[quote]Bismark wrote:
FWIW, a republic is a subtype of liberal democracy.[/quote]
Prior to the 20th century democracy referred exclusively to what is now called direct democracy as practiced by the Athenians. Today democracy has come to refer to constitutional monarchies and republics that have representative parliaments. There is no requirement that they be ‘liberal’ though. France under de Gaulle is an example of a democracy in the modern sense that was very far from ‘liberal.’
Imo, at this point people just equate “democracy” with “western method of government”, and most people today think anything that is “not western method of government” is bad, because “not democracy” is bad.
But there’s nothing that says democracy is good either. Just about every politician who actually had serious thought regarding the formation of government comes to this conclusion.
Heck, even the famed Athenian democracy can be considered an oligarchy. Only people with property could vote, and that would have been… a very small part of the total population.
There’s nothing wrong with an oligarchy, nor is there any inherent benefit to a democracy. It really depends on the type of people within the government. A monarchy would be good if you had a genuinely good king who was interested in the betterment of his people and ruled justly. Same could be said for an oligarchy.
I think the only real benefit to a democracy is that it (afaik) accepts the notion that people will never really be capable of being altruistic in the manner that “idealistic” beliefs of monarchy and oligarchy and etc have. If everyone is fighting for their own interest, then inevitably there will be some benefit for everyone, I think it goes. I don’t remember anymore.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]NickViar wrote:
A balance doesn’t need to be struck between the two
[/quote]
Yes it does. It’s basic social contract theory.
‘Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights.’[/quote]
I’m with both of you on this, you are both technically correct… The caveat you seem to highlight means you seem to understand we ‘willfully’ give up some of our rights to take up the protections of a society.
You seem to get it but didn’t point out that we don’t willfully join societies or willfully give up certain rights. We are born into citizenship and the decisions that generations past have made.
I’m always the one to point out that those theories are based on the state of nature as well as the social contract theory, neither of which exist in the same way our forefathers would have envisioned. We have to remember when these ideas were really thought up we had extensive land and possibly the opportunity to really pick and choose which society to take part in (to a degree).
Today we don’t realistically have those freedoms. We are just born into being certain nationalities, moreso than we are born into religion. So, depending on how much you believe the U.S. is an Oligarchy we could say we are born into servitude, at least some of us are moreso than others.
[quote]magick wrote:
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
Does anyone ever wonder if the founding fathers, or at least some of them, knew exactly what they were doing?[/quote]
They had a pretty good idea.
The problem is that the message and point of what they actually wanted to achieve got lost.
What we have today, mostly the idealism and the very concept of government itself, is a far cry from what they thought they created. Neither Democrats nor Republicans probably come close.
Granted, what they thought they created was idealistic, to say the least. It probably never could have actually existed in the manner they wanted and as soon as the people who had an active hand in creating the government died, it sort of went a different direction. As you would expect.
And keep in mind that the elites of the 18th century had a very strong belief in the concept of social betters. They genuinely thought themselves better than those below their social levels. Whether this translated into contempt and arrogance really depends on the individual.
This belief pretty much drove their entire political thinking. They believed in the concept of democracy and a republican government, sure, but they also had in mind that ultimately it would always be THEM in control. But they attempted to differentiate this from a monarchy or dictatorship with one key assumption- That they would be working for the common good and not for their own personal benefit. They also believed that whatever was good for them, would be good for everyone else, and that they would be capable of representing the lesser in a proper and fair manner. All they had to do was trust them.
Wishful thinking of the worst kind imo. But, like I said, idealistic.
[/quote]
As cynical as I am about the big G, I can buy this. I could see how these men truly thought they could birth a society that actually cares.
I don’t understand cynicism towards the federal government. Yes, they have to deal with far too many things to actually pay attention to you. But can’t the same be said for the state governments?
CA has a population level of 38 million. That is, iirc, roughly 10x the size of the population of the U.S. roughly at the start of the 19th century. Obviously not every state is as populous as CA, but one can’t really claim that the state government can be attentive to me either. There’s far too many people.
One can just as easily apply every hateful thing to the state government that one applies to the federal government. You just don’t because the federal government is the top of the line and the focal point.
But I would imagine if the state government magically became the primary enforcer of law and possessor of power, then everyone would be saying “fuck the state government!” too.
Another thing- isn’t an oligarchy relative?
Could one call a government where only land owners can vote a democracy? Or an oligarchy? Obviously based on the report, the fact that one can vote in of itself isn’t enough to be a democracy. The common-man’s vote apparently must be followed sufficiently for us to be called a democracy. But that seems really arbitrary. Doesn’t that mean that the richer folks can never, or only rarely, have their views followed through? How can you call that a democracy then?
[quote]magick wrote:
One can just as easily apply every hateful thing to the state government that one applies to the federal government. You just don’t because the federal government is the top of the line and the focal point.
