You guys realize, the US isn’t a democracy, right?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You guys realize, the US isn’t a democracy, right?[/quote]
Except that it is.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It would take organization and whatever anybody thinks of the patriot act it’s very real dangers would become apparent as the various types of surveillance would make known such organization, especially on that scale and at this point I have a feeling it would be put down before it ever got off the ground. Hell’ I wouldn’t be shocked if the secret service were at my door tomorrow asking me about this post.
With your uncharacteristic spelling errors and grammatical fuckups I’m going to go out on a limb and say you were drinking tonight.
Don’t feel bad, I was too, I’m just a really good drunk typer. Hence the importance of looking at the times of my posts- you won’t be able to tell.[/quote]
You must have been drinking. You were actually cordial and very mildly complimentary to me here. I don’t drink though. Haven’t at all for a few years. Not that I’m opposed to the sensible consumption of alcohol, but there isn’t a good reason for me to and a couple good ones for me not to.
Any errors are just errors. Sorry to disappoint you.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
You guys realize, the US isn’t a democracy, right?[/quote]
I realize that it was intended to be a republic with an intentionally weak federal executive.
I know what it is now though.
Also from Jefferson, in the Declaration of Independence:
A successful revolution requires both enough incentive and a coherent philosophical alternative to the status quo. As others have pointed out, it’s not clear enough of either exists. It’s simple economics. Is the quality of my life bad enough that its worth the “expense” of forcibly changing our form of government.
There’s a lot of dissatisfaction, and the occasional state leadership may talk about secession, but show me the critical mass of people who are willing to adopt a form of government that will protect both economic and personal freedoms and I’ll show you the Laissez-Faire Party founded on the philosophy of Ayn Rand. All other options are just some form of statism.
At this moment in time a revolution is not possible. There are to many people that need to Government to give them money and places to live so they will never stand up no matter how bad it gets.
The Liberals have also made sure that if there is a Revolution that it would not last long or have much to fear with the Gun laws and police and military having the powerful weapons while most citizens can not even own a hand gun.
At some point there might be a revolution but it will be more of a class type revolution where the working class gets tired of paying for everyone and everything. But that might take the Cap and Tax and a National Health care to make people to think about it first.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It would take organization and whatever anybody thinks of the patriot act it’s very real dangers would become apparent as the various types of surveillance would make known such organization, especially on that scale and at this point I have a feeling it would be put down before it ever got off the ground. Hell’ I wouldn’t be shocked if the secret service were at my door tomorrow asking me about this post.
With your uncharacteristic spelling errors and grammatical fuckups I’m going to go out on a limb and say you were drinking tonight.
Don’t feel bad, I was too, I’m just a really good drunk typer. Hence the importance of looking at the times of my posts- you won’t be able to tell.
You must have been drinking. You were actually cordial and very mildly complimentary to me here. I don’t drink though. Haven’t at all for a few years. Not that I’m opposed to the sensible consumption of alcohol, but there isn’t a good reason for me to and a couple good ones for me not to.
Any errors are just errors. Sorry to disappoint you.[/quote]
I’m actually one of the only people that gets nicer and more pleasant when I’m drinking.
I am kind of dissapointed though. Oh well.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It would take organization and whatever anybody thinks of the patriot act it’s very real dangers would become apparent as the various types of surveillance would make known such organization, especially on that scale and at this point I have a feeling it would be put down before it ever got off the ground. Hell’ I wouldn’t be shocked if the secret service were at my door tomorrow asking me about this post.
With your uncharacteristic spelling errors and grammatical fuckups I’m going to go out on a limb and say you were drinking tonight.
Don’t feel bad, I was too, I’m just a really good drunk typer. Hence the importance of looking at the times of my posts- you won’t be able to tell.
You must have been drinking. You were actually cordial and very mildly complimentary to me here. I don’t drink though. Haven’t at all for a few years. Not that I’m opposed to the sensible consumption of alcohol, but there isn’t a good reason for me to and a couple good ones for me not to.
Any errors are just errors. Sorry to disappoint you.
I’m actually one of the only people that gets nicer and more pleasant when I’m drinking.
I am kind of dissapointed though. Oh well. [/quote]
Strong Words:
“Singin’s no sin, and drinkin’s no crime.
If you have one drink only, just one at a time!”
King Brian of Knocknasheega
I’ll try to do better from now on
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Fallacy. You even provide a parenthetical example in your reply.
Voting is what brought us to this point. Even if we managed to get people to vote to change anything we would just be back at this same point at a later date because democracy will always lead to the majority of fuckups looting those of us who are responsible. There is no other way for democracy to work. Changing the government via democracy will only change who gets looted by changing who is protected and who is not.
