us transforming from the Liberal Democracy we are to something much less democratic.

The alternative I see happening there is where leaders of government entities are directly appointed by Industry, boards of directors of major corporations, and or the oligarchical controllers of the majority of the capital. All while they receive an ever growing proportion of the proceeds of the nation’s GDP while contributing nothing themselves other than there ownership of it.

The Citizens United case is very scary with the concepts of corporate personhood combined with the concept that money is speech in this respect.

I don’t think ending the Liberal Democratic form of government that was set up in the US will have a desirable effect at all.

Have you ever heard of public choice theory of economics?

I honestly know you will disagree with a good amount of that book, but I would highly suggest picking it up and reading it. Its from an academic that teaches at a school that put out 2 Nobel Laureates in economics for public choice. So it is not just a shitty book written by someone along the lines of Anne Cunty Coulter.

Don't hate. My book is the best.

Oligarchies form by the force of gov't.

Looking at the reviews he has a big problem with voters making irrational decisions on how to vote. I find this interesting because it is of my own personal conclusions that the human species has a serious problem with being drawn to irrational belief systems rather than knowlage. Religion of any variety I can think of is Irrational. Mostly a religion is just an invention of man for the purpose of manipulating societal behavior. I don’t think it is always a good thing. The Republican Party has very successfully used irrational religious beliefs to manipulate the way a good chunk of the people vote for the last several decades now. Even the democrats balked on trying to remove religion from politics.

Bob

BS. coming out of the Dark Ages they formed with the lack of central government when the Rich land owners held all the economic playing cards. And the poor populous had no voice in the matter.

The world got better for everybody after the age of enlightenment when Liberalism came in along with logic and reason over religion and concepts like Liberal Democracy were Developed.

Bob

Society came out of the Dark Ages due to the rise of Classical Liberalism, which is very similar to today's libertarianism. It was a revolt against the old order of class and privilege for the few.

Modern Liberalism is a hodgepodge of socialism and statism. Part of it came from Fabian Socialism and from Progressivism (which had elitist, racist roots).

Anne Coulter is a cunted ----, nothing she has ever written or said is worth reading or listening to. The only reason she is popular is the same as Palin, all of us guys just want to jizz on her tits.


People are irrational about voting because becoming rational costs to much. Basically it comes down to is that the opportunity cost of becoming rational with voting is much higher then the benefit because of the law of large averages. If you are seriously interested in reading the book but don't want to spend the money shoot me a PM and I will mail you out my copy as long as you promise to send it back.

The trouble with republicy:

» Man Crushed by Steamroller On Orders of Chinese Officials Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

warning graphic images.