Democracy

Essef

As to a constitutional republic being better at respecting or protecting the rights of minorities I’d only point out that it didn’t help black Americans, native Americans, Americans of Japanese decent and communist Americans.

‘Eventually’ – what was it Winston Churchill said - “The United States invariably does the right thing, after having exhausted every other alternative”

The point is it happened and given the right circumstances could happen again – the persecution of people for political reasons, the interment of citizens, even forms of slavery could take place – oh they might be ‘fixed’ later but to me they should not have taken place at all. And often the ‘fix’ comes in only after the ‘cure’ has done its job.

 

America is supposed to be a constitutional republic. Children are taught to believe from a young age that we live in a democracy, because democracy breaks down to mob rule, where the uninformed 51% can impose their will on the remaining 49%. That is what the controllers want. I am not a fan of government or any system set up to manage human cattle, but even Jefferson said that democracy is the worst form of government, and it's true that there is nothing in the United States constitution that says or even refers to democracy.

 

To repeat - you can have a constitutional republic that is a democracy, you can have a constitutional republic that is an oligarchy, you can even have a constitutional republican that is a dictatorship.

The question is what would people prefer to live under –

A representative democracy

An oligarchy

A tyranny

The thing is that it often seems that many right wingers would prefer a more oligarchical system where a few were in control.

 

Ok there is something called the Democracy Index compiled by the Economic Intelligence Unit, the index “is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories: electoral process and pluralism, civil liberties, functioning of government, political participation and political culture.” (wiki)

Top ten in 2011 were

Norway a Constitutional monarchy
Iceland a Parliamentary Republic
Denmark a Constitutional monarchy
Sweden a Constitutional monarchy
New Zealand a Constitutional monarchy
Australia a Constitutional monarchy
Switzerland a Federal Republic
Canada a Constitutional monarchy
Finland a Parliamentary republic
Netherlands a Constitutional monarchy

 

The 10th amendment is a key element of the Constitution of the United States and the 16th and 17th amendments were the most destructive changes made to our form of government.

 

Lol, yeah, and in context, he said it to complement us, said with typical Churchill humor.

Thanks for helping me make my point.

 

essef

Your point seemed to be that Americans will eventually do the right thing (in the case of black peoples voting rights it only took some 180 years) well my point is that maybe many things shouldn’t have happened at all and given they did in the past it seems that given the right circumstances they could happen again.

But anyway I’d still say that today the US was a constitutional republic with a democratic political system. A democratic republic.

PS - Looking at the list above the most democratic countries are mainly constitutional monarchies – hey maybe the US would have been better off remaining British rather than seeking independence

 

There you are using the wrong language. Actually it is unconstitutional for a state to "establish a religion". This happened with the 14th amendment's incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states. However, this does not mean that it is illegal for a locality to "establish a religion".

 

It appears there are a few here who actually DO understand the Constitution and how it is meant to be used to protect rather than diminish our freedoms. It all begins with the people, each and every one a unique sovereign individual, with government, local, State and Federal empowered ONLY with the consent of the governed.

 

Indie

The problem here is that your interpretation of the US Constitution and even ‘freedom’ seem firmly based on you rather extreme right wing views.

For example you so on to say –

The problem is that you have proposed that wealth should have extra voting right so that it could block or veto the votes of the majority.

You have also proposed many other ideas that would seem to give more power and influence to wealth - the lowering or removal of taxes – deregulation – the reduction of social programmes and welfare – Free market/laissez faire based economics and Social Darwinist based education, healthcare etc. Things that would in effect make some entities and individual much more ‘sovereign’ than others.

 

Its a kind of democracy in the sense that people, in theory, can elect their representatives and leaders.

 

Balbie:

You seem to find it impossible to recognize as fact that each individual is unique, and that it is not governments responsibility to make each individual equal by redistributing from the more prosperous to the less prosperous.

Government does not create a society, but is a creation of society, and in the U.S. the Constitution created a weak Federal government, subordinate to the States and the people with the intent that neither a majority nor a minority could impose rule over the Nation as a whole. People should be able to exercise their freedom from bad governance in a community or State by moving elsewhere.

Perhaps you should re-read our (belonging to the U.S. and its citizens) Constitution until you understand how it is meant to work for the people, not just those who have a Left wing agenda on how they would like it to work.

 

Indie

Untrue I’ve said it many times but I also say that unless an individual is alone on an island or in some other way cut off from the rest of society that they are also be part of a community.

Again please listen to me rather than just hearing what you think I’ve said – I have said many times that I don’t think it is possible to have a totally equal society but as to your arguments against redistribution – other than just saying you are against it you haven’t actually put up rational reasons why it should take place. If you think you have and I’ve missed them (and I don’t think I have) please point out where they are, if you don’t I’ll take it you didn’t.

But wouldn’t it be better to stay and try and make the place better? I mean should the people that didn’t like British rule of colonial America have just move on rather than fight for independence?

But again I and other have shown that it is your right wing libertarian ideas that seem to favour the few over the majority and be a limit on many people freedoms – charges that you and no other right winger has been able to refute.

 

You mean just saying "You're wrong" isn't proof?

 

Yes, we are a part of a community, and that's where government begins.
But you would like government to assure that each community is made the same as every other community?

I've never said that redistribution 'should' take place. Why should it?

