America should be turned into a democracy

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

[freelance]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

Uh, NO!

[werdd]

what about america being a republic, like the founding fathers intended.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

what about america being a republic, like the founding fathers intended.

Well obviously it fails because the people who are supposed to represent us become corrupted and fail at doing so.

[Alawn]

This same thread was started yesterday and everyone said why it would be horrible in that one. No way. That is the worst idea ever.

[nate895]

Yeah!!! Now the majority gets to oppress me instead of the minority!!!

[fivedollarman]

The founding fathers were against a full democracy, calling it the 'tyranny of the majority' which is absolutely right.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

This same thread was started yesterday and everyone said why it would be horrible in that one. No way. That is the worst idea ever.

I guess communism is a better idea then

[LibertyEagle]

I guess communism is a better idea then

Nope. How about we actually have a Constitutional Republic. We haven't had that for a VERY long time.

[powerofreason]

Umm no. Democracy ftl.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Nope. How about we actually have a Constitutional Republic. We haven't had that for a VERY long time.
Well if democracy is the worst, then communism is better

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

The founding fathers were against a full democracy, calling it the 'tyranny of the majority' which is absolutely right.

we're being ruled by the minority

[LibertyEagle]

Well if democracy is the worst, then communism is better

Seriously, get thee over to Mises.org and start reading, if you honestly believe the BS you are dishing out.

[nate895]

Seriously, get thee over to Mises.org and start reading, if you honestly believe the BS you are dishing out.

My second favorite web site (after this one, of course).

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I see you 'freedom fighters' really like oppressing any ideas I have.

[nate895]

I see you 'freedom fighters' really like oppressing any ideas I have.

It's called "debate."

[Zolah]

we're being ruled by the minority

What happens to the minority in a democracy?

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

What happens to the minority in a democracy?
Isn't everything based on what the majority wants? The majority of votes pick the president. I don't understand what's so bad about that.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

It's called "debate."

It's not called a debate. I'm fucking sick of sarcasm and being talked down to, flamed, etc. Fucking excuse me for having an Idea. It's not like I want to ruin anything, fuck.

[nate895]

It's not called a debate. I'm fucking sick of sarcasm and being talked down to, flamed, etc. Fucking excuse me for having an Idea. It's not like I want to ruin anything, fuck.

We didn't flame you. A flame would be "you're a moron" we were saying democracy is moronic. Sarcasm is a tool used in debate, and I have used it in real debates before.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

We didn't flame you. A flame would be "you're a moron" we were saying democracy is moronic. Sarcasm is a tool used in debate, and I have used it in real debates before.

i'm just mad over the bailout sorry

[Truth Warrior]

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx



Has anyone ELSE noticed yet? :D



"The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." -- Winston Churchill

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

"Democracy is the road to socialism." -- Karl Marx

Has anyone ELSE noticed? :D
We're turning socialist and we were supposedly a 'republic' We're supposedly a democratic republic. Karl Marx meant for our type of government too, good man.

[Kotin]

We're turning socialist and we were supposedly a 'republic' We're supposedly a democratic republic. Karl Marx meant for our type of government too, good man.

is that you Mike Gravel?

[Truth Warrior]

We're turning socialist and we were supposedly a 'republic' We're supposedly a democratic republic. Karl Marx meant for our type of government too, good man.

Speak for yourself. :p

Marx was an ass hole, loser, and a paid agent of the Rothschilds. :mad:


http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/Socialism_by_miniamericanflags.jpg

[sirachman]

GO READ PLATO, ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[LibertyEagle]

Karl Marx meant for our type of government too, good man.

Bullshit.

Man, how did you come up with this? Is this the BS they are teaching in public schools?

[powerofreason]

Your stupidity can be cured with the following Lew Rockwell podcast, Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3).

[RSLudlum]

Well obviously it fails because the people who are supposed to represent us become corrupted and fail at doing so.

It only fails because the majority of the public usually don't pay attention until it's time to vote and have no sense of what their representative were up to the years before the present election.

[nate895]

Your stupidity can be cured with the following Lew Rockwell podcast, Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3).

This is a flame.

