Is Democracy Mob Rule ?

[StackerKen]

I recently found this...and thought it made some sense.


...

In school, we learn the virtue of Democracy … and it’s oversold. Democracy isn’t that great … it’s just the best form of Government we have. It’s the least rotten apple in a barrel of rotten apples. But we teach Democracy as if it’s something pure and lovely and beautiful. It’s none of those things. Democracy is mob rule, and while mob rule is better than oligarchy or monarchy or theocracy, that’s like being the best player on the Detroit Lions.

While I agree that Democracy is the best form of government we have—I do not think that mob psychology is particularly controlling. Mob psychology tends toward the extremes, where as our democracy tends toward the center. First, I think our democracy is too big to have proper mob dynamics. Like an amoeba, if you get too many people in a mob, the mob tends to split. Its hard (or impossible) to have a three million person, self-sustaining frenzy. Secondly, our democracy is too slow to have mob dnyamics. By the time anybody gets to vote for representatives, we’ve had a few dozen news cycles and people have had a chance to cool off. Then the representatives have a while before they’re in power. Then they debate for a long time and it goes to the other half of congress. By the time anything gets done, procedure has shaven off some of the excesses.

In contrast, another form of government might be both smaller and faster. A planned economy might have a relatively smaller government that isn’t accountable to anybody that could get mobbish. Dictators are, as often as not, incredibly popular and will often try to please the mob’s latest whims in an effort to keep power.

In fact, a proper democracy should be antithetical to a mob rule. Mobs (for better or worse) tend to be fairly single-minded. Our democracy, on the other hand, has many voices and considers dissent, consensus, and compromise. There are many voices—and hopefully the end result integrates of a lot of disparate views and values. (Or to be technical, the integration of all these views and values +c, where c is corruption.) The mob, on the other hand, does not harness individual values. Instead, it claims to have speak with one voice and one purpose. Dissent is dangerous in the mob. (You’ll end up sleeping with the fishes.)

[StackerKen]

and I also found this....


...



Democracy is Not Mob Rule


One interesting argument when it comes to democracy is just how far a democracy is equivalent to mob rule. Or, more precisely, is democracy a tyranny of the majority?

Opponents of democracy (and usually proponents of some form of a republic) have often argued that a democracy is equivalent to majoritarianism, where the majority can suppress the minority, and is thus undesirable.

Some advocates of democracy, however, have argued that democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority, and as such the will of the majority should always be given effect, viewing this as an upside, not downside, of the democratic process.

If you ask me, both sides are wrong. Any functioning democracy has innate safeguards built in to prevent the majority from usurping and abusing the democratic process to browbeat and coerce the minority in submission to their will.

Of course, the earliest democracy as we know it, that of the Athens city-state, did not have such constitutional safeguards. It truly was nothing more than a tyranny of the majority.

Initially, this worked well because Athens was not too big. But as it grew, the majority's suppression of minority views and constructive criticisms led to the fall of Athens.

Almost all democracies since Athens have not been tyrannies of the majority, however. The United States, which can be called either a democracy or a republic (its founders preferred the latter, since their narrow definition of democracy only encompassed a majoritarian state such as Athens), has in-built mechanisms for overriding the will of the majority, as we all saw in the 2000 presidential election.

Likewise, almost every democratic state in existence has an electoral system which more than occasionally produces a government without support from a majority of the people. And practically all democracies require more than a simple majority to amend their constitutions, effectively allowing the minority to block the will of the majority.

Yet, the idea persists that democracy, because it is meant to reflect the will of the majority in most cases, is equivalent to a tyranny of the majority. A simple thought experiment, though, can remove all doubt about this question.

Before the experiment, it is important to note that there is no standard definition of a democracy; things get fuzzy once we get past the "reflecting the will of the majority" part — and even that can be controversial since, as is about to be shown, the normal democracy does not always act like a tyranny of the majority.

For our purposes, though, a democracy can safely be said to have at least some untrammeled freedom of speech. Even if it is curtailed, there is at least freedom in what one can say, even if it is not popular.

The question is, can this democracy repeal such a freedom of speech? For instance, can it ban any opposition to established laws, because these laws were established by the will of the majority?

