By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]
They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]
Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]
well the constitution was made to give the national goverment more power than it had under the confederation. The founding fathers wanted a stronger goverment because of the economic crisis in the 1780`s because of the dephts from the revolution, and because of shays rebellion. before they created the federation, the states had more power and the people had more influence. And the rich merchants in the north east disliked it, thats why they created a stronger national state. the common folks and the opposition was not happy about the idea of weaker regional states and a stronger national state. It was actually the opposition who demanded the bill of rights. So if you want a small goverment, look to the confederation, not the founding of the much more sentralized federation.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[/quote]
This is where checks and balances, constitutional law, etc. come in. And, if it was up to me, only those who actually produce taxes would even have a vote. Tax consumers are too dangerous. They’re just waiting around for some politician to buy their vote with others people’s stuff. That’s not a democracy to brag about.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[/quote]
This is where checks and balances, constitutional law, etc. come in. And, if it was up to me, only those who actually produce taxes would even have a vote. Tax consumers are too dangerous. They’re just waiting around for some politician to buy their vote with others people’s stuff. That’s not a democracy to brag about.[/quote]
so you want the rich to rule, good to know 
haha
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[/quote]
This is where checks and balances, constitutional law, etc. come in. And, if it was up to me, only those who actually produce taxes would even have a vote. Tax consumers are too dangerous. They’re just waiting around for some politician to buy their vote with others people’s stuff. That’s not a democracy to brag about.[/quote]
so you want the rich to rule, good to know haha[/quote]
I want the contributors to rule, yes. Allowing the hanger-ons to rule is the fantasy of a deranged mind. You might as well hand them a gun and tell them to steal whatever they want, directly. Your idea of Democracy isn’t some beautiful thing. In fact, it’s monstrous. Evil. It’s just legal vote buying. It’s using a middle-man, a thug, to do your robbing for you. Those without the benefit of the majority, would just get robbed over and over and over.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[/quote]
This is where checks and balances, constitutional law, etc. come in. And, if it was up to me, only those who actually produce taxes would even have a vote. Tax consumers are too dangerous. They’re just waiting around for some politician to buy their vote with others people’s stuff. That’s not a democracy to brag about.[/quote]
so you want the rich to rule, good to know haha[/quote]
I want the contributors to rule, yes. Allowing the hanger-ons to rule is the fantasy of a deranged mind. You might as well hand them a gun and tell them to steal whatever they want, directly. Your idea of Democracy isn’t some beautiful thing. In fact, it’s monstrous. Evil. It’s just legal vote buying. It’s using a middle-man, a thug, to do your robbing for you. Those without the benefit of the majority, would just get robbed over and over and over. [/quote]
There will be nothing to steal, because the means of production will be owned in common by the people.
And there is no point in stealing from your self.
my point is this: someone will rule, be it the people, a small group of rich people or the army etc. all rulers can make bade decisions, even rich folks. So I prefer a society where the all rule togheter, not a little group aka a oligarchy.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
By “real democracy” we’re talking about the tyranny of the majority, really. So, if the majority end up being ignorant, vindictive, petty, jealous, and etc., life could be pretty miserable. Rule of law = the present fad and whims of the majority? No thanks![/quote]
but who makes the law? doesnt the majority in congress and the senate pass laws?
[/quote]
This is where checks and balances, constitutional law, etc. come in. And, if it was up to me, only those who actually produce taxes would even have a vote. Tax consumers are too dangerous. They’re just waiting around for some politician to buy their vote with others people’s stuff. That’s not a democracy to brag about.[/quote]
so you want the rich to rule, good to know haha[/quote]
I want the contributors to rule, yes. Allowing the hanger-ons to rule is the fantasy of a deranged mind. You might as well hand them a gun and tell them to steal whatever they want, directly. Your idea of Democracy isn’t some beautiful thing. In fact, it’s monstrous. Evil. It’s just legal vote buying. It’s using a middle-man, a thug, to do your robbing for you. Those without the benefit of the majority, would just get robbed over and over and over. [/quote]
There will be nothing to steal, because the means of production will be owned in common by the people.
And there is no point in stealing from your self.
my point is this: someone will rule, be it the people, a small group of rich people or the army etc. all rulers can make bade decisions, even rich folks. So I prefer a society where the all rule togheter, not a little group aka a oligarchy.[/quote]
If it’s owned by all the people, cut me my share and I’ll go my own way. Oh, right. I don’t actually own any of it. That was just flowery language. However, if it was owned by everyone, how does anything ever get done since there’s never going to be consensus? After all, is everyone going to have the knowledge or be specialized enough to know how best to use those means? And, if everyone owns it, then noone has a right to say how it should be used, anyways. Not even a majority. So maybe you’d say the majority might own it, at the most. But, you surely can’t say everyone owns the means of production.
now we are on detail level on how to organize production. I guess the people who work at a hospital knows best how to run that from day to day basis. same with a factory or a supermarked.