[Flash]

http://www.il-democrats.org/ilrepordem.html

Heres some Conservative Democrats that support a Democracy over a Republic.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.il-democrats.org/ilrepordem.html

Heres some Conservative Democrats that support a Democracy over a Republic. What's "conservative" about that? The founding fathers OPPOSED democracy AKA "demobcrazy". :p :rolleyes:

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

What's "conservative" about that? The founding fathers OPPOSED democracy AKA "demobcrazy". :p :rolleyes:

ok, a democracy you have to corrupt a mass amount of people to further an agenda. a republic, you have to corrupt a small amount of people (senators, representatives)

[Truth Warrior]

ok, a democracy you have to corrupt a mass amount of people to further an agenda. a republic, you have to corrupt a small amount of people (senators, representatives)

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)
Butler Shaffer on the prognosis.

[nate895]

ok, a democracy you have to corrupt a mass amount of people to further an agenda. a republic, you have to corrupt a small amount of people (senators, representatives)

The majority is always corrupt. Remember, a democracy can survive until the public realizes it can vote itself from the public treasury, to paraphrase a Scottish historian.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Politics Is a Sociopathic Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer96.html)
Butler Shaffer on the prognosis.
Okay?

[RSLudlum]

ok, a democracy you have to corrupt a mass amount of people to further an agenda.

Thank god MSM hasn't done this yet :rolleyes:

[Flash]

A democracy would be a disaster, people would ultimately destroy freedom of speech and freedoms of religion.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

A democracy would be a disaster, people would ultimately destroy freedom of speech and freedoms of religion.
what?

[Flash]

what?

I have a feeling if we were a pure democracy then it would be easier to discredit the first amendment in favour of "hate speech laws". Similiar thing happened in Europe, where now if you say something racist you can get thrown in jail. The average citizens doesn't understand what freedom of speech truly is, imo.

[Truth Warrior]

Okay?

"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." -- Groucho Marx

[Misesian]

I've already seen a number of people here offer CONSTRUCTIVE criticism on the OP's notion of changing our government over officially to "2 wolves and a sheep arguing over what's for dinner" type of government and he quite obviously has not even bothered to visit these websites (mises.org, lewrockwell.com) and search for "democracy" and read for himself the evils of this system.

So why keep wasting your time with the ignorance? This thread should be the example of a democracy to him. You have 50 people saying "Democracy is bad you moron, go read about it here!" and he has the right and the freedom to NOT do what all of us are saying.

[RSLudlum]

Also propery rights get destroyed in a democracy. I have a volleyball court set up in my backyard. If the community wanted to claim it for the community's use, all they'd have to do is have a vote, and everybody that would like to play volleyball would definitely vote yes so they could use my volleyball court anytime...Now wouldn't that be against my right of property??

Same applies if a person has a fishing pond on his property and there is a lack of fishing holes in the area. Would it be right for the community to vote for the owner's fishing pond to be claimed for the community's want to fish?

[Mini-Me]

The problem with pure democracy is that it is mob rule: Whatever the majority wants, they can have, and that includes eating the minority's babies.

A democratic Constitutional republic with limited government is intended to limit what decisions can be made using "majority rule."

Now, there is I suppose something to be said for having limited government in which all laws are created through ballot initiatives or something like that, rather than through representatives - we here at RPF do tend to conflate the idea of limited government with that of a representative republic - but the problem is that most people simply do not have the time to educate themselves on the issues. The idea of representatives is that they can spend all of their time thinking about these things. Furthermore, representatives are a corollary of having multiple sovereign state (or even local) governments that are then represented in the federal (not national) government. That was why Senators were originally chosen by the states. In other words, representatives are a corollary of overall decentralization of power, a great idea that has unfortunately eroded over the course of our existence as a nation.

Of course, the place where we went wrong in this country was in not having enough checks and balances to enforce the Constitution on the government. Personally, I would support a Constitutional Amendment which allows any citizen to bring a jury-decided suit against the government for a particular law, and if the jury determines by a majority vote the law is unconstitutional or simply unjust, the law is immediately invalidated across its entire jurisdiction. This would prevent all legislation that the vast majority of all citizens cannot agree upon.

Also, I believe that the criteria for passing new laws should be significantly increased from a mere 50+% majority vote to a 95+% majority vote...that way, government is limited to the duties that almost everybody can agree it should perform.

[Theocrat]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

The United States of America was never designed to be a democracy. As many members on here have already pointed out, our country was established as a constitutional republic, which means we have representatives of the people who are bound to fulfill their duties in government under the rule of law (the Constitution), and the powers of government are limited and separated by the rule of law. A democracy is a quantitatively-based system of government, where the emphasis is on good laws enacted by majority opinion. On the other hand, a republic is a qualitatively-based system of government, where the emphasis is on the goodness of the person representing the people to make good laws. It is for this reason that a republican form of government is much more difficult than a democracy, due to where the emphasis is made. Ethics is the key to our republican form of government, not statistics, as it is in a democracy.

