Democracy

Balbie:

In a free society, from whom should government derive its powers?

 

No again, you continually misread what I have written numerous times. My views are not limited choices, but many choices, determined by those who make up each individual society/community within the rules of their States Constitution and the Constitution of the united StateS. People should be left free to seek out where they can live, work and have their children educated in ways THEY individually find satisfactory.

 

Took some time off. Glad to see the discussion is still firing.

 

Why anyone would support a democracy is beyond me. It's political speak for the tyranny of the majority.

 

So maybe a society with a few ruling the majority would be better? I wonder if the Iranians would agree. Guess a few religeous nuts running us would work out here. For a minute.

 

A society without any rulers would be preferable, but given that that's unlikely a society with as little rulers as possible is the best option. Which is why I'm a minarchist and not an anaracho-capitalist.

 

I think you're missing the point. You're country was founded with the understanding that the vast majority of people are too dumb to have complete control over policies that affect EVERYONE. Then it was the lack of information, today it is the surplus of misinformation with a public that's either too dumb or lazy to care. Think about this.......let's say that 51% of Oregons population were "religious nuts." If you lived in a democracy, and that 51% voted to install Religous beliefs into YOUR everyday life, and require that you follow the guidelines set forth by said Religon.......you and the rest of the 49% would have no choice but to join their Religon or be sent to prison. Do you want that possibility?? Or would you want your Rights to be protected?? That is what I mean wherein the Republic Every Individual has basic rights that are protected from the sheep people (minority rights).

Granted, we have strayed from the constitution over the years. I personally think that we should go back, rather than go in any which way leading away from what we were founded on.

 

My post was basically sarcasm directed at Gedio's idea/post 44.

 

Sarcasm only works when you're mocking a point I'm actually making.

 

it only works when you understand it.

 

Letlovin

Sorry your view on democracy again seems to display that either/or attitude that seems all too common among some people – to this absolutist viewpoint there can only be total democracy and so their can be no other form of democracy.

Reality doesn’t usually have absolutes but I sometimes think that those who adhere to dogmatic ideologies find that hard to cope with.

 

letlovin

But if my arguments are so weak and illegitimate shouldn’t they be easy to refute? But instead all I seem to get is excuses why right wing libertarians are not going to address such criticisms.

Please present your evidence for me “putting words into people's mouths” I might ask ‘do you mean this’ – or – ‘this is what you seem to be implying’ - but that isn’t putting words into people's mouths – it is a recognised form of questioning. Don’t blame me if people are unable or unwilling to answer.

LOL – first I’d ask why you though a statement of mine supported paedophilia – thing is I and others have given full and detailed reasons why we think right wing libertarianism would give more riches, power and influence to wealth, - based on their statements. A right wing libertarian might deny it, but if they are unable to put up any rational or reasonable counter-argument, just denial does not make those criticisms go away.

 

Letlovin

Again Republics can come in many shapes and sizes -

The Russian Socialist Federated Soviet Republic was a constitutional republic (a republic with a constitution). It was so even under Stalin.

The US was a republic at the beginning when only around 10% of Americans had the vote and even fewer could actually run for office just as it was in 1965 when the Voting Rights Act was signed and it still is today. And it would still be a republic if the constitution was rewritten so that it became even more democratic.

You’d prefer to go back to the early years of the US when only around 10% of Americans had the vote and even fewer could actually run for office and slavery was widespread?

 

Okay, for the last time.....you say that all right wing Libertarians want to give power to the wealthy. Those are words that you put into people's mouths. Every time that criticism is addressed, you completely dismiss it like it never happened. To put it simply, a strong Government is a tool for the privlaged. Those with money have an influence over the government to pass legislation that better suits their own interests. To reduce the authority of the federal government back to what is outlined by the constitution, takes away the power of the wealthy to influence legislation. I think you fail to realize just how many politicians can be bought in the current system, and the effect of corrupt politicians.

I never said any of your statements supported pedophilia....you are again putting words in my mouth. Do you know what the word analogy means?

Any time someone supports a limited government, you automatically put them in the extreem right winged Libertarian group. In doing so you are exsercising the same absolutism that you accuse me of. You can call me what you will, I don't care. But I don't belong to any one political group, and do not agree with all of anyone's policies. I am a bit conservative, but I'm more towards the middle than you would like to think. I share some ideas with Libertarians, but what I would like to see is real non-partisanship and all sides to put away their differences and meet in the middle. The right needs the left, and the left needs the right. If you go too far one way or another you end up in the same place..

Do you have to agree with me? No. I don't care what you believe. But it is immature to completely dismiss any argument because you don't agree with it.

 

True. Just as some "Democracies" actually have no democratic properties. However the topic at hand is the Replic of the USA.

That doesn't make sense..

That is absurd, I never said any such thing.

I bet you have no idea that many of the founding fathers tried to ban slavery in their respected colonies before the Revolution, but the BRITISH law would not let them do so. The American Constitution was what made abolition of slavery possible. The Founding Fathers took the first step....which was more than Britain was willing to do at the time.

 

Dictators lie. People don't think. Not that confusing.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong here , but I don't think the founding fathers intentions were to abolish slavery . Many owned slaves themselves . I believe they knew it would become an issue . And it really never did until the Lousiana purchase in 1803 . Which drew the debate of weather or not the western expansion of new states would continue as slave states or free states. And even that didn't come to a head until the 1860's some 84 years later .

 

The majority of FFs did try to abolish Slavery, and often spoke out against the Evil. Most who did own slaves, granted them freedom after the Revolution, because the new nation was to be based on freedom.

http://christiananswers.net/q-wall/wal-g003.html

This is the first thing that google brought up. You can try to discredit the source of course, but the same info is found all over with a little research. I personally remember it from High School History class

 

When the U.S. Constitution was written, the founders recognized that a Democracy form of government would result in the majority ruling the minority, and as a result "The Constitution of the United States", States with an "s" was written. The 10th amendment, above all else, should serve as proof that the Federal government was intended to be subservient to the States and the people, or a weak Federal government empowered from the bottom, meaning the people and the States who would retain control by requiring their consent to changes by much more than a simple majority vote. Essentially the Constitution serves as the Supreme law under which the Federal government itself is meant to be governed, and not by interpretation to achieve an agenda, with or without consent of the governed. The 16th and 17th amendments along with the Federal reserve banking system have been the most injurious, and questionably passed, changes made by the Federal government to our Constitution allowing it to change our form of government in ways never intended originally.
Ron Paul appears to be the only candidate for President who seems to recognize where changes need to be made, and considering that we have been on a path towards total economic collapse for nearly 100 years now, it is natural to view some of his words as extreme. Would it be better to wait until we reach the same point as Greece before taking some corrective actions? At the rate we are going deeper in debt now, the paper our money is printed on may become worth more then the money itself, regardless of how many zero's are added. The Zimbabwe syndrome.

 

letlovin

I’ve asked you EIGHT TIMES to produce any evidence of your claim that the criticism has been address NOT once have you been able to produce it – I even gave you a week to go looking and still NOTHING.
And please don’t wave you hand vaguely and say ‘its over there somewhere’ or claim that the dog eat it, just produce it.