Democracy is not a dirty word -

[Krugerrand]

You can lead a horse to water...

and when it's dead ... beat it with a stick?

 

[Deborah K]

US Constitution: Article IV Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Enough said.

And then they ratified the 17th amendment.

 

[PaulaGem]

Without enfranchisement of the citizenry and protection of individual rights - otherwise known as democracy - it's dead alright. The whole system of government is kaput.

Many on this thread are quoting pretend quotes of the founding fathers and diminishing the role of the voice of the people in our democratic republic.

Just stop and think, who would profit by this?

Not We the people, that is for sure.

 

[PaulaGem]

If you can drink a beer, why can’t I toke on the bong? If you can sip scotch, why can’t I snort coke? Sound familiar? This simple, easy-to-understand conversation has occurred a million times since the 1960s, and it strikes at the heart of the issue of personal freedom which used to be a hallmark of American democracy and history. As the debate has been engaged on whether to repeal Modern Prohibition or at least change some of it, the liberty issue has been all but forgotten, as the prohibition crowd has raised a blizzard of other questions. How unfortunate. And what can one do to move public policy?

http://campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=150

 

[FrankRep]

"a hallmark of American democracy and history"

http://campaignforliberty.com/article.php?view=150

Tyranny of the Majority; Mob rule

 

[acptulsa]

I really do think the word is being misused. And I think that's what everyone here is reacting to. They've made it hot button, and that seems to cloud its real meaning. Once upon a time, and in its purest form, democracy could well be used by the majority to harm in a wholesale, institutional manner, a minority. And today? Well, it is used for the exact same purpose. The exact same purpose.

Oh, it isn't used to target races any more, though anti-racism certainly is a handy tool to use to keep the races at odds with each other. Rather, it's used against people who 'have a choice not to do what they do'--like political dissenters.

Does anyone remember the kids' camp scene in Addams Family Values where the camp 'councelor' stirs up hatred among all the little conformists for the 'outcasts'? 'Well, no, we don't wish they would die, just that they would get with our program...'

The tyranny of the majority is no obsolete phenomenon; it is no relic of the distant past. They're out to make it stronger. They really are trying to pass any outrage--persecution, domestic spying, unjust wars--on the basis that they got 51% of respondants to some poll to agree that something might be a good plan. Well, I have news. Getting 51% of the population to buy into something long enough to answer a poll question is neither a guarantee of moral legitimacy nor a sure bet for good policy.

 

[tremendoustie]

Well, I have news. Getting 51% of the population to buy into something long enough to answer a poll question is neither a guarantee of moral legitimacy nor a sure bet for good policy.

Aint that the truth.

 

[PaulaGem]

I really do think the word is being misused. And I think that's what everyone here is reacting to. They've made it hot button, and that seems to cloud its real meaning.

But isn't it always better to be proactive- not reacitve?

Instead of treating "democracy" like it was a four letter word, or jumping all over someone to show them how wrong they are, it should be used as a talking point or a conversation starter.

"You know our Founding Fathers were really concerned about the potential for abuse in a pure democracy, that's why we have the Bill of Rights, etc......"

I still believe that the unique thing about our government is the balance that they tried to strike between the power of the people, the states, and the federal government.

 

[LibertyRevolution]

Here is a video I just put together to help explain to the op why democracy is bad.
I clipped this from Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class and tried to condense it down. Hope you find it helpful.


YouTube - Michael Badnarik - Forms of Government

 

[literatim]

YouTube - The American Form of Government

 

[Optatron]

Fascism isn't a dirty word either, but the way people use it makes it dirty

 

[Kotin]

Fascism isn't a dirty word either, but the way people use it makes it dirty

 

[PaulaGem]

Here is a video I just put together to help explain to the op why democracy is bad.
I clipped this from Michael Badnarik's Constitution Class and tried to condense it down. Hope you find it helpful.

Have we really fallen this low? Must all information be processes in sound bytes?

"Democracy is bad."

This is a gross oversimplification of an issue that warrants serious discussion. I have tried to point out that patriots through out our history believe in the concept of democracy, starting with Thomas Paine.

The founding fathers also believed in "We the People" which inherently is a democratic concept. They were a concerned about the dangers of pure democracy so put in a control to protect the "unalienable rights" that the Revolutionary War sought to return to the people. That control is the Constitution, the foundational law of this country.

Words are just meaningless puffs of air or marks on a page or a computer screen. Their meaning must be derived through historical and personal context.
The anti-democracy slogans tossed about on this thread (many of which are fraudulent but have gotten into common usage) are just bits and bytes used to replace common sense and critical examination of an important subject.