The answer is of course it can — but not without losing its status as a democracy. For a democracy to function, freedom of speech is necessary. The reason freedom of speech and democracy are two concepts so intertwined in our minds is because if voters cannot even begin to discuss the possibility of overturning the status quo, how will they ever vote against it?

A democracy is not always fair to the minority. That is to be expected. But a democracy exists to tolerate the views of the minority, and to give them a fair hearing — that is what sets it apart from all other forms of government.

Practically all other governments still derive their power and legitimacy indirectly from the consent of the people — otherwise the people would revolt and replace their government. (For instance, in a totalitarian state, the dictator may get away with what he does, despite it not being popular with the majority, because the majority still prefers him as their leader, even if they do not agree with his decisions.) The will of the majority is not what sets democracy apart.

What makes democracy unique is its tolerance for the views of minority groups, even if they are unpopular. A democracy is not mob rule or a tyranny of the majority — it is precisely the opposite.

[Ares]

f you ask me, both sides are wrong. Any functioning democracy has innate safeguards built in to prevent the majority from usurping and abusing the democratic process to browbeat and coerce the minority in submission to their will.

Author is a complete moron. Safe guards??? SAFE GUARDS?? BULLSH*T!!! Not when those "safe guards" can be voted to change by the "majority".

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Plain and simple. It's oppressive tyranny can be felt every day with the impositions of it's taxes in all matters of your existence. Doubt me, just check your paycheck, and then tell me which one you voted for and want to continue to fund.

[Ponce]

Again.......in the "bananas" republics when ever 18% of the people are against the government then either the government changes or there is a revolution........here in the state 73% of the people were against Bush Jr and yet nothing happened......and now 53% against the great black hope and yet nothing.....

So YES, only when the mob rules is there is democrazy.......

[StackerKen]

Aren't the Constitution, the bill of rights and Declaration of Independence those safe guards ?

I don't think any group should be able to change those. No matter how large a group.

[StackerKen]

So what we have now in the US is Democracy/ Mob rule ?

I don't see it.

The health care bill was Not popular with the majority of the people...yet it passed.

There are many other examples....do I need to point them out?

[Ares]

So what we have now in the US is Democracy/ Mob rule ?

I don't see it.

The health care bill was Not popular with the majority of the people...yet it passed.

There are many other examples....do I need to point them out?


Not at all, we have a fascist system of government, by the corporations, for the corporations and profits for the corporations. It's well known that the "health care" bill was written by the insurance companies. The public didn't want it. Yet low n behold it passed.

Until the people decide to either opt out via non compliance, or go to arms it will continue.

The checks and balances of the system were totally decimated with the passage of the 17th amendment. Even though Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 states that no state can be denied suffrage. That was changed, more like out right refusal to recognize the constitution as the governing body of the United States. There were 5 states who voted against the 17th Amendment and according to Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 1 that bullsh*t amendment should not of passed as those states did not consent to have their suffrage removed.

[nunaem]

Democracy is only temporarily mob rule(ochlocracy). The fact is the mob is incapable of ruling anything, which is why it is invariably outsmarted by unscrupulous minorities(not necessarily racial minorities) who take control of their will.

[Fortyone]

The Democracy your speaking of is a misnomer.The United States has never been a Democracy,it is a Republic.the Founding fathers avoided a democracy as they are failures.Athens is used by many scholars to make an example of "rights" and the ancestor of US govt.It isnt. a more proper ancestor would be found in the Roman Republic.Athens was a pure democracy, where everyone had to vote on anything.thats why its called mob rule. A Republic has elected representatives to do the decision making.Up until around FDR times you seldom heard Democracy in a quote referring to the US,It was called by its proper name, a Republic.
Leftist intellectuals jumped on the Democracy bandwagon after WWII,teaching it in the school system,official quotes from Presidents, with terms "Arsenal of Democracy" etc. added to the confusion. ask most people what form of govt. the US has today and they will say democracy,even though they are incorrect.

[StackerKen]

well, I think Old George had it right.

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.

