Total Posts:68|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Case Against Democracy

lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 10:38:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't believe anyone who says we still have a Republic in the U.S. It's majority rule here now with little to no adherence to the Constitution. My biggest argument right now against Democracy would be that the uneducated and easily manipulated masses get to decide the fate of each individual. Something the Constitution was meant to protects against.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:01:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's getting tiresome when people misuse the word Republic. A Republic is simply a Representative Democracy.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:15:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:01:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And America is in no way a majority rule.

Where is the restriction on the majority?
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:33:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:15:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:01:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And America is in no way a majority rule.

Where is the restriction on the majority?

Where is the restriction? A better question is where is it's prominence. Where should I begin...

Only about 60% of the American public are capable of voting.

Not all of those who are capable of voting actually do.

Not everyone who does votes for the same candidate.

This ends up meaning that the person winning the election is ALWAYS elected by a minority. Even Barack Obama, who brought out a huge amount of voters, only got within the 20% percent range of the public as a whole.

Then it gets worse.

Not all the people who voted for the winner actually did so because they thought they were the best choice. Many voters admit to simply being afraid of the other person winning. "Picking the lesser of two evils".

Almost no one has views which all align with the candidate they vote for. They are simply voting for the candidate the agrees with most. They have to make certain sacrifices.

It doesn't end there.

Lets say there's a congressional election and you have, through some miracle, found a candidate who supports all the same views you do. Then they win. Will they even be able to represent their own views? No. Bills don't contain certain issues, they contain mountains of pages with endless decisions being made through them. Not only may you not represent your views but the person whom you chose to mostly do it isn't able to represent themselves either. They, too, must make sacrifices on each vote. The bills are made by lobbyists, lawyers, and other business associates; a tiny minority.

There is nothing democratic about any of it. Keep in mind that I don't even support democracy, I'm just saying it as it is. I would take democracy over hierarchy, which is what we have. Hierarchy consumes every facet of the American experience.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:01:30 PM, FREEDO wrote:
It's getting tiresome when people misuse the word Republic. A Republic is simply a Representative Democracy.

Machiavelli and Aristotle would like to have a word with you.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:34:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
high fives to Freedo.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:33:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:15:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:01:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And America is in no way a majority rule.

Where is the restriction on the majority?

Where is the restriction? A better question is where is it's prominence. Where should I begin...

Only about 60% of the American public are capable of voting.

Not all of those who are capable of voting actually do.

Not everyone who does votes for the same candidate.

This ends up meaning that the person winning the election is ALWAYS elected by a minority. Even Barack Obama, who brought out a huge amount of voters, only got within the 20% percent range of the public as a whole.

Then it gets worse.

Not all the people who voted for the winner actually did so because they thought they were the best choice. Many voters admit to simply being afraid of the other person winning. "Picking the lesser of two evils".

Almost no one has views which all align with the candidate they vote for. They are simply voting for the candidate the agrees with most. They have to make certain sacrifices.

It doesn't end there.

Lets say there's a congressional election and you have, through some miracle, found a candidate who supports all the same views you do. Then they win. Will they even be able to represent their own views? No. Bills don't contain certain issues, they contain mountains of pages with endless decisions being made through them. Not only may you not represent your views but the person whom you chose to mostly do it isn't able to represent themselves either. They, too, must make sacrifices on each vote. The bills are made by lobbyists, lawyers, and other business associates; a tiny minority.

There is nothing democratic about any of it. Keep in mind that I don't even support democracy, I'm just saying it as it is. I would take democracy over hierarchy, which is what we have. Hierarchy consumes every facet of the American experience.

The wrong people being voted into office is entirely the the fault of the American people, those wrong people having the ability to do all they do is thanks to our accepting this common idea that we no longer need abide by the Constitution.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:01:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:33:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:15:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:01:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And America is in no way a majority rule.

Where is the restriction on the majority?

Where is the restriction? A better question is where is it's prominence.

SS, Universal Healthcare and the adoption of the Federal Reserve, to name a few. Candidates who got votes from the most people put into place unconstitutional programs.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:05:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:02:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
the Constitution.

Is bulllshit.

Or is the check on majority rule and the greatest set of guidelines a government has ever been established under.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:07:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:05:49 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:02:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
the Constitution.

Is bulllshit.