Also, democracy is what gave the US central banking – the biggest looting scheme in all of history which makes possible the idea of total, ideological war.
The proponents of democracy claim that its ideology is what makes society better off by giving every man a voice but rather democracy is powerfully evil in that it also provides those voices with the means to steal from and legislate us into cages with its arbitrary, egalitarian laws. Add to that free entry into the ruling class and we have one of the most destructive ideologies of modern government.
A society based on privately owned property and voluntary exchange is much better in terms of moving society forward and providing the material goods that give us a quality of life. Every thing democracy accomplishes is just counterproductive to those ends.
The majority is not always right – in fact, they are mostly wrong.[/quote]
Regardless of the intelligence of the masses, the power is in the ability to choose what they want in government. And this is what they chose. “We get the government we deserve” is a result of that voting.
And as long as the majority has chosen our current government, there will be not military revolution. The majority of the voting public chose the current path, plus another large group was completely disinterested, did not vote, and would not take part. Then most of the ones who may want the change believe in their vote, and accept when they lose. And know it is possible for them to win in the future.
You are correct that there is a weakness is in the intelligence of the populous, (and manipulation by the media,) but all that means is make people more intelligent. The more people know and understand, the better their vote.
Any attempt at military revolution would be seen as a fringe event, and found disagreeable by the masses.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
The more people know and understand, the better their vote.
[/quote]
It still comes down to one group always having power over another group. It doesn’t matter if they are educated or not. The “educated” hippies will vote to steal from the “educated” warmongers and vice versa.
And as long as it is the government is doing the majority of the educating the majority will never be educated. Their educational system is the only way democracy will survive because if the majority did become educated it would be gone relatively quickly. The only good the government seems to do i nregard to education is create a bunch of disinterested youths from participating in the system. As far as I am concerned that is the system defeating itself and a win for my team. However, as long as the “educated” minority keep participating the government will continue to grow and gain legitimacy as it does so.
There are also those individuals who are in favor of democracy because they can afford to buy votes. The system will never be rid of these people. And this is where democratic republics seem to have have the most cause for concern because this is where coercive authority comes into existence via protective legislation.
I would much rather we did have an educated populous that understood the concept of non-cooperation/non-participation and why it is much more preferable than violent revolution.
Gooooooooo Wolverines!
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You guys realize, the US isn’t a democracy, right?
I realize that it was intended to be a republic with an intentionally weak federal executive.
I know what it is now though.
[/quote]
It was designed to be a republic with a moderately strong, centralized federal government that shared a balance of power with the states. After the failure of the Confederation with its weak, decentralized government. But agreed on the point that the federal government has more power today than the Founders ever intended.
Ummmm…
Help me with the way you guys are using the terms “Republic” and “Democracy”.
REPUBLIC: No monarchy; check.
James Madison and others: Didn’t they state that we have a FORM of Democracy in the U.S. known as “Representative Democracy”? (As opposed to “Direct Democracy”?
JS?
Lift?
Bolt?
Others?
Interesting.
I’m just trying to understand how you guys are using the terms.
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ummmm…
Help me with the way you guys are using the terms “Republic” and “Democracy”.
REPUBLIC: No monarchy; check.
James Madison and others: Didn’t they state that we have a FORM of Democracy in the U.S. known as “Representative Democracy”? (As opposed to “Direct Democracy”?
JS?
Lift?
Bolt?
Others?
Interesting.
I’m just trying to understand how you guys are using the terms.
Mufasa[/quote]
I am not using the term republic to the exclusion of democracy. We are and were intended to be a representative democracy. (The only question is how representative our elected officials actually are…)
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Ummmm…
Help me with the way you guys are using the terms “Republic” and “Democracy”.
REPUBLIC: No monarchy; check.
James Madison and others: Didn’t they state that we have a FORM of Democracy in the U.S. known as “Representative Democracy”? (As opposed to “Direct Democracy”?
JS?
Lift?
Bolt?
Others?
Interesting.
I’m just trying to understand how you guys are using the terms.
Mufasa[/quote]
A republic would be a nation of laws, not of men.
That is why in a republic the legislative is more important than then executive for the executive is bound by the law.
A constitutional republic has a constitution that clarifies how laws are made and who makes them. It also contains limits to what a government can do.
A democracy can be a republic but also a dictatorship. Democracy only means that the demos votes who should lead it, whether it votes for laws or for people is not that relevant.
So, the US of A was intended to be a democratic republic.
Since the US executive not only operates under different rules than common people but also openly substitutes its interpretation for that of the legislative and the judiciary branch and no one even goes after them when they not only bend but brake the law, the US is now more or less a democratic dictatorship with remnants of a republic.