[quote]orion wrote:God, you are one of those “the people can do no wrong” mysticist.
If only we can get rid of nobility, clerus, corporations, you name it, things would all turn out ok then, wont they?
Because “the people” themselves are pure and noble and would never force their whims on others wouldnt they.[/quote]
You are in no position to complain about mysticism.
And regardless, democracy is the only option left. All else has failed.
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]
They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]
Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]
Nothing would be resolved by returning to 1792. Our society was incapable of resolving its problems then. To attempt a return now would be disastrous.
We do not have a democracy at present, and we never have. So your critique is not of democracy proper, but a farcical version of it.
[quote]florelius wrote:
now we are on detail level on how to organize production. I guess the people who work at a hospital knows best how to run that from day to day basis. same with a factory or a supermarked. [/quote]
They do?! Where is this assumption coming from? Perhaps they’d know best on how to do the job they actually do…
The bag boys know how to run the grocery, without running it straight into the ground? Maybe the bag boys just want to do as little a possilbe to get whatever “allowance” the majority dictated to them. Maybe they could give a rat’s patooie how well the grocery performs.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
now we are on detail level on how to organize production. I guess the people who work at a hospital knows best how to run that from day to day basis. same with a factory or a supermarked. [/quote]
They do?! Where is this assumption coming from? Perhaps they’d know best on how to do the job they actually do…
The bag boys know how to run the grocery, without running it straight into the ground? Maybe the bag boys just want to do as little a possilbe to get whatever “allowance” the majority dictated to them. Maybe they could give a rat’s patooie how well the grocery performs.[/quote]
when did I say that the bag boys dont know how to do there job?
I work at a supermarked, I dont run the place, Its some pencilpushers higer up who runs it.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]
They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]
Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]
Nothing would be resolved by returning to 1792. Our society was incapable of resolving its problems then. To attempt a return now would be disastrous.
We do not have a democracy at present, and we never have. So your critique is not of democracy proper, but a farcical version of it.[/quote]
Agreed. Can you imagine all the wellfare recipients, medicare, medicaid, and social security gatherers that would be irate. Exactly why I said returning to it would be as difficult as implementing something completely new.
Please explain to me what we have now and what your “democracy” entails. The main characteristic of govt that I see now that differs from the definition of democracy is the fact that our elected members look out for the interests of big business and banks as opposed to our beleifs and values.
[quote]florelius wrote:
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]
They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]
Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]
well the constitution was made to give the national goverment more power than it had under the confederation. The founding fathers wanted a stronger goverment because of the economic crisis in the 1780`s because of the dephts from the revolution, and because of shays rebellion. before they created the federation, the states had more power and the people had more influence. And the rich merchants in the north east disliked it, thats why they created a stronger national state. the common folks and the opposition was not happy about the idea of weaker regional states and a stronger national state. It was actually the opposition who demanded the bill of rights. So if you want a small goverment, look to the confederation, not the founding of the much more sentralized federation.
[/quote]
I can tell you’ve read Beard. However, you really need to balance your reading sir.
The powers of the new national governement were - and, theoreticaly at least, still are - enumerated; that means that the Federal governement was authorized only to do certain, specified, pre-defined things. Everything else was left to the States.
When the Federal Government acts within its mandated powers, we have the rule of law. That is the whole point of the Constitution - that we are a nation whose Federated Government is bound by the Rule of Law.
However, when it begins to use the Commerce Clause as an escape clause - and to consider the enumerated powers as suggestions followed by an “et cetera” - we started to veer off track into the arbitrary rule by men where now - unbound by the rule of law - the legislative and executive branches began to accrue increasing degrees power; in terms of function and size and the resources they wield.
We no longer live under a Government bound by the rule of law; we are, increasingly, living under a leviathan that is destroying what civil society remains, as well as the productive powers of its people; a leviathan that moreover sustains itself simply to sustain itself, by soaking up tax revenue, and thereby impoverishing the very people the leviathan purports to serve.
This is exactly what the Constitution was trying to prevent.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
that video is pure propaganda, it does not explain anarchisme properly. Its true about one thing do, the founding fathers did not create a democracy. Only men with property could wote in the old republic, thats clearly not democracy, thats a oligarchy. [/quote]
They did NOT create a democracy - that’s the whole point of the video. [/quote]
Which is why we must move on from the obsolete ideals of the Founding Fathers and establish a real democracy.