But I would imagine if the state government magically became the primary enforcer of law and possessor of power, then everyone would be saying “fuck the state government!” too.[/quote]
Well you certainly can. However in my opinion it comes down to the fact that states have typically much more variety in cultures and how they approach certain issues (Vermont vs. Cali on guns for example), and this means it is easier for a person to pick up and move to a state he likes the policies of rather than jump country because the feds have outgrown their leash(es).
In other words, while there is technically no more “unclaimed” land, it makes the equivalent “GTFO” vote with your feet much more viable because the states vary much more in terms of policy.
[quote]magick wrote:
Another thing- isn’t an oligarchy relative?
Could one call a government where only land owners can vote a democracy? Or an oligarchy? Obviously based on the report, the fact that one can vote in of itself isn’t enough to be a democracy. The common-man’s vote apparently must be followed sufficiently for us to be called a democracy. But that seems really arbitrary. Doesn’t that mean that the richer folks can never, or only rarely, have their views followed through? How can you call that a democracy then?[/quote]
Yes I agree. There is a definitional difficulty here and that is the problem–how, exactly, do you define republic or representative democracy if you are to take the article 100%?
Further what if the gov’t actually followed the wishes of the top 30%, but not the top 50 percentile? Is that still oligarchy? Does it have to be 50%? etc. etc.
Another point in favor of state government:
While it is true that one cannot claim that the California state gov’t can be attentive to you, look at the scale:
USA:
535 Congressmen, ~300 million people. Or, approximately 1 Congressman for every 560,748 people.
California, the “worst case” for ratio of people to lawmakers:
120 Legislators, ~38 million people. Or , approximately 1 legislator for every 316,667 people.
You still get roughly twice the say in the most populous state in the Union.
Now compare that with say, Kansas. 165 legislators, ~2 million people, 1 legislator for every 12,000 ish.
Now this doesn’t obviously address constituency education or apathy, but it shows how much better you can influence your state than your federal gov’t. This is a solid point in favor of state power, especially given the relative ease of moving from state to state rather than country to country.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]magick wrote:
One can just as easily apply every hateful thing to the state government that one applies to the federal government. You just don’t because the federal government is the top of the line and the focal point.
But I would imagine if the state government magically became the primary enforcer of law and possessor of power, then everyone would be saying “fuck the state government!” too.[/quote]
Well you certainly can. However in my opinion it comes down to the fact that states have typically much more variety in cultures and how they approach certain issues (Vermont vs. Cali on guns for example), and this means it is easier for a person to pick up and move to a state he likes the policies of rather than jump country because the feds have outgrown their leash(es).
In other words, while there is technically no more “unclaimed” land, it makes the equivalent “GTFO” vote with your feet much more viable because the states vary much more in terms of policy.[/quote]
Bingo! This is exactly how I portray why I support reducing the Federal Government’s reach.
Once you do that, then you decrease the State’s reach a little bit so it’s more County/City controlled. I think at that level, you can actually create a community for the majority. Just like a business, the States and the counties/cities would have to compete for “customers (citizens).”
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Well you certainly can. However in my opinion it comes down to the fact that states have typically much more variety in cultures and how they approach certain issues (Vermont vs. Cali on guns for example), and this means it is easier for a person to pick up and move to a state he likes the policies of rather than jump country because the feds have outgrown their leash(es).[/quote]
Yes, but the same logic applies here. Many conservatives do not like the current government because it does things that they really do not like.
And conservatives who live in a liberal state probably wouldn’t like what the liberal state government does either.
This train extends all the way down to the county level, and perhaps even into the personal level.
It is unavoidable.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
In other words, while there is technically no more “unclaimed” land, it makes the equivalent “GTFO” vote with your feet much more viable because the states vary much more in terms of policy.[/quote]
Sure, but I don’t think the concept of “If I don’t like you I’ll just leave” is a good thing. It encourages extreme homogeneity and discourages compromise and actual talking things out.
Obviously there are certain things that are incredibly difficult, if not outright impossible, to reach a compromise on, but the above concept worries me. You’ll always have people who disagree with you, and there is no difference between this on a state or federal level.
I mean, if everyone moved, then eventually you’ll have perfectly liberal and conservative states. AND THEN, differences between them will appear too! It’ll never end!
This may be a slippery slope fallacy, but I can’t seem to ignore it.
[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/87719/princeton-concludes-what-kind-of-government-america-really-has-and-it-s-not-a-democracy
"For their study, Gilens and Page compiled data from roughly 1,800 different policy initiatives in the years between 1981 and 2002. They then compared those policy changes with the expressed opinion of the United State public. Comparing the preferences of the average American at the 50th percentile of income to what those Americans at the 90th percentile preferred, as well as the opinions of major lobbying or business groups, the researchers found out that the government followed the directives set forth by the latter two much more often.
It’s beyond alarming. As Gilens and Page write, “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.” In other words, their statistics say your opinion literally does not matter."[/quote]
Is anyone really surprised by all of this? The study just conforms what most peoples gut told them.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I think this sums it up pretty well.[/quote]
could not agree more