I think everyone on this thread will agree that the system is broken. Personally I believe the primary failing of our Constitutional systems is that people have allowed "them" and the corporations they own to take over our system and deny the people their rights under the Constitution.

I believe that intense democratic action (literally action by the people to reassert their right to a government that is responsible to the people first) is the only thing that will save this country. This is the very grassroots action this forum advocates.

To blindly parrot sound bytes without analysis of the issues and the role that democratic power must play in reclaiming the Constitution is buying into propaganda that is aimed at convincing the people that the voice and power of the people (democracy) is not the solution. Ron Paul is great - but he can't fix things. Neither could 50 Ron Pauls at the federal level. We have begin speaking out and defending our rights at the local level in order to fix what is broken at the federal level. The Constitution has not been repealed, people have just been convinced that it has no power and that they have no power to enforce it.

The Michael Badnarik's arguments are a regurgitation of the same sound bytes. Why all the group think? Why do you people presume that someone who wishes to discuss a topic in more detail is ignorant?

Badnarik seems to believe that property is more important than the "unailienables". The logical extension of this is that the less property you have , the fewer rights you have. He does not properly define "republic" and implies that republics inherently recognize the voice of "We the people" and permit them to express their opinion through the vote. Of course we know that that is not true of all republics and it isn't even true in the United States of America any more because the vote has been taken away from the people.

He implies that the U.S. is failing in 200 years because it is a democracy, then turns around and starts the "republic rant". You can't have it both ways. It is the Republic that has failed this country by disenfranchising "We the People".

He defines democracy only in the terms of pure democracy. Please let me know if I missed any argument that was more analytical.I confess, I skipped through the video - it seemed to be a regurgitation of the accepted party line and the logical fallacies I found made me feel that it was not worth the time to watch it all.

The point that I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that unless the power of the people is brought back into play the Constitution will remain broken. Knee jerk reaction and oversimplification of the democratic component of this republic is counter productive to the stated goal on this forum.

 

[Original_Intent]

I agree with about 90% of this last post, PaulaGem. I think that you are certainly a lot more on the right track than you have been in other posts which I have enjoyed participating in with you.

The people cannot just blindly lash out in ignorance asserting rights until they undertand the just limits on those rights. If people who do not have a sound understanding of thsoe principles, when they rise up and assert those rights you have the Bolshevik Revolution and agrarian reform, which is channeled by shady individuals to put themselves in power and put in place a totalatarian regime much worse than what was overthrown. people that were making the same "90% correct" points that you are instigated the Bolshevik's in Russia and agrarian reform in China. Not a path that I want to follow.

Certainly agitating for sunshine laws on the voting process to remove the corruption absolutely taht is something that needs to be fought for and the necessity for it needs to be spread. But for the people to actively participate in democratic processes, other than electing representatives (and I believe they should understand it even to participate in that) people need to comprehend that their right to swing their fist ends at my nose. Their right to be fed, clothed and chelted ends at reaching into my pocket, or anyone else's pocket to pay for it.
Unalienable rights cannot be provided to you by anyone else. Claiming various things as inherent rights such as healthcare, food, shelter etc. is to lack understanding of what inalienable rights are.

Saying that people who have plenty have a moral responsibility to provide at least basic needs for those less fortunate AND UNABLE to provide for themselves is a discussion worth having, but it is not a right of those in need. A right would imply they can DEMAND to be provided for, which is ludicrous with anyone with even a basic understanding of philosophy. In fact making such demands is very easily demonstrated to be immoral. Requesting assistance is one thing, demanding it, or using the law as a means of plunder is still theft.

Until people can grasp such simple concepts, they have no business participating in the political process. To say that they do means devolving to a pure democracy, which we ALL AGREE would be a disastrous path to go down (and it is the path that we are currently on).

 

[Krugerrand]

I believe that intense democratic action (literally action by the people to reassert their right to a government that is responsible to the people first) is the only thing that will save this country. This is the very grassroots action this forum advocates.

The point that I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that unless the power of the people is brought back into play the Constitution will remain broken. Knee jerk reaction and oversimplification of the democratic component of this republic is counter productive to the stated goal on this forum.

Paula, from my perspective, you are taking the Revolutionary premise: "if government fails those governed can reject it" and twisting it to presume the Constitution established a democratic system.

How can you reconcile these points with your notion that this was a democratic system:
* only a fraction of the citizens had a vote
* the votes only applied directly to a fraction of the government.