Much like the days of the early roman emperors, where the senate still existed and still held some power, not like the later senates that more or less rubber stamped the emperors decisions.
All of that goes that show that Aristotle was right that you can profoundly change a states make up without changing the structures one bit. Usually it is wise to do so because no matter how much you pervert the respective founders intentions the sheeple will look at the remnants of their former freedom and will confuse them with actual freedom.
Good trick actually, because no one is more hopelessly enslaved than someone who believes he is still free.
Even when they have to smuggle fireworks out of Indian reservations to celebrate their “freedom”.
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.
Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule. Democracy in action is little more than mob rule.
We do have a republic.
A constitutional republic is one where laws are the highest rule of the land (above majority opinion) and the people through some means (elected representatives as in a representative democracy) have a say in the government.
We do have a constitutional republic, though it is getting closer and closer to a straight up representative democracy where empathy overrules the constitution.
No matter how much power the fed secures for itself, we still do NOT have a democracy. Voting citizens still directly decide very very few issues, and those that they do can generally still be overruled by representatives.
For the US to truly become a democracy, there would be a nation wide vote for every law and governmental decision.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.
Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule. Democracy in action is little more than mob rule.
We do have a republic.
A constitutional republic is one where laws are the highest rule of the land (above majority opinion) and the people through some means (elected representatives as in a representative democracy) have a say in the government.
We do have a constitutional republic, though it is getting closer and closer to a straight up representative democracy where empathy overrules the constitution.
No matter how much power the fed secures for itself, we still do NOT have a democracy. Voting citizens still directly decide very very few issues, and those that they do can generally still be overruled by representatives.
For the US to truly become a democracy, there would be a nation wide vote for every law and governmental decision.
[/quote]
In your definition there is no room for a democratic dictatorship, but dictators can and have been elected, even in republics.
[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.
Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule. Democracy in action is little more than mob rule.
We do have a republic.
A constitutional republic is one where laws are the highest rule of the land (above majority opinion) and the people through some means (elected representatives as in a representative democracy) have a say in the government.
We do have a constitutional republic, though it is getting closer and closer to a straight up representative democracy where empathy overrules the constitution.
No matter how much power the fed secures for itself, we still do NOT have a democracy. Voting citizens still directly decide very very few issues, and those that they do can generally still be overruled by representatives.
For the US to truly become a democracy, there would be a nation wide vote for every law and governmental decision.
In your definition there is no room for a democratic dictatorship, but dictators can and have been elected, even in republics.
[/quote]
An elected dictator would come from a republic (representative democracy), not a democracy. If he becomes a dictator, throwing off the review of the public, it is no longer even a republic, but becomes a dictatorship.
Democracies and representative democracies are generally transient states often ending in dictatorship. The founders of the US designed the government as a constitutional republic to prevent the transient nature of mob rule and the disastrous results.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
A republic is a state or country that is not led by a monarch,[1][2] in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have an impact on its government.
Democracy is a form of government in which the right to govern is vested in the citizens of a country or a state and exercised through a majority rule. Democracy in action is little more than mob rule.
We do have a republic.
A constitutional republic is one where laws are the highest rule of the land (above majority opinion) and the people through some means (elected representatives as in a representative democracy) have a say in the government.
We do have a constitutional republic, though it is getting closer and closer to a straight up representative democracy where empathy overrules the constitution.
No matter how much power the fed secures for itself, we still do NOT have a democracy. Voting citizens still directly decide very very few issues, and those that they do can generally still be overruled by representatives.
For the US to truly become a democracy, there would be a nation wide vote for every law and governmental decision.
In your definition there is no room for a democratic dictatorship, but dictators can and have been elected, even in republics.
An elected dictator would come from a republic (representative democracy), not a democracy. If he becomes a dictator, throwing off the review of the public, it is no longer even a republic, but becomes a dictatorship.
Democracies and representative democracies are generally transient states often ending in dictatorship. The founders of the US designed the government as a constitutional republic to prevent the transient nature of mob rule and the disastrous results.
[/quote]
If I understand you correctly you are using republic as a synonym for representative democracy because the rule of law is implied?
[quote]orion wrote:
<<< All of that goes that show that Aristotle was right that you can profoundly change a states make up without changing the structures one bit. Usually it is wise to do so because no matter how much you pervert the respective founders intentions the sheeple will look at the remnants of their former freedom and will confuse them with actual freedom.
Good trick actually, because no one is more hopelessly enslaved than someone who believes he is still free. >>>[/quote]
Right when I’m ready to write you off you have to go and say something utterly brilliant.