[nunaem]

The Democracy your speaking of is a misnomer.The United States has never been a Democracy,it is a Republic.the Founding fathers avoided a democracy as they are failures.Athens is used by many scholars to make an example of "rights" and the ancestor of US govt.It isnt. a more proper ancestor would be found in the Roman Republic.Athens was a pure democracy, where everyone had to vote on anything.thats why its called mob rule. A Republic has elected representatives to do the decision making.Up until around FDR times you seldom heard Democracy in a quote referring to the US,It was called by its proper name, a Republic.
Leftist intellectuals jumped on the Democracy bandwagon after WWII,teaching it in the school system,official quotes from Presidents, with terms "Arsenal of Democracy" etc. added to the confusion. ask most people what form of govt. the US has today and they will say democracy,even though they are incorrect.



It's not just names that changed, when the Constitution was written only a privileged elite could vote. That Aristocracy was the only reason this country existed in the first place and their displacement was the reason it was lost.

That is why they constantly expanded the franchise. The masses are easy to influence but powerful elites are not. We need an aristocracy to survive.

[StackerKen]

An alternative, more cynical version of the golden rule is "He who has the gold, makes the rules"

[Gaillo]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!

[Libertytree]

Aren't the Constitution, the bill of rights and Declaration of Independence those safe guards ?

I don't think any group should be able to change those. No matter how large a group.




Yes, they are, but when the judicial branch fails its duty to uphold these tenets of law then the whole Republic has been betrayed by guess what? an elite tyrannical minority.

The same goes for Congress, a relative minority (sadly with our seeming consent) has betrayed "We the People" in favor of..(_________,____________,_______) fill in the blanks.

[StackerKen]

Gaillo; I completely agree with you about Who should be allowed to vote. Makes perfect sense to me.

[nunaem]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


I know George III was a bad dude, but does he really have anything on most of the elected leaders of the past 100 years?

Why have voting at all?

[Joe King]

well, I think Old George had it right.

Mankind, when left to themselves, are unfit for their own government.



But it's the best we've got at this point in time.

Which is why it's so critical to have established, hard-limits to it's power.

Otherwise, you get what we have now.
i.e. virtually no limits to power.



Besides, ours cannot be a "Democracy" as ours was supposed to have been a new form of government that hadn't been tried before.
Democracies had been already, so it couldn't have been that.



You also have to understand that in our "modern" times, what Congress is doing when they do most of what it is they do, is merely regulating their creation that hundreds of millions of people are claiming to be.

[Gaillo]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


I know George III was a bad dude, but does he really have anything on most of the elected leaders of the past 100 years?

Why have voting at all?


Because "good government" is no substitute for SELF government.

[nunaem]

Because "good government" is no substitute for SELF government.


How did self-government work out for us?

[Libertytree]

This seems pertinent to this discussion.

The Mythical (?) Alexander Tyler and His Theory of Democracy

At about the time our original 13 states adopted their new constitution, in the year 1787, Alexander Tyler (a Scottish history professor at The University of Edinborough) had this to say about "The Fall of The Athenian Republic" some 2,000 years prior:

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.

The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith;
From spiritual faith to great courage;
From courage to liberty;
From liberty to abundance;
From abundance to complacency;
From complacency to apathy;
From apathy to dependence;
From dependence back into bondage.

[Ponce]

The more rules that there are the more of slave that you will be.

[Gaillo]

Because "good government" is no substitute for SELF government.


How did self-government work out for us?


Pretty well, for a few dozen years until the constitutional loopholes were identified and exploited. Created the most expansive, industrial society the world had ever seen, with probably the greatest degree of freedom yet experienced in all of history (INCLUDING the freedom to fail!)

How has "good government" by kings, dictators, etc. worked out?

[Joe King]

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


I know George III was a bad dude, but does he really have anything on most of the elected leaders of the past 100 years?

Why have voting at all?


Because "good government" is no substitute for SELF government.IMHO, our biggest problem now is that large numbers of people today are either incapable of "self government", or only concerned with their own Rights and care not how their actions may affect those around them.
Both types need a "nanny State".
The former due to ignorance and the latter, arrogance.


If more people, both now and in years past had actually been capable of true self government, the "nanny State" would've never gotten off the ground.

[Libertytree]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"

[Joe King]

Because "good government" is no substitute for SELF government.