The problem is that most Americans fail to see this distinction, and they are too lazy to study the principles of the issues and virtues of the candidates which will represent them in office. We've been taught for so long that our nation is a democracy, and it shows everytime there's a major election. Notice how the emphasis is usually on just "getting the vote out." We hardly ever focus on who's the right candidate for his or her respective office, but just who will get the most votes. That's why our media is so addicted to polls because they show what the majority of people think about an issue, not whether the issue being polled is right or wrong at the outset.

The danger of it all is that people assume that if they simply cast a vote for the candidate of their choice, then they've done their duty as an American citizen for the next two, four, or six years. The average American citizen rarely holds their representatives accountable for their votes in office nor do they contact/visit their representatives to check up on whether they've remained true to the Constitution (as well as their oath to it) and what they promised to protect and preserve during their campaign. No, we lazy Americans leave that "political stuff" to the politicians, and we go back to our dollars, our Dodges, and our Doritos. What we've ended up with are career politicians who care more about keeping their jobs in government than serving their constituents' needs and rights, and scandals and deceit have become hallmarks of being a politician. We think casting a vote at the ballot box is the resolution to bad government, but we've missed the principle and effects of what that vote costs us.

No, I say that America is acting like a democracy today. The transformation has already taken place. If we don't return to the qualities of our form of government rather than quantities of the same (where the focus is on the worth of the politician, not the process itself), then our nation will indeed continue on the road to destruction, with no hope of ever turning back. The result will be socialistic, communitarian imperialism under the pretense of being a "democratic republic." Frighteningly enough, we're not too far from that now here in America.

We need to remember the words of John Adams where he stated, "[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue," and "[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." If we miss that, then we've squandered everything our Fathers stored up for us.

[nate895]

Also, I believe that the criteria for passing new laws should be significantly increased from a mere 50+% majority vote to a 95+% majority vote...that way, government is limited to the duties that almost everybody can agree it should perform.

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

[powerofreason]

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

What were the actual vote numbers?

[nate895]

What were the actual vote numbers?

The vote was 388-1 in the House (who was the no vote), 82-0 in the Senate. The problem is when it come to a vote by the people.

[Mini-Me]

Problem: No law would ever be passed. We wouldn't be able to pass a declaration of war against Japan in WWII if it came to a vote among the people, requiring 95% support.

Well, first of all, I was in fact actually referring to a 95% vote among representatives, not the people themselves.
In any case, I believe high standards are a good thing: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war is that it's the representatives of the people, not bureaucrats, who should decide whether war is necessary. If any significant amount of the population (and/or amount of representatives) is opposed to a war, then does it not stand to reason that there might be a very good reason why our boys shouldn't be sent over to a foreign country to fight and die?

The idea of a required 95% majority in the House and Senate is a check against "one-time decision" situations from going through when there's a significant amount of dissent. The idea of citizens being able to bring majority (50%) jury-decided suits against particular laws is to give the people a direct avenue to striking down perpetual laws with significant opposition, e.g. the PATRIOT Act, the creation of the IRS and the income tax, etc.

[nate895]

Well, first of all, I was in fact actually referring to a 95% vote among representatives, not the people themselves.
In any case, I believe high standards are a good thing: The purpose of Congress having the power to declare war is that it's the representatives of the people, not bureaucrats, who should decide whether war is necessary. If any significant amount of the population is opposed to a war, then does it not stand to reason that there might be a very good reason why our boys shouldn't be sent over to a foreign country to fight and die?

You can never get more than 80-85% of a population on board with a war because the rest are pacifists, who believe we should NEVER go to war, even if attacked unprovoked with overwhelming force that would conquer the United States.

[Mini-Me]

You can never get more than 80-85% of a population on board with a war because the rest are pacifists, who believe we should NEVER go to war, even if attacked unprovoked with overwhelming force that would conquer the United States.

...which is a good argument for making it a 95% vote among representatives who are elected by mere plurality, rather than a 95% vote among the people themselves. :p

[nate895]

The only vote against the war was apparently Jeanette Rankin, Republican of Montana. She was a pacifist, who said "I cannot vote for a war since I cannot go to war myself." She served two terms, and the other one included the declaration of war against Germany in WWI, which she also opposed.

[Mini-Me]

The only vote against the war was apparently Jeanette Rankin, Republican of Montana. She was a pacifist, who said "I cannot vote for a war since I cannot go to war myself." She served two terms, and the other one included the declaration of war against Germany in WWI, which she also opposed.