People who didn't like British rule DID move on, but as British rule followed them they eventually had to fight to gain their independence, and made the place better. Like I've said before, freedom can only be had peacefully when you are free to seek out existence where it can be found. Fifty sovereign States allow that freedom to exist under the Constitution.

I favor neither the few or the majority. I assume when you speak of the few and the majority you refer to the distribution of wealth, and it seems to be quite obvious that more power assumed by a Central government only acts as a magnet for those who have the greatest wealth to exercise it in ways that makes the majority less relevant to those they elect to represent them.

 

[FONT=&quot]Indie[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s not true in fact I like diversity and multiculturalism but this is your problem you only hear what you are programmed to hear – so that anyone that opposes your rather extreme form of right wing thinking is an ‘authoritarian socialist’. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If you stopped just sprouting dogma and actually thought about your ideas especially began to try and address the many criticisms of your ideas you might just be able to see the problems with your views. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh dear how drool of you to pick up on a spelling slip, I’m sure you thought that was really clever - ok it should have read ‘– other than just saying you are against it you haven’t actually put up rational reasons why it shouldn’t take place.’[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But I’m sure you knew that and yes once again you prefer evasion to honest debate.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The argument for it is that it is good for everyone, it improves the quality of life of everyone. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]So basically you statement was wrong and the best thing to so is try and improve bad governance. But as explained the criticisms of right wing libertarianism is that it would just make bad governance worse. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]But the criticism of your ideas seems to show this statement to be a lie – that your ideas would favour the few to the detriment of the many - the thing is that you don’t seem able to address those criticisms let alone refute them – so the statement seems very likely to be a lie. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]

 

McFuddy

Many people seem to think it is and they is a tendency among some to think that in a debate people should just agree to disagree when this 'argument' is presented and others seem to believe all ideas have equal merit.

However to me there are some ideas that seem bad or even dangerous and should not be accepted and in my opinion it is the duty of the sensible to counter such ideas.

So how does someone recognise a bad idea – well if an idea doesn’t stand up well to criticism then it’s probably a bad idea.

The thing about right wing libertarianism is that none of its supporters seem able to even address the criticisms levelled at it, in other words it doesn’t stand up at all to criticism.

 

Balbie:

Try presenting some legitmate criticisms, and while you're at it take a closer look at your own extreme Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, authoritarian way of thinking.

I let your words speak for themself, and I followed up with the question asking "why should redistribution take place". Am I correct in assuming that you feel that government should be the source of providing everything that it decides is good for everyone, or improves the quality of life for everyone?

And the other side of the coin is that government under the Constitution, as originally intended, allows the governed the power to decide what changes in government they will consent to. You did say you promote Democracy didn't you?

Are you by chance a proponent of a "pure" form of Democracy? Should a majority rule over the minority? Or is it just the distribution of wealth within a free society that angers you?

 

Indie
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]If they are so weak and illegitimate then shouldn’t they be easy to refute but instead you can’t even address then in any rational or reasonable way – why is that? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]and while you're at it take a closer look at your own extreme Leftist, Marxist, Socialist, authoritarian way of thinking.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s the problem you seem to think that anyone to the left of your own position (even moderate right wingers) are akin to Stalinists. And I’m quite happy to discuss my views AGAIN and I’m happy to defend them AGAIN. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And I answered [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This is your problem you have an absolutist viewpoint (either/or)– if it isn’t your extreme right wing view then it MUST be the extreme opposite. You are too dogmatic. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]As I’ve explained to you before - [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I don’t see things as either/or – I don’t hate private industry the same way you seem to hate public service. You seem to think ‘government’ is the source of all evil that it is almost always “inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt” with the implication that business are virtually always efficient, frugal and totally honest and transparent.

What I’ve been telling you all along is that it is about balance and aims.

In a democracy it shouldn’t be about one or the other about the interests of business and the interests of the people but about balancing the two.

The aim is to bring about what is in the best interests of everyone.

My and others criticism of right wing libertarianism is that it seems to be about serving the interests of a few not the many a charge that no follower of the ideology seems able to address let alone refute.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?p=7150151&highlight=evil#post7150151[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Again - as interpreted by you from the position of your extreme right wing viewpoint. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I think I’ve already told you – I don’t think such a thing could be possible in the real world if in fact it was desirable. I’ve point out to you many times now that I’d prefer a balanced system. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Or is it just the distribution of wealth within a free society that angers you?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Its not anger it is about what is rational and reasonable to bring about a society free from exploitation, where the interest of everyone is served and not just the few as critics point would most likely happen under [/FONT]

 

The whole point of this thread was to discuss the misuse of the word Democracy, and the US constitution. It doesn't have anything to do with left vs right. It's about understanding what was written by OUR forefathers. As rat pointed out, the form of government known as democracy....is essentially mob rule. Where the minority (not minorities, race is irrelevant) does not have a voice and can do nothing to protect their own rights. You can have democratic properties within a government, but to call it a democracy shows a lack of understanding. That is unless it is an actual democracy. Hell, Hockey and figure skating share similar properties, but try calling a hockey player a figure skater.

Balb, seriously, if you want a legitimate response to your criticisms then I would suggest legitimizing your criticisms. You are putting words into people's mouths and then getting your knickers all in a bunch when they don't back up statements that they never made. I can say that your statements support pedophilia, and then demand you to list reasons why you support it. Would you then provide a legitimate argument supporting pedophiles???? I know that's an extreem analogy but it works the same way. Why would Indie provide proof for something he never said?