How did self-government work out for us?


Pretty well, for a few dozen years until the constitutional loopholes were identified and exploited. Created the most expansive, industrial societies the world had ever seen, with probably the greatest degree of freedom yet experienced in all of history (INCLUDING the freedom to fail!)

How has "good government" by kings, dictators, etc. worked out?

Where does the peoples complacency fit into the equation?

I'm of the camp that says an ignorant people cannot possibly expect to remain free.
...and people in America {as well as elsewhere} choose ignorance in matters regarding their freedom while rushing to build their own chains of enslavement.

[nunaem]

Pretty well, for a few dozen years until the constitutional loopholes were identified and exploited. Created the most expansive, industrial societies the world had ever seen, with probably the greatest degree of freedom yet experienced in all of history (INCLUDING the freedom to fail!)

How has "good government" by kings, dictators, etc. worked out?


It's not quite as good as your government, but it lasts more than a few dozen years.

Tocqueville didn't call it the 'American Experiment' for nothing, it was a gamble and it lost. If the Founders were alive today they would no doubt agree.

[StackerKen]

A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy,


I have read that before...and This seems to be the stage the US is in now :(


which is always followed by a dictatorship.

hope not
:-\

[Gaillo]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"


Land (property) owners have a stake in the game, something to lose. Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought. Plus, those with no property are always tempted to take property from those who have it and "redistribute" it, using their political power, something that property owners are typically loathe to do (for fear of the same policies being used against themselves and their own property!)

[Fortyone]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"


Land (property) owners have a stake in the game, something to lose. Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought. Plus, those with no property are always tempted to take property from those who have it and "redistribute" it, using their political power, something that property owners are typically loathe to do (for fear of the same policies being used against themselves and their own property!)


Aha!, this is where we have trouble. Landowners are only allowed to vote?This is where you begin to have nobility. Back in the early days,when such laws existed, it was logical, as any working man could usually obtain lands,and the population was lower....much lower.Now,we have a different society and have had one since the industrial revolution,They tried this in large cities where tenants could not vote,but yet all the growth was due to their labors. Gary Indiana was a good example of a company town,with land for homes controlled by corporate entities (Morgan),read the book "The Jungle" on how this type of thinking works. Other examples of today, would be NYC or Chicago, try and actually own land in those cities,Its beyond comprehension for the working man to even think about purchasing a home,so he would be denied his right to vote? Renters are paying taxes when they pay rent.No landlord Ive ever known doesnt include the taxes when he is quoting a lease price. I could see those living in public housing being denied,but I cannot see penalizing people who have to travel for their employment, soldiers,and others who have no choice but to rent.

[Book]

http://www.texemarrs.com/images/buffett_schwarzenegger_rothschild.jpg

ONE MAN ONE VOTE

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Oep0lt6ll7E/R1HO-_kVXsI/AAAAAAAABsw/Z_TiCG6e4FA/s1600-R/working%2Bmen.jpg

Any questions about how the tax breaks for the most wealthy millionaires and billionaires are going to continue via this Congress?

:ROFL:

[Joe King]

How about we just have strick limitations on gov, but let the people vote on whatever they can get on the ballot and then have the Courts weigh any such action against those strict limitations?


In fact, IMO all laws passed by Congress and signed by the President should have to pass a Constitutional challenge before actually becoming law.
As opposed to the way it is now that if no one fights it when charged under the new law, it automatically stands as Constitutional until such time that it is challenged.
Which could be never.

[Libertytree]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"


Land (property) owners have a stake in the game, something to lose. Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought. Plus, those with no property are always tempted to take property from those who have it and "redistribute" it, using their political power, something that property owners are typically loathe to do (for fear of the same policies being used against themselves and their own property!)


So, you get to vote on which taxes/fees/etc.. I'm to pay and what form of government I'm to be subjected to? I have no say? Just because I don't own any land?

[midnight rambler]

A democracy is where two wolves and one sheep vote on what's for dinner.

[Ares]

A democracy is where two wolves and one sheep vote on what's for dinner.