Yup. It's difficult for pacifists (with ideas the vast majority of people disagree with) to get elected...and that's why a 95% vote among representatives will not prevent any truly necessary or just wars from being declared.

[nate895]

...which is a good argument for making it a 95% vote among representatives who are elected by mere plurality, rather than a 95% vote among the people themselves. :p

But we are talking about democracy here, which would necessarily include a vote by the people, and the same rules should apply to both. I also think that there should only be a majority vote on laws, but if those laws are limited by the powers in the Constitution, then they can do little mischief no matter what.

[billbob]

Democracy isn't so bad as described here. Specialy not the direct democracy like we have here in Switzerland.

Switzerland has 26 Cantons (States), we have a federalistic System. Our Country is very close to a Republic like in the USA. Our Constitution is also very similar to the US Constitution.

The main difference is, that we (as citizens) can organise referendums and initiatives against decision of our government. If a group has collected 50'000 Signs for a referendum, the whole Country has to vote for or against the referendum. (If it's a NO our government has donne a good job, if it's YES they have to find an other solution).

I will not miss our right to make referendums. The last example was the Referendum against biometrical swiss passports and RFID Chips on ID Cards (www.freiheitskampagne.ch (http://www.freiheitskampagne.ch)) I have also signed for it. By the way, this referendum was organised by a Ron Paul supporter and the owner of http://www.ronpauleurope.net/

We can vote about biometrical Passports next Year. There will be some debates on TV with experts, and the chance is very good that the Referendum will be accepted.

We are voting 3 or 4 times per Year, we can not blame our government for their decisions because we are part of it, and we can do something about it. Referendums were also a reason why we are not in the EU.

[Mini-Me]

But we are talking about democracy here, which would necessarily include a vote by the people, and the same rules should apply to both. I also think that there should only be a majority vote on laws, but if those laws are limited by the powers in the Constitution, then they can do little mischief no matter what.

It's true that we're talking about democracy in this thread, but you were responding to my post in particular, in which I responded that I favor representative democracy (e.g. a republic) with strictly limited Constitutional government. :)

You're right that laws can do little mischief if they're limited by the Constitution, but the very point of this thread is that we've learned from experience that our representatives do not follow the Constitution...and we need to change things to make sure that can never happen again. I believe Thomas Jefferson is correct when he says, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Personally, I now believe that includes confidence that man will follow the Constitution willingly. Government officials must be forced. In my opinion, the #1 best way to do this is to allow citizens to file suit against the government over particular laws and let the majority vote of a jury strike down an unconstitutional or unjust law. We need a direct way to enforce Constitutionality when the government will not follow the rules.

However, I support such a huge supermajority requirement for creating new laws because some laws would still be able to cause way too much damage before citizens could invalidate them.

[werdd]

Democracy isn't so bad as described here. Specialy not the direct democracy like we have here in Switzerland.

Switzerland has 26 Cantons (States), we have a federalistic System. Our Country is very close to a Republic like in the USA. Our Constitution is also very similar to the US Constitution.

The main difference is, that we (as citizens) can organise referendums and initiatives against decision of our government. If a group has collected 50'000 Signs for a referendum, the whole Country has to vote for or against the referendum. (If it's a NO our government has donne a good job, if it's YES they have to find an other solution).

I will not miss our right to make referendums. The last example was the Referendum against biometrical swiss passports and RFID Chips on ID Cards (www.freiheitskampagne.ch (http://www.freiheitskampagne.ch)) I have also signed for it. By the way, this referendum was organised by a Ron Paul supporter and the owner of http://www.ronpauleurope.net/

We can vote about biometrical Passports next Year. There will be some debates on TV with experts, and the chance is very good that the Referendum will be accepted.

We are voting 3 or 4 times per Year, we can not blame our government for their decisions because we are part of it, and we can do something about it. Referendums were also a reason why we are not in the EU.

The demographics are so much different in sweden. The US is so diverse, and for that reason the most power should be left to the states.

Of course state powers have suffered much since the civil war...

A constitutional republic as it existed prior to 1863, and prefferably just after jackson killed the fed, is the best system the world will ever know.

[damon04]

We were never meant to be a democracy!! That's what they want you to think!! Democracy leads to rule by the mob, and through contolled media/education, that mob can be influenced to vote between two candidates that are controlled by the same people!!

We were meant to be a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC!! geez..