You may be right that intense democratic action will reverse our country's troubles. My level of hope is not high, since I, and apparently many others here, see that expanding the voting population/direct influence has coincided with the expansion of people expecting freebie's from the government. Politicians buy votes with tax payers money. I do not see a mass of people looking to take their vote off the auction block. Also, I see this as exactly why the system was NOT democratic ... why only a fraction of the citizens had a vote and why the votes only applied directly to a fraction of the government.

The people are NOT part of the checks and balances. The separation of the branches combined with the autonomy of the states provide the checks and balances. Yes, revolution can happen at the ballot box ... but not easily. And, for when that fails, the 2nd amendment was there for citizens self protection from the state.

I hope democratic action saves the day. I am not optimistic. My predictions would be within 50 years to see succession of states that can manage it to protect themselves from being pulled down by the national financial ruin. States will buy their freedom; the US will not want to fight a civil war and will be hard pressed to turn down cash.

 

[PaulaGem]

Paula, from my perspective, you are taking the Revolutionary premise: "if government fails those governed can reject it" and twisting it to presume the Constitution established a democratic system.

How can you reconcile these points with your notion that this was a democratic system:
* only a fraction of the citizens had a vote
* the votes only applied directly to a fraction of the government.

Yes, but that was considered "liberal" and "progressive" at that time. Remember, in most states women could not even own property in their own name and their husband had the right to beat them at will. Social convention was that they were not fit to participate by voting. Many women weren't much better off than some of the slaves.

There are many types of "democratic systems" and there are many types of "republics". Neither has a concrete definition.

The word only means "rule of the people", it does not necessarily connote universal suffrage or pure democratic process at all levels. By stating that government's only legitimate basis was consent of the governed the founding fathers made some sort of participation by the demos inevitable.

You may be right that intense democratic action will reverse our country's troubles. My level of hope is not high, since I, and apparently many others here, see that expanding the voting population/direct influence has coincided with the expansion of people expecting freebie's from the government. Politicians buy votes with tax payers money. I do not see a mass of people looking to take their vote off the auction block. Also, I see this as exactly why the system was NOT democratic ... why only a fraction of the citizens had a vote and why the votes only applied directly to a fraction of the government.

That is an illogical conclusion since the vote has been completely compromised, who votes and for whom is irrelevant. It is not possible that they could have given themselves the "freebies" you claim without a vote that makes a difference.

What has happened in fact is that the powers that be are throwing coins to the mob so that they can continue to steal the big bucks behind the scene. The people are being conned into thinking that there is an impact of the demos on the government. It simply isn't true.

The people are NOT part of the checks and balances. The separation of the branches combined with the autonomy of the states provide the checks and balances. Yes, revolution can happen at the ballot box ... but not easily. And, for when that fails, the 2nd amendment was there for citizens self protection from the state.

You are speaking of governmental checks and balances as traditionally taught in civics class. The truth is that when the founding fathers thought far enough to extend this concept to government, they also applied the same principle to the demos and sought to avoid the pitfalls of pure democracy while giving the people a voice in government. Same concept, different application.

I hope democratic action saves the day. I am not optimistic. My predictions would be within 50 years to see succession of states that can manage it to protect themselves from being pulled down by the national financial ruin. States will buy their freedom; the US will not want to fight a civil war and will be hard pressed to turn down cash.

I am not optimistic either, but I see it as the only way out.

Only one way out folks....

My concern with your future scenario is that States have a very poor record of protecting basic Civil Rights. Historically, it is the Federal Government that has had to enforce these rights.

I can't imagine a better system than the one we have now, but it only works if the people, the states, and the federal government participate to create a balanced system with the interests of the people coming before the interests of government and corporations.

 

[PaulaGem]

Until people can grasp such simple concepts, they have no business participating in the political process. To say that they do means devolving to a pure democracy, which we ALL AGREE would be a disastrous path to go down (and it is the path that we are currently on).

I just want to focus on your last paragraph - how can we possibly be devolving to a pure democracy when we don't have a legitimate system of voting?

The two are mutually exclusive.

Face it, we have an oligarchy. The source of it is hinted at at the quote at the bottom of this post.

 

[pcosmar]

First we would need an intelligent and educated electorate.

As it is, the educated and informed voters are a small minority.

This means that the minority is screwed.

 

[PaulaGem]

First we would need an intelligent and educated electorate.

As it is, the educated and informed voters are a small minority.

This means that the minority is screwed.

Are we dealing with a self fulfilling prophecy here - voters are told their vote doesn't matter. The last several elections had verifiable evidence of corruption on a scale that could (and did - to my belief) throw the results no matter what the people wanted.

Where is the incentive to become informed and participate?