A Republic is a well armed sheep, contesting the vote. ;D

[Gaillo]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"


Land (property) owners have a stake in the game, something to lose. Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought. Plus, those with no property are always tempted to take property from those who have it and "redistribute" it, using their political power, something that property owners are typically loathe to do (for fear of the same policies being used against themselves and their own property!)


So, you get to vote on which taxes/fees/etc.. I'm to pay and what form of government I'm to be subjected to? I have no say? Just because I don't own any land?


I would argue that a proper government has no right to collect taxes. There are plenty of ways that a government, operating within proper confines, can be funded voluntarily... or through tariffs on foreign trade.

However, I understand your point - but I would counter that if you have not put in the required work and diligence to BECOME a property owner in the country you inhabit, you probably are not serious enough about your citizenship in that country to have EARNED the right to help set its policies. I know that opinion is bound to be unpopular, but it is my strong conviction and not something I'm likely to change my mind about... no matter how many people disagree.

[Book]

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/slavery/photographs/slaves.jpg

"Landowners" should rule us all. They stole the land fair and square from the redskins.
:)

[Joe King]

So, you get to vote on which taxes/fees/etc.. I'm to pay and what form of government I'm to be subjected to? I have no say? Just because I don't own any land?


I would argue that a proper government has no right to collect taxes. There are plenty of ways that a government, operating within proper confines, can be funded voluntarily... or through tariffs on foreign trade.

No taxes at all?

Or just no direct taxation of the people?
i.e. indirect excise taxes would be ok with you?


Personally, I'm a-ok with direct taxation, apportioned as the Constitution originally stipulated. As should everyone, I'd certainly think.

[iOWNme]

This original article was written by the Soviets. LOL

All the branches of Govt, all the debating of the affairs of this nation, were all carefully set up to stop one thing from happening: To stop this Competitive Capitalistic Republic from degenerating into a Monopolistic Capitalistic Oligarchy. (Some of you call it a Democracy, it is the same!)

The reason only white male land owners could vote is because only white male land owners PAID TAXES.

Voting is political allegiance, and political allegiance is TAXES.


Your Gov's ONLY job is protect your life, liberty and property. If they just did their damn job, why would you need to vote? Because the person your voting for is gonna give you something you wouldnt have gotten if you didnt vote for them. But where are they going to get the thing they are going to give to you? They are going to steal it from the minority.

Which brings us to a Republic. A Republic is a form of Govt where the Govt actions are RESTRICTED from entering the field of RIGHTS. Where the Govt actions are restricted to what we would let man do for himself, BEFORE GOVT.

How can you give Govt the power/RIGHT to do, what you dont have the power/RIGHT to do?

If you can do with Govt, what you couldnt do without Govt, THOSE ACTIONS ARE CRIMINAL. (License, Register, tax, regulate, monopolize, restrict, etc)

[woodman]

Yes it is mob rule. The government is the mob.

[DMac]

We are not a democracy. We are currently a mixed bag of Oligarchy and Neo-Feudalism.

"How to enslave a population, the guide to 21st Century Politics" will be a hit come 2075.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ZyG_6AwOlh4/S0dfdcQuFeI/AAAAAAAAARY/AFFMButx3V0/s1600/Feudal%2Bheirarchy.jpg.png

[Libertytree]

I don't believe Democracy ever really lasts long enough to FIND OUT if it's mob rule or not... Democracies slaughter themselves to death too fast and are replaced by oligarchies or fascist dictatorships. The resultant government might continue "democratic" policies, in order to give the population the ILLUSION that they are a "Democracy", but anyone who is paying attention will quickly realize what a nonsensical farce it is.

I personally SPIT on the idea of egalitarian democratic government, as I STRONGLY believe that NOT everyone should be allowed a vote in a country's policies. I would deny the vote to non-land-owners, mental incompetents, those convicted of COERCIVE or FRAUDULENT crimes, anyone slopping at the public trough (welfare, etc.) and those who fail to pass a simple test about what the Constitution of the country contains and how public officials operate within that constitutional framework. I would also be in favor of restricting the TYPES of voting that public officials could participate in, for example I don't think that mayors of towns and cities should be allowed a vote when it comes to issues of Federal funding that might further or retard their particular political positions. In a properly functioning government, graft (including lobbyists) and corruption of public officials should be grounds for treason, with death-penalty consequences, in my opinion.