[nate895]

It's true that we're talking about democracy in this thread, but you were responding to my post in particular, in which I responded that I favor representative democracy (e.g. a republic) with strictly limited Constitutional government. :)

You're right that laws can do little mischief if they're limited by the Constitution, but the very point of this thread is that we've learned from experience that our representatives do not follow the Constitution...and we need to change things to make sure that can never happen again. I believe Thomas Jefferson is correct when he says, "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution." Personally, I now believe that includes confidence that man will follow the Constitution willingly. Government officials must be forced. In my opinion, the #1 best way to do this is to allow citizens to file suit against the government over particular laws and let the majority vote of a jury strike down an unconstitutional or unjust law. We need a direct way to enforce Constitutionality when the government will not follow the rules.

However, I support such a huge supermajority requirement for creating new laws because some laws would still be able to cause way too much damage before citizens could invalidate them.

It would still pass with our current House and Senate. The bailout wouldn't have passed, but all the other oppressive legislation still would. The only way to restrict the hand of the federal government is to use nullification in the states if they violate the Constitution.

[Mini-Me]

It would still pass with our current House and Senate. The bailout wouldn't have passed, but all the other oppressive legislation still would. The only way to restrict the hand of the federal government is to use nullification in the states if they violate the Constitution.

The Iraq War Resolution wouldn't have passed a 95% majority call, either. When unjust or unconstitutional longlasting laws like the PATRIOT Act would have passed anyway, that's precisely why I support invalidation by jury. :) Nullification by the states is great, but we've already seen that it's just not enough.

[nate895]

The Iraq War Resolution wouldn't have passed a 95% majority call, either. When unjust or unconstitutional longlasting laws like the PATRIOT Act would have passed anyway, that's precisely why I support invalidation by jury. :) Nullification by the states is great, but we've already seen that it's just not enough.

It was enough in the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

[powerofreason]

The vote was 388-1 in the House (who was the no vote), 82-0 in the Senate. The problem is when it come to a vote by the people.

I don't think he suggested a democratic vote. Just a higher vote % for the representatives which I agree with completely.

[Mini-Me]

It was enough in the case of the Alien and Sedition Acts.

First of all, that was at the very beginning of our republic, when the states still had a backbone and when their legislatures were full of patriots, not career politicians (just like the federal government).

Secondly, I'm not saying it's never been used before or that it isn't useful. It's still a great tool, and every bit helps. In the end, it may be what we will use to restore the republic. However, I AM saying that it obviously wasn't enough to prevent a situation like what we have today from happening. The problem is that the republic needs to be restored in the first place. Once we do succeed in bringing it back, it will only be after years of hard work and sweat and tears (and hopefully not blood, but that may be as well). After time, people will once again become apathetic and spineless, just as they have in the centuries between the Alien and Sedition Acts and now. By recognizing this, we can fix the small mistakes our Founders and Framers made which allowed our situation today to unfold. One of those mistakes was ignoring the fact that over time, later generations would not fully comprehend their sacrifice, and they'd become complacent and forget the revolutionary mentality. Even after we succeed in bringing back limited government, the complacency will once again seep into our grandchildren's grandchildren. The only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to implement an even stronger and more direct procedural check by the people...and while you're free to disagree, I personally believe that law invalidation by jury is one of the greatest and strongest checks we can add to make our system of government more foolproof.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

We already are in a democracy. No? http://www.indirectdemocracy.com/

Minority loses, either way :)

[billbob]

The demographics are so much different in sweden. The US is so diverse, and for that reason the most power should be left to the states.

Of course state powers have suffered much since the civil war...

A constitutional republic as it existed prior to 1863, and prefferably just after jackson killed the fed, is the best system the world will ever know.

The most power is also left to the states (cantons) here in Switzerland (not Sweden ;)).

We have the same rights on Cantons level as we have on country level. And Switzerland is also one of the most diversed countries! We have 4 national languages, are in the Heart of Europe and have a lot of immigrants. That's also a reason why our small country is still 'divided' by 26 Cantons.

[nate895]

First of all, that was at the very beginning of our republic, when the states still had a backbone and when their legislatures were full of patriots, not career politicians (just like the federal government).

