Democracy is not a dirty word -

[PaulaGem]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

 

[Kludge]

//

 

[apropos]

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. - Plato, The Republic.

 

[aravoth]

Our founding fathers believed in Democracy

 

[MyLibertyStuff]

I agree that they wanted consent of the people, but they wanted it within the confines of the constitution. Rule by law, republic, and to the republic for which it stands. Read some quotes of the founding fathers who did not want a Democracy in the context it is in today.

Democracy, the way I understand it, is a majority thing. This is why the electoral college was implemented (I think). If the majority says that they want to kill your family and confiscate your land, it is fine in a Democracy because the majority wants it. In a Republic, rule by the law, it is prohibited.

 

[MyLibertyStuff]

Also, Democracies form into Oligopolies over time.

 

[torchbearer]

Tyranny of the majority. Wohoooo!!!!!

 

[Reason]

Tyranny of the majority. Wohoooo!!!!!

qft

 

[Original_Intent]

The United States of America is an emerging democracy; it was not founded as a democracy. In fact, our Founding Fathers made their aversion to democracy well known. James Madison in Federalist #10 had this to say about democracy:

“From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Their disdain was apparent; the why of their disdain was also apparent.

To the end of protecting the people against the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party, to protect the rights of property, to provide personal security, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were carefully written and enacted. Those first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, providing equal access and equal protection under the law.

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter97.htm

 

[FindLiberty]

I can't say it better than these SNIPS from THIS URL - Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner
October 16th, 2008, 5:42 pm · 1 Comment · posted by Mark Landsbaum

...
When this nation was born, the will of the people was what we might call less than universal. About a third wanted to break from the King’s grip. About a third wanted to snuggle with the Crown. And about a third were like today’s muddled middle, not terribly inspired or committed one way or the other.
...
As Ben Franklin said, the new government was a republic, “if you can keep it.”
...
Franklin wasn’t warning about another war with the Brits. The threat wasn’t from beyond the colonies. It was from within. The founders knew from whence the threat emanated. From within men’s hearts. The will of the people. More precisely, the will of the majority.
...
“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived,” said John Quincy Adams, early president and son of a president and founder.
...
“Democracy,” Adams’ father had earlier explained, “will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure. . . “
...
The founders had thrown off the tyranny of imperial monarchy, and clearly also rejected the equally threatening tyranny of the masses. They understood that when “every man will do what is right in his own eyes” it would be a path to disaster. Instead, the founders opted for a new way, not a way dictated by arbitrary potentates, nor by the equally arbitrary whims of the majority.

They rooted their new republic in a system of checks and balances that recognized men’s inherent propensity to exploit and oppress their fellow men for personal advantage. They based this system not on “the wanton pleasures (or) the capricious will” that the elder Adams recognized to be inherent in pure, direct democracies.

As another of the founders, James Madison, put it: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The founders knew the majority is just as easily a mob as a choir, and that arbitrary and whimsical moralities leave no man safe. Mobs rob and loot and do unto others as they wouldn’t have done to themselves.

 

[Njon]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

You are confusing popular sovereignty with mob rule (democracy). The founders hated democracy.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Yeah, that...pass the popcorn.

I've had this argument too damn many times, I'll sit this one out.

 

[torchbearer]

I'm starting to get to the point of saying, the people in this country are getting the government they deserve... I hope costa rica elects their libertarian majority so i can have one place on this god forsaken rock to go and be free from tyranny.
otherwise, i'd rather die.

 

[PaulaGem]

The United States of America is an emerging democracy; it was not founded as a democracy. In fact, our Founding Fathers made their aversion to democracy well known. James Madison in Federalist #10 had this to say about democracy:

“From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Their disdain was apparent; the why of their disdain was also apparent.

To the end of protecting the people against the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party, to protect the rights of property, to provide personal security, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were carefully written and enacted. Those first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, providing equal access and equal protection under the law.

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter97.htm

He defined the term and applied his criticism to the term as defined. I just defined it a bit differently and believe as I defined it democracy has merit and was the gleam in the fouding fathers' eye.

Too bad the government as we now have it is the product of abortion.

 

[RSLudlum]

Hence they pursued a limited constitutional Republic based on a federal system where the states (closer and more efficiently limited by the people) held more power.

You really need to distinguish between social and political democracy if you want to discuss 'democracy' and the founding of these Unitied States.

Felix Morley, "Freedom and Federalism" (1959)

"A strongly centralized government is aided by political ignorance and apathy among its subjects. But the docile acceptance of paternalism spells morbidity for a federal system, which can only prosper if its self-governing localities take politics seriously. So there is cause for concern in the fact that so many Americans have come to regard their Federal Republic as a centralized democracy. And this concern is not lessened by noting that the communists describe their system as "democratic centralism," operated throught eh medium of "People's Democracies."

BTW, even tyrants have to have the 'consent of the people' to stay in power.

 

[silverhawks]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

The American system of governance is best described as a constitutional republic with democratic institutions, such as voting, elected representatives, proportional representation, etc. The republic was founded not on the rule of people, but on the rule of law - the only way to equally protect the rights of all of its citizens. We have expanded upon that principle over time by abolishing slavery and rightfully allowing women to vote. By stating that everyone's rights are equal, individual and equally protected, everyone SHOULD have a vested interest in defending those rights ad infinitum, but a lot of people have lost sight of that fact where we are today.

In a democracy - which I consider more of an intermediate phase of government, and not a system of government in itself - the people vote to alter rights by wielding the "tyranny of the majority" that Torchbearer mentioned; a majority of 51% can legally alter or remove the rights of a minority of 49% if they are convinced it is right to do so. For an excellent example of this at work: Proposition 8 in California.

Looking at it from a historical point of view, this phase is usually the end result of incompetent and/or corrupt government, who are allowing the people to "vote themselves largesse", i.e. vote themselves handouts in some form or another. This phase always leads to dictatorship or oligarchy. Look up Rome as it transitioned from republic to democracy to dictatorship; research Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany pre-WW2 as they voted in their respective dictators, or the democratic government of Somalia before it fell to socialism.

Finally, you will not find one mention of the word "democracy" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or even the Articles of Confederation. The Founders indisputably created a constitutional republic, for good reason.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm starting to get to the point of saying, the people in this country are getting the government they deserve... I hope costa rica elects their libertarian majority so i can have one place on this god forsaken rock to go and be free from tyranny.
otherwise, i'd rather die.

There's always Somalia, bro! I guess I'll see ya there when this is all done and all the freedoms are gone.

 

[Alawn]

Yes it is. Democracy is pure evil and tyrannical mob rule of the majority over minorities.

 

[torchbearer]

There's always Somalia, bro! I guess I'll see ya there when this is all done and all the freedoms are gone.

there are no freedoms in somalia either. you'd need a mob bigger than the ones enforcing islamic law on the people who can't stand up against them.
I'd rather die that live in the law of the jungle.

 

[RSLudlum]

the "tyranny of the majority" that Torchbearer mentioned; a majority of 51% can legally alter or remove the rights of a minority of 49% if they are convinced it is right to do so.

What's quite interesting about our system is the Supreme Court by a democratic vote in their decisions can actually re-instate minority rights that were taken by a majority vote. Which is in itself undemocratic. Also add the fact that the Justices aren't democratically elected but appointed.

The Constitution is full of walls put in place to thwart democracy in order to protect individual rights against a national gov't.