Or is the check on majority rule and the greatest set of guidelines a government has ever been established under.

Hmmm.

Naw, it's bulllshit.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:08:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:07:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:05:49 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:02:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
the Constitution.

Is bulllshit.

Or is the check on majority rule and the greatest set of guidelines a government has ever been established under.

Hmmm.

Naw, it's bulllshit.

Can't argue with that.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:09:06 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.

You just defeated you own argument that America is no longer a republic but a democracy because the US is run by the majority. How is majority rule in the US contradicting a republican-style state that by your definition is a representative democracy, when a democracy is at its basic rule by majority?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:10:21 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:09:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.

You just defeated you own argument that America is no longer a republic but a democracy because the US is run by the majority. How is majority rule in the US contradicting a republican-style state that by your definition is a representative democracy, when a democracy is at its basic rule by majority?

Bound by a Constitution.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:11:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:08:22 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:07:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:05:49 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:02:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
the Constitution.

Is bulllshit.

Or is the check on majority rule and the greatest set of guidelines a government has ever been established under.

Hmmm.

Naw, it's bulllshit.

Can't argue with that.

That's funny. I could have sworn I was the one who had a detailed list of arguments and that you were the one who simply replied with short finger-in-ear non-argumentative negation. I mus be high. Sorry about that.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:13:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:10:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:09:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.

You just defeated you own argument that America is no longer a republic but a democracy because the US is run by the majority. How is majority rule in the US contradicting a republican-style state that by your definition is a representative democracy, when a democracy is at its basic rule by majority?

Bound by a Constitution.

The United States is bound by its Constitution, as after all, the Constitution is simply the basic set of laws that govern the nation. The current Constitution still does that exact thing, and all aspects of the government are bound by its rules.

What it's not bound by is your interpretation of those rules, right?
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:15:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:11:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:08:22 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:07:37 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:05:49 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:02:27 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:59:34 PM, lewis20 wrote:
the Constitution.

Is bulllshit.

Or is the check on majority rule and the greatest set of guidelines a government has ever been established under.

Hmmm.

Naw, it's bulllshit.

Can't argue with that.

That's funny. I could have sworn I was the one who had a detailed list of arguments and that you were the one who simply replied with short finger-in-ear non-argumentative negation. I mus be high. Sorry about that.

I could have sworn you addressed half my post with "It's BS" and the other half with unsupported reasoning.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:17:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:13:41 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:10:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:09:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.

You just defeated you own argument that America is no longer a republic but a democracy because the US is run by the majority. How is majority rule in the US contradicting a republican-style state that by your definition is a representative democracy, when a democracy is at its basic rule by majority?

Bound by a Constitution.

The United States is bound by its Constitution, as after all, the Constitution is simply the basic set of laws that govern the nation. The current Constitution still does that exact thing, and all aspects of the government are bound by its rules.

What it's not bound by is your interpretation of those rules, right?

its not really bound by the constitution if you can interpret the constitution all willy nilly! etc.

i really don't get people who seem to worship the constitution. it was probably ahead of its time back in the 1800s but its been over 200 years now... its a lot less impressive.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:20:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
lewis:
bla bla bla constitution good majority bad why we majority not constitution

FREEDO:
Actually, we're not a democracy and here's a several paragraph explanation of facts about why we are not.

Lewis:
But....the constitution.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:20:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:17:04 AM, belle wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:13:41 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:10:21 AM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:09:06 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:12:10 PM, lewis20 wrote:
Republic is a representative democracy bound by a, in our case, constitution.

You just defeated you own argument that America is no longer a republic but a democracy because the US is run by the majority. How is majority rule in the US contradicting a republican-style state that by your definition is a representative democracy, when a democracy is at its basic rule by majority?

Bound by a Constitution.

The United States is bound by its Constitution, as after all, the Constitution is simply the basic set of laws that govern the nation. The current Constitution still does that exact thing, and all aspects of the government are bound by its rules.

What it's not bound by is your interpretation of those rules, right?

its not really bound by the constitution if you can interpret the constitution all willy nilly! etc.

Exactly its become almost non-existent so theres no longer a check on the governments power.

i really don't get people who seem to worship the constitution. it was probably ahead of its time back in the 1800s but its been over 200 years now... its a lot less impressive.