Secondly, I'm not saying it's never been used before or that it isn't useful. It's still a great tool, and every bit helps. In the end, it may be what we will use to restore the republic. However, I AM saying that it obviously wasn't enough to prevent a situation like what we have today from happening. The problem is that the republic needs to be restored in the first place. Once we do succeed in bringing it back, it will only be after years of hard work and sweat and tears (and hopefully not blood, but that may be as well). After time, people will once again become apathetic and spineless, just as they have in the centuries between the Alien and Sedition Acts and now. By recognizing this, we can fix the small mistakes our Founders and Framers made which allowed our situation today to unfold. The only way to prevent this from ever happening again is to implement an even stronger and more direct procedural check by the people...and while you're free to disagree, I personally believe that law invalidation by jury is one of the greatest and strongest checks we can add to make our system of government more foolproof.

I agree with almost all forms of nullification. As you said, every little bit helps, but I don't think this is really in the interest of freedom, as you will always have dissenters, and this could be extended against us in the future, if the opposition should ever gain as many seats as they have now. There will never be enough we can do to prevent tyranny, it will eventually happen, and the world will eventually come to an end, it is just a matter of will it be sooner?, or will it be later?

[FindLiberty]

What if all the old bald headed farts and grey haired ladies vote to have the highest income tax bracket changed to ONLY apply to all those "youngsters" who are under 30 years of age? They might do this so that only those 30 years old and older can enjoy free gubermint healthcare. Would that be good use of the baby boomer's democratic vote majority? (Don't bother to answer if you are under 30 years old 'cause we old farts are not even taking your vote into consideration and we sure are not going to point out that this is supposed to be a republic and not a democracy.)

If you are still young and don't want to work for slave wages at a 80% income tax bracket, we can use THE LAW to send forth government thugs to come after you in order to make good use of your organs and blood... all for the good of the aging majority.

Have a nice day.

[Mini-Me]

I agree with almost all forms of nullification. As you said, every little bit helps, but I don't think this is really in the interest of freedom, as you will always have dissenters, and this could be extended against us in the future, if the opposition should ever gain as many seats as they have now. There will never be enough we can do to prevent tyranny, it will eventually happen, and the world will eventually come to an end, it is just a matter of will it be sooner?, or will it be later?

Well, keep in mind that nullifying checks can only strike down laws*; they cannot instate new ones. As it conveniently turns out, freedom does not require very many laws at all. We obviously need laws against criminal violence, theft, etc. at the state/local level, which almost everyone seems to agree upon except for violent criminals themselves...but at the federal level, what do we actually desperately need in terms of laws which we would have tyranny without? Keep in mind that nullification wouldn't be able to change the overall process or structure of government, i.e. it can't get rid of a Constitutional limitation on government.

*By the way, when I'm talking about juries invalidating laws, I'm talking about something more than ordinary jury nullification; I'm talking about citizens actually being able to file suit against an unconstitutional law to have it literally and procedurally invalidated all across its jurisdiction by a majority vote by jury.

[nate895]

Well, keep in mind that nullifying checks can only strike down laws; they cannot instate new ones. As it conveniently turns out, freedom does not require very many laws at all. We obviously need laws against criminal violence, theft, etc. at the state/local level, which almost everyone seems to agree upon except for violent criminals themselves...but at the federal level, what do we actually desperately need in terms of laws which we would have tyranny without? Keep in mind that nullification wouldn't be able to change the overall process or structure of government, i.e. it can't get rid of a Constitutional limitation on government.

True, which is why I support nullification, as I said. As for laws, things change over time, and while I am not one of those "living, breathing, Constitution" types, sometimes laws become outdated and we should make a new one with the same powers. It is possible we couldn't get a bill passed that provided for an Air Force, or a decent sized Navy. Or, it could go the other way around, and there could be enough representatives to prevent a downsizing of the Navy if we don't need as much of one.

[Mini-Me]

True, which is why I support nullification, as I said. As for laws, things change over time, and while I am not one of those "living, breathing, Constitution" types, sometimes laws become outdated and we should make a new one with the same powers. It is possible we couldn't get a bill passed that provided for an Air Force, or a decent sized Navy. Or, it could go the other way around, and there could be enough representatives to prevent a downsizing of the Navy if we don't need as much of one.

Well, technically speaking, the Air Force should have probably been added via a Constitutional Amendment anyway, meaning it couldn't be invalidated like a normal law...
You do have a point that not everyone will be able to agree on the precise subjective size of our armed forces. However, from what I understand, aren't those decisions made by the executive branch anyway, according to how much funding Congress allows?

I did mention in another thread (where I was again talking about my "law invalidation by jury" idea) that one-time laws that cannot reasonably be taken back, like the annual budget, should probably be exempt from invalidation - although the laws permitting certain taxes to raise that money would not be exempt.

