Democracy is not a dirty word -

[acptulsa]

Tell it to Socrates.

Also note the sig.

 

[LibertyEagle]

People have to start believing they can change the system with their vote, diminishing the importance of the democratic process which is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic is counter productive.

 

[erowe1]

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

Democracy and consent of the governed are two different things. In fact they are mutually exclusive. To the extent that democracy allows the majority to impose things on a minority without its consent, it is just as contrary to the consent of the governed as monarchy is. And to whatever extent that the ability of the majority to dictate to government what it ought to do against the wishes of a minority is limited, to that extent it is not democratic. Which did the founders advocate, democracy or consent of the governed? It can't be both.

I'm not an Ayn Rand fan. But I just saw this interview, and since it goes with this thread and I happen to agree with most of her points here, I'll post it:
YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2

 

[PaulaGem]

Democracy and consent of the governed are two different things. In fact they are mutually exclusive. To the extent that democracy allows the majority to impose things on a minority without its consent, it is just as contrary to the consent of the governed as monarchy is. And to whatever extent that the ability of the majority to dictate to government what it ought to do against the wishes of a minority is limited, to that extent it is not democratic. Which did the founders advocate, democracy or consent of the governed? It can't be both.

You have to make the following distinctions:

Pure democracy.
Representational Democracy.
Democratic Process.

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.

In that there are Constitutional limitations aimed at controlling the tyranny of the majority, that is the Constitutional Republic.

The limitations on democracy are the covenant of the Constitution and the method of democratic expression - representational democracy.

They all work together and you can't separate these elements without having the system implode.

The fact that we no longer have the consent of the governed expressed through democratic (on more local levels) and representational democratic means is the reason the system has quit working.

 

[Andrew-Austin]

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.

It means rule by a mob majority of 50-60%, over the minority. And in a representative democracy, it just means the minority of elected politicians rule. No the elected rulers don't have to, and usually do not represent the people who voted for them at all. Since today's rulers are not bound by law, and they have the camouflage of "the people's consent" thanks to Democracy, they have more power than any tyrant king could have hoped to accumulate and abuse in the past.

Who cares what the founding father believed in, their dead and did not live to see how fucked up their democratic republic would become. I'm pretty sure most of the "founding fathers" believed that people or states could voluntarily leave the union if they wanted to. That is not possible today, the rules have changed thanks to democracy.

If you want to actually read a critique of Democracy, I suggest you read Hans Herman Hoppe's book The God that Failed, he systematically tears apart the idea that democracy is a 'good or ideal system'. It is a failed idea, and a dirty word. You would do yourself a favor to read it, and save a little face by no longer repeating the delusion that "democracy is the consent of the governed".

 

[FrankRep]

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.

YouTube - The American Form of Government

 

[acptulsa]

This is a lot of discussion on a non-issue, and it's getting pretty circular.

What have we learned? That democracy is a misused word. And so long as we refuse to properly understand our terms, we are going to have trouble ensuring that our voices get heard in the halls of power.

Hell, what does the phrase 'democratic principles' mean? It's like old Saran Wrap--stretched, twisted, and easier to see through than to see. Was it originally intended to muddy discussion with its vaugeness, or did it just work out that way?

While I admit that we shouldn't alienate people by wandering about the countryside yelling 'democracy sucks!' at the top of our lungs, there's no way I'm looking to replace Tulsa's city council with a direct, pure democracy either. The very idea scares the $#!+ out of me. Can anyone blame me for that?

 

[PaulaGem]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"

 

[FrankRep]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"

What if people vote to burn you at the stake for being a witch?

Democracy = Mob Rule

 

[PaulaGem]

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.

The electoral college only elects the president. Our fathers believed in democracy - they only wanted to protect the system from abuse. Hence our system of representational democracy.

 

[acptulsa]

Our fathers believed in democracy -

I'm not sure mine knew the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The founding fathers did, and their views are well documented in this thread. They seem to have taken a dim view of pure democracy.

 

[PaulaGem]

This is a lot of discussion on a non-issue, and it's getting pretty circular.

What have we learned? That democracy is a misused word. And so long as we refuse to properly understand our terms, we are going to have trouble ensuring that our voices get heard in the halls of power.

Hell, what does the phrase 'democratic principles' mean? It's like old Saran Wrap--stretched, twisted, and easier to see through than to see. Was it originally intended to muddy discussion with its vaugeness, or did it just work out that way?

While I admit that we shouldn't alienate people by wandering about the countryside yelling 'democracy sucks!' at the top of our lungs, there's no way I'm looking to replace Tulsa's city council with a direct, pure democracy either. The very idea scares the $#!+ out of me. Can anyone blame me for that?

But do you believe that Tulsa's city council should be elected in a purely democratic fashion?

Isn't the corruption of democratic process the reason that the elected officials don't feel that they have to answer to the people anymore?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.

And I hope you don't say that like that is a good thing. Oh but we have the electoral college, a group of saints way above the lowly drooling masses! Even if in theory they had any significant power to go against the majority vote, they most certainly would not do so just to uphold the constitution. In practice they just quickly approve whoever won the general election, after Obama won everybody talked as if it were a fact that he was already President.

YouTube - The American Form of Government

That is such a dim witted propaganda video, give me a break.

Lowly peasant: "What have you imposed on me without my consent God king master Franklin?"

Heavenly founding father: "A Republic with a very very strong democratic tradition, until it inevitably eats itself up"

 

[erowe1]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"

That's correct. She's talking about electing officials, and nothing else. The people have no right to grant the government powers beyond what they as individuals have. The context of the discussion leading up to that makes it clear that that's her view. Though I disagree with her on a lot of things, I happen to agree with her on both parts of that. There is nothing wrong with using democratic means of making decisions that in no way infringe on the consent of the governed. But allowing certain things to be decided democratically and having a democracy as a form of government are two different things.