[/quote]
You obviously didn’t learn a thing from that video I posted. At no point in history has a “democracy” been a permanent form of government. It is more of a transitional phase that is not sustainable. I know exactly what you are trying to say, but you say “democracy” because everything we see or hear pertaining to our govt. has trained us to use that word. The founding fathers created the best form of government in the history of man at that point in time. They wrote the constitution after being abused by big govt, high taxes, overbearing religious institutions, and the bank of England. Sound familiar? The constitution has repeatedly been interpreted incorrectly and the wording has been stretched to fit issues as they arose. A lot would be resolved if we simply returned to the republic they set up. However, doing so would be equally as difficult as revamping the entire system with something new. I guarantee any new system would increase the powers of the federal govt exponentially. [/quote]
Nothing would be resolved by returning to 1792. Our society was incapable of resolving its problems then. To attempt a return now would be disastrous.
We do not have a democracy at present, and we never have. So your critique is not of democracy proper, but a farcical version of it.[/quote]
Democracy was a term of disparagement until relatively recently. The reason being, that a pure democracy is unworkable and needs to be tempered; just as many other extremes of political arrangement need to be tempered; which is how we ended up with a beautifully alloyed Constitutional Republic.
No society is capable of “resolving it’s problems” - that is a mirage sir. One of the things that’s been lost in our time is the fundamentally conservative idea of the imperfectability of man.
There will be no heavenly city or anything of the sort on earth.
However, Marxists and socialists - because they have lost the sense of an eternal kingdom - still feel the urge towards that kingdom; and so have no choice by to try to bring heaven down on earth; and succeed only in turning it into a kind of Hell. Which is exactly what happened everywhere Marxist and Socialist principles have been tried.
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:Please explain to me what we have now and what your “democracy” entails. The main characteristic of govt that I see now that differs from the definition of democracy is the fact that our elected members look out for the interests of big business and banks as opposed to our beleifs and values.
[/quote]
Ours is not a democracy because society as a group has no control over the economic base. Our elected members look out for their constituency: moneyed interests. Our system will always fail to be democratic when one class is able to dominate the system due to their economic monopoly.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]AdamDrew wrote:Please explain to me what we have now and what your “democracy” entails. The main characteristic of govt that I see now that differs from the definition of democracy is the fact that our elected members look out for the interests of big business and banks as opposed to our beleifs and values.
[/quote]
Ours is not a democracy because society as a group has no control over the economic base. Our elected members look out for their constituency: moneyed interests. Our system will always fail to be democratic when one class is able to dominate the system due to their economic monopoly.
[/quote]
-
“Society” doesn’t exist as a thing independantly of the persons that make it up. See the definition of “reification.”
-
Even if it did, “society” can no longer control the “economic basis” than it can control the English language, or any other language; what is beautiful about a language, and what is dynamic about an economy, is that it is spontaneously ordered; as so, it can be destroyed, but it cannot be centrally planned.
-
Whose beliefs and values and how are you going to determine what they are - and how they change?
Sure, if you mean a system in which everybody gets a vote on everything. However, one does not need a pure democracy in order to have a functioning democracy.
A “beautifully alloyed constitutional republic?” In which the interests and desires of the majority are routinely disregarded? In which we have the highest rate of child poverty and child mortality in the industrialized world? In which we have destroyed more democracies and overthrown more sovereign governments than any other country in history? What exactly is it about this country that you think is so beautiful?
Wrong. No capitalist society is capable of resolving its problems, since capitalism produces the fundamental contradictions and antagonisms that plague society. Communism however, is capable of resolving these issues. Your attempt to reduce it to a problem of human nature is a failed attempt to divert criticism of the system (no doubt caused by your [groundless and mistaken] assumption that capitalist relations are natural relations).
[quote]There will be no heavenly city or anything of the sort on earth.
However, Marxists and socialists - because they have lost the sense of an eternal kingdom - still feel the urge towards that kingdom; and so have no choice by to try to bring heaven down on earth; and succeed only in turning it into a kind of Hell. Which is exactly what happened everywhere Marxist and Socialist principles have been tried.[/quote]
Despite your very basic mistake in assuming that Marxism is a utopian philosophy (it is anti-utopian, unlike capitalist philosophy, which is highly utopian), you make a puzzling historical error. It was socialistic ideas, not capitalist ones, that brought about many of the freedoms and luxuries we enjoy in this country today. In addition, the USSR, no doubt one the failed states you mentioned, transformed its economy and built itself up into a superpower faster than any nation in history. Now they were not Marxist, so it is not a “proof” that “Marxism” works (Marxism is not an economic or political system), but I’m not sure how that constitutes failure.
But, keep on beating that horse. We’ve only been at it for 234 years, I’m sure we’ll make it work soon.
“Society” is a body that, though composed of individuals (which would seem to nullify any of your criticisms of “collectivism,” but I digress), has properties different than that of an individual, in the same way that an organ functions differently from the cells of which it is composed. See the definition of “emergent property.”
Except in the case of the USSR, Japan, Korea, China…