However, in a properly functioning Republic, as envisioned by the U.S. founding politicians, most of the graft and corruption we currently experience would not exist - as the government would not be stealing wealth at gunpoint (taxes) and redistributing it (welfare and federal funding) to begin with!


While I agree with 99.9% of this there's one small/large matter, I've read/heard before that I don't agree with. I'm interested in this line of thought.

"I would deny the vote to non-land-owners"


Land (property) owners have a stake in the game, something to lose. Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought. Plus, those with no property are always tempted to take property from those who have it and "redistribute" it, using their political power, something that property owners are typically loathe to do (for fear of the same policies being used against themselves and their own property!)


So, you get to vote on which taxes/fees/etc.. I'm to pay and what form of government I'm to be subjected to? I have no say? Just because I don't own any land?


I would argue that a proper government has no right to collect taxes. There are plenty of ways that a government, operating within proper confines, can be funded voluntarily... or through tariffs on foreign trade.

However, I understand your point - but I would counter that if you have not put in the required work and diligence to BECOME a property owner in the country you inhabit, you probably are not serious enough about your citizenship in that country to have EARNED the right to help set its policies. I know that opinion is bound to be unpopular, but it is my strong conviction and not something I'm likely to change my mind about... no matter how many people disagree.


I'm not wanting to change your mind, I'm just thinking through this proposition that I've heard before and you stated above.

As far as land ownership is concerned...Do you mean own outright with no mortgage or is ownership constituted by having a mortgage?

"Itinerate renters and homeless can just "move on" if the failed policies they voted for "don't quite work out" the way they thought."

Wouldn't this apply to everyone equally? An owner can just as easily "move on" if things go astray, for whatever reasons.

[DMac]

Everyone in the states is a renter. If you do not pay your taxes your "land rights" are removed (property owner rights, bwahaha).

Need to think a bit more about land owners as the only voters Gaillo. The whole system needs changing.

[Gaillo]

Libertytree,
Yes, I'm referring to REAL property ownership - not the current "rent your property from the government" system we have in place now. Also, in more direct answer to your question, I do NOT consider someone who holds a mortgage to be a property owner, until the mortgage is payed off... until then, they are little more than renters with a buyout "option" (an option that is exercised by making the required number of payments in full).

DMac,
I agree - the whole system is broken, it will require MUCH more than voting overhaul to fix it.

[StackerKen]

One of the reasons I started this thread was to try to learn and understand what the best and Fairest system of government would be.
Thanks for the disscussion folks :)






A democracy is where two wolves and one sheep vote on what's for dinner.


A Republic is a well armed sheep, contesting the vote. ;D


Lets talk about this for a sec.^

1st, if the wolves ate that sheep...what would they have for dinner the next day?

How many of you think the sheep should be the one deciding what's for dinner? ( i don't)

I think the sheep should move to a state that has a higher percentage of grass eaters

[StackerKen]

DMac,
I agree - the whole system is broken, it will require MUCH more than voting overhaul to fix it.


I pretty sure we all agree the system is broke and needs an overhaul.

I think the founding fathers Knew it would not last...Didn't they?

Did they have a plan on what we should do when it quit working?

[Gaillo]

DMac,
I agree - the whole system is broken, it will require MUCH more than voting overhaul to fix it.


I pretty sure we all agree the system is broke and needs an overhaul.

I think the founding fathers Knew it would not last...Didn't they?

Did they have a plan on what we should do when it quit working?


Yep... as per Jefferson: a revolution every 50 years (which is about how long I suspect he thought the system they set up would last... it actually lasted almost 25 years beyond that!).

[Libertytree]

"Did they have a plan on what we should do when it quit working?"

From the Declaration of Independence

"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it"

"That as free and independent states, they (we) have full power to levy War, conclude peace, contract alliances and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."

This was pretty much Jefferson stating it mildly, lest we not forget about the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Jefferson also had a theory/train of thought that any laws that were enacted or contracts/obligations that were entered into should only be enforceable or agreed to past a generation. I think but I'm not sure that by a generation he meant 40 or 42 years? This simple notion alone would go a long way in solving a ton of problems.