When you say above:

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.

that is nothing short of total redefinition of the word "democracy." That is not a democracy. Furthermore, that is not the position of the founders.

The Declaration of Independence states:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

It does not say that only certain governments, such as democracies or republics, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, but that all governments do, whatever form they take. Of course governments also exercise unjust powers that are not derived from the consent of the governed, which the Declaration also addresses in a number of specific cases. But both of these parts are true of both democracies and monarchies. Both have just powers that derive from the consent of the governed and unjust powers that do not. The purpose of this phrase is not to advocate one form of choosing leaders over another, the purpose is to advocate the right of secession. And that is where the consent of the governed is most apparent in any government. To the extent that it permits secession it has a greater respect for consent of the governed. The process of how officials are selected is beside the point.

 

[acptulsa]

But do you believe that Tulsa's city council should be elected in a purely democratic fashion?

Isn't the corruption of democratic process the reason that the elected officials don't feel that they have to answer to the people anymore?

Want to get technical? Tulsa's city council can't be elected in a purely democratic fashion, but its water rates could be set in a purely democratic fashion. As it is, its council is elected more or less (more, in truth) on democratic principles. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it could be called a liberal democracy, in that it's more complex than a represenative democracy but, unlike the national republic, several issues (particularly sales tax questions) are decided by the people, not the council.

Regardless of the fine lines that sort of seperate these definitions, the 'democratic process' has a techinical definition that goes far beyond an application to pure democracy. But, no, that definition doesn't stretch far enough to cover the corruption we enjoy today...

 

[PaulaGem]

I'm not sure mine knew the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The founding fathers did, and their views are well documented in this thread. They seem to have taken a dim view of pure democracy.

Yes, but this board does seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Pure democracy" even back then was impractical on a national level. They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

 

[FrankRep]

Our fathers believed in democracy

These founding fathers?

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
- John Quincy Adams

"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."
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

I think it's safe to say the founding fathers HATED democracy.

 

[acptulsa]

Yes, but this board does seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Pure democracy" even back then was impractical on a national level. They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

Definitely not. The Athenians built their house on sand. But the stones of that fallen house provided a pretty good foundation for us. People complain that the Constitution didn't ultimately completely check tyranny, though even today it isn't completely inept at retarding its growth, and that's 220 years later. But we've sure outlasted Athens, haven't we?

Even so, if they hadn't done their experiment and documented it well, who knows if any nation could have dragged the world out of the Dark Ages and into the light of a post-Renaissance age the way we did?

 

[erowe1]

They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

That's correct. They didn't abandon all possible use of democratic means of decision making in all possible contexts. They just abandoned democracy as a form of government.

Most of the amendments that have been made to our Constitution since the time of the Civil War have been amendments that make the USA run more democratically than the original Constitution allowed. These happened because, unlike the founders, more and more powerful Americans over the years did come to appreciate democracy as a form of government much more than the founders did. Each and every one of these changes has had the effect of making this nation one that respects the consent of the governed less than it used to, not more. Likewise, the driving principle of our current foreign policy to make other countries become more democratic, is one that simultaneously makes those countries less respectful of the consent of the governed. This is true in two important ways: 1) The democracies themselves act against certain citizens without their consent, such as Christians in Iraq; 2) The entire process of a foreign power taking over a country, rather than the people of that country itself doing it, is one that is opposed to the principle that those peoples' government must derive from their consent.

 

[PaulaGem]

These founding fathers?

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
- John Quincy Adams

"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."
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

I think it's safe to say the founding fathers HATED democracy.

NO, that is an overstatement. They feared the abuse of democracy and tried to guard against it.

. If there have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled; if there have been projects of partial confederacies to be erected upon the ruins of the Union, they have been scattered to the winds; if there have been dangerous attachments to one foreign nation and antipathies against another, they have been extinguished. Ten years of peace, at home and abroad, have assuaged the animosities of political contention and blended into harmony the most discordant elements of public opinion There still remains one effort of magnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made by the individuals throughout the nation who have heretofore followed the standards of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant of rancor against each other, of embracing as countrymen and friends, and of yielding to talents and virtue alone that confidence which in times of contention for principle was bestowed only upon those who bore the badge of party communion.

http://www.usa-presidents.info/inaugural/jqadams.html





Thomas Paine Believed in a Democratic Government:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KShaeJiP_doJ:www.cesa6.k12.wi.us/newsfile17020_1.doc+representation+ingrafted+on+democracy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest… Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.

Paine believed in representative democracy.

By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population... It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy…. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude.

James Madison on representative democracy:

Further Madison claims, in "The Federalist No. 10" (1787), the effect of a representative legislature would be to "refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" (p. 409). Representative, as opposed to directly participatory, institutions provide more continuity and stability, as representative bodies are less likely than the people to act on sudden changes of opinion. Through the new science of electoral engineering a representative government can be made to aim more reliably at a general good that encompasses the interests and preferences of many, more reliably than if all individuals in the people were polled directly. In "The Federalist No. 51" (1788), Madison says a multiplicity of overlapping and opposed constituencies, resulting from divided government and federalism, would make majority domination less likely "by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable" (p. 166). Madison hoped that such institutions would reduce the importance of personal, that is, patron-client, ties between electors and their representatives. Such corruption was endemic in early parliamentary politics, and broad programmatic policies often suffered as a result.