[billbob]

Ohh By the way... Here a funny Movie about Ron Paul, USA and Switzerland. ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYUvqJ1Od_k

[Vet_from_cali]

uhhh, i'd much rather have the majority vote on issues than a select few that are SUPPOSE to represent the majority. no one wants the war, where is that at? majority didnt want the bail out, where is that at? if the majority voted it would be better than the BS going on right now. they cant buy all of us, but they sure as hell bought the representatives that vote for us. u blind bats need to see the current system isn't working, its corrupted ffs

[nate895]

Well, technically speaking, the Air Force should have probably been added via a Constitutional Amendment anyway, meaning it couldn't be invalidated like a normal law...
You do have a point that not everyone will be able to agree on the precise subjective size of our armed forces. However, from what I understand, aren't those decisions made by the executive branch anyway, according to how much funding Congress allows?

I did mention in another thread (where I was again talking about my "law invalidation by jury" idea) that one-time laws that cannot reasonably be taken back, like the annual budget, should probably be exempt from invalidation - although the laws permitting certain taxes to raise that money would not be exempt.

Not with the Navy and Air Force. The Congress provides for specific ships and airplanes, and requires at least minimums. Such as right now, Congress is POed because the Navy refuses to maintain naval artillery support vessels for amphibious landings despite Congress's law to the contrary.

[Mini-Me]

Not with the Navy and Air Force. The Congress provides for specific ships and airplanes, and requires at least minimums. Such as right now, Congress is POed because the Navy refuses to maintain naval artillery support vessels for amphibious landings despite Congress's law to the contrary.

That's interesting, and I did not know that. Still, I somehow doubt a citizen would really get pissed off enough about specific numbers of ships or something like that that they'd actually use their money to file suit, then be able to convince the majority of a jury to agree that the law is "unjust" or "unconstitutional." ;) I think time has shown that juries usually take their duties pretty seriously.

Still, your point is well-taken, and if a Constitutional Amendment were adopted allowing that kind of invalidation, a few very well-worded and unambiguous limits might have to be put on it that prevent people from trying to invalidate annual budgets (which cannot be reasonably revoked) or specific decisions involving government departments like the armed forces, without exempting laws which directly infringe on citizens' rights, like taxes, inflationary practices, or the PATRIOT Act. Some very careful wording would have to be chosen to qualitatively differentiate various types of laws so citizens could invalidate tyrannical laws and practices without being able to just screw up the orderly functioning of things.

[Josh_LA]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

Marx would be proud of you.
(Hey, don't take it the wrong way, I'm not saying Marx is wrong or evil)

[Truth Warrior]

1) "Pearl Harbor was an inside job."

2) Voters in the USA are a MINORITY of "We the People".

[angelatc]

Repeal the 17th Amendment!

[angelatc]

uhhh, i'd much rather have the majority vote on issues than a select few that are SUPPOSE to represent the majority. no one wants the war, where is that at? majority didnt want the bail out, where is that at? if the majority voted it would be better than the BS going on right now. they cant buy all of us, but they sure as hell bought the representatives that vote for us. u blind bats need to see the current system isn't working, its corrupted ffs

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Make the Senate answer to the Governors.

[nate895]

Repeal the 17th Amendment! Make the Senate answer to the Governors.

You mean the state legislatures?

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION]

The majority were for the invasions.

The majority are for the bailout, even if they don't know it yet. As the economy declines, the screams for a bailout will increase. I don't see mob rule solving much of anything.

"I have a very clear analogy for you:

Democracy: Two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

Representative Democracy: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect two wolves and one sheep to vote on what to have for dinner

Constitutional Republic: (The U.S.) Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect two wolves and one sheep to vote on what to have for dinner, but are restricted by a constitution that says they can't eat sheep.

Socialism: Two thousand wolves and one thousand sheep elect a single wolf that distributes different portions of sheep to each wolf.

Communism: The single wolf from before runs out of sheep, so instead distributes the same amount of spam to every wolf.

Fascism: The single wolf never leaves power and runs out of spam. Invades other countries for more sheep and spam."

We are in the mess we are as a result of moving away from the Constitution and replacing the Constitution with democracy. The Constitution is flawed too, though...

“Democracy is ... the only path to national success and dignity.” —George W. Bush

http://www.DemocracyIsNotFreedom.com (Not my Web site.)

Democracy Is Not Freedom
by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

[FrankRep]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

Mob rule. no thank you.

[RSLudlum]

the Republic is not the problem, the constituents holding their representatives to the fire inbetween elections is the problem. Everybody gets in a hissy during the "election season" and then are suprised they have to choose the lesser of two evils, instead of keeping their reps informed of what the constituents expect from them during their tenure. Apathy begets apathy to the politicians' advantage.

[Theocrat]

the Republic is not the problem, the constituents holding their representatives to the fire inbetween elections is the problem. Everybody gets in a hissy during the "election season" and then are suprised they have to choose the lesser of two evils, instead of keeping their reps informed of what the constituents expect from them during their tenure. Apathy begets apathy to the politicians' advantage.

You've made some good points, and they're similar to some of the things I spoke about in Post #45 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1737970#post1737970) of this thread.

[fj45lvr]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.


Thats the WORST thing that could ever happen. Just end the Federal Gov. Let States control themselves.

[RSLudlum]

Damn, this thread is still going??? I thought our founders killed this idea quite succinctley eons ago. ;)

[SWATH]

If we had a democracy, we would likely have a charismatic socialist celebrity elected president for life, or at least every election cycle. We would have no absolute rights, and we would likely imprison or execute innocent people or at least people who have not been found guilty in a court of law. There would be a multitude of instances where theft is considered "justified" and subjugation would be the norm rather than the exception.


All of the problems we have with our republic are not because of a flawed system, it is because we the people are pussies. When Ben Franklin said "a republic, if you can keep it" he meant "we have given you a form of government where you are so free that if you choose to be free than you have a mechanism to ensure that freedom, but in a conundrum you also have the freedom to enslave yourselves". This is the essence of free will. It is said that suicide is the ultimate expression of free will, you are so free that you are free to cease your own existence. Freedom, free will, and a republican form of government is like a loaded gun, you can use it to great effect for your own benefit or the benefit of others, and you can also shoot yourself.

It is up to you.

[Captain America]

"Dictatorship naturally arises out of democracy, and the most aggravated form of tyranny and slavery out of the most extreme liberty." "Democracy passes into despotism." Plato

Our United States Constitution serving our liberty as Republic, is the closest we can come to utopia in a non automation society.

[Truth Warrior]

"The difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that in a democracy you vote first and take orders later; in a dictatorship you don't have to waste your time voting." -- Charles Bukowski

[hotbrownsauce]

Intelligent grown men can disagree. We don't need name calling.

Fellow citizen, a democracy is bad for the reason that 51% of the people will strip the rights of 49% of the people until no one has any rights. The idea in our republic is that people must be safe from with in and from with out. Everyone is equal and no one has an advantage over another other than what we strive for or are born with. No one knows what is best for you other than yourself so no one will make that decision for you. The government will just protect your right to do it.

in a pure democracy, anything is possible because 51% of the people can rise up and take away your right to choose.

Obviously things today aren't what is supposed to be. This is because of secret manipulation of those in power that scare or lie to the people to get their way. No government or law is 100% fail proof against being altered against what the law's say. Trust of government became too much and dissension to little.

One thing is for sure, the original constitution of the USA was the best ever before or since.

[Truth Warrior]

Intelligent grown men can disagree. We don't need name calling.

Fellow citizen, a democracy is bad for the reason that 51% of the people will strip the rights of 49% of the people until no one has any rights. The idea in our republic is that people must be safe from with in and from with out. Everyone is equal and no one has an advantage over another other than what we strive for or are born with. No one knows what is best for you other than yourself so no one will make that decision for you. The government will just protect your right to do it.

in a pure democracy, anything is possible because 51% of the people can rise up and take away your right to choose.

Obviously things today aren't what is supposed to be. This is because of secret manipulation of those in power that scare or lie to the people to get their way. No government or law is 100% fail proof against being altered against what the law's say. Trust of government became too much and dissension to little.

One thing is for sure, the original constitution of the USA was the best ever before or since. Have you ever read the Constitution of the now defunct USSR? ;) :)

[Vet_from_cali]

i like the assumption of things they think would happen.


my remarks was one that represented my view and belief.

which was, my representative voted the way his/her district viewed issues. which we all know is obsolete.

my point is this, our system is corrupted, and they found its flaw. i'd much rather vote a democracy, than whats going on right now as i see things.

[Vet_from_cali]

you cant buy my vote or corrupt me and i hope anyone on this board. i'd go with a democracy, if it was my choice.

[sirachman]

Problem is just as our system works in theory democracys only work in theory too for those who take the votes control the outcome..

[Truth Warrior]

Diebold Variations