Which is why it allowed for things like amendments and even allowed for itself to be replaced.
I'd just like to see some kind of restriction on Federal powers, as of now the Constitution is all there is in that department.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:21:17 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:17:04 AM, belle wrote:
its not really bound by the constitution if you can interpret the constitution all willy nilly! etc.

Well, it's bound in such a way that it's basic guidelines are the most basic set of laws you'll find. The issue comes with specificity, as no one doubts that the government can't take away your right to firearms due to it being in the Constitution, but the Constitution doesn't say anything about registration and three day waiting periods. ;D

i really don't get people who seem to worship the constitution. it was probably ahead of its time back in the 1800s but its been over 200 years now... its a lot less impressive.

It wasn't even really ahead of its time then, to be honest.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:23:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
i was being sarcastic with my first comment and you enthusiastically agreed >.>

also if you support additional amendments to the constitution it makes no sense to not support a more open interpretation of it- both challenge the intentions of the original framers while still intending to maintain the spirit of the original document.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:25:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:23:32 AM, belle wrote:
i was being sarcastic with my first comment and you enthusiastically agreed >.>

I've made myself look a fool in worse situations.

also if you support additional amendments to the constitution it makes no sense to not support a more open interpretation of it- both challenge the intentions of the original framers while still intending to maintain the spirit of the original document.

Exactly.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:27:39 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/6/2011 11:33:34 PM, FREEDO wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:15:59 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 3/6/2011 11:01:54 PM, FREEDO wrote:
And America is in no way a majority rule.

Where is the restriction on the majority?

Where is the restriction? A better question is where is it's prominence. Where should I begin...

Only about 60% of the American public are capable of voting.

Where do you get that

Not all of those who are capable of voting actually do.

Whats that have to do with anything

Not everyone who does votes for the same candidate.

A good thing about being able to chose who you vote for I'd presume

This ends up meaning that the person winning the election is ALWAYS elected by a minority. Even Barack Obama, who brought out a huge amount of voters, only got within the 20% percent range of the public as a whole.

The biggest minority, or...the majority.
Then it gets worse.
Very scientific
Not all the people who voted for the winner actually did so because they thought they were the best choice. Many voters admit to simply being afraid of the other person winning. "Picking the lesser of two evils".

Almost no one has views which all align with the candidate they vote for. They are simply voting for the candidate the agrees with most. They have to make certain sacrifices.
Which is why whoever they vote for should have limited powers in what they do.
It doesn't end there.
Say it's not so
Lets say there's a congressional election and you have, through some miracle, found a candidate who supports all the same views you do. Then they win. Will they even be able to represent their own views? No. Bills don't contain certain issues, they contain mountains of pages with endless decisions being made through them. Not only may you not represent your views but the person whom you chose to mostly do it isn't able to represent themselves either. They, too, must make sacrifices on each vote. The bills are made by lobbyists, lawyers, and other business associates; a tiny minority.

There is nothing democratic about any of it. Keep in mind that I don't even support democracy, I'm just saying it as it is. I would take democracy over hierarchy, which is what we have. Hierarchy consumes every facet of the American experience.

and I would take a republic over both, keep that in mind.
All your complaining is about corporatism and how insignificant a single vote is. Americans get a say in the big issues, a progressive group of people can get the majority of votes and do their progressive will.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:30:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:23:32 AM, belle wrote:
i was being sarcastic with my first comment and you enthusiastically agreed >.>

also if you support additional amendments to the constitution it makes no sense to not support a more open interpretation of it- both challenge the intentions of the original framers while still intending to maintain the spirit of the original document.

Why is that? Amendments are harder to pass, there needs to be nearly unanimous consent that the amendment is going to be helpful. Simply ignoring the Constitution allows for a single controlling party in Washington to do its will.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:36:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:30:32 AM, lewis20 wrote:
Why is that? Amendments are harder to pass, there needs to be nearly unanimous consent that the amendment is going to be helpful. Simply ignoring the Constitution allows for a single controlling party in Washington to do its will.

Yep, because if recent events have taught us anything, a party in majority control of every aspect of legislative government will have utter control over the entire country.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2011 12:39:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 3/7/2011 12:25:53 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 3/7/2011 12:23:32 AM, belle wrote:
i was being sarcastic with my first comment and you enthusiastically agreed >.>

I've made myself look a fool in worse situations.

actually that comment was intended for lewis20, your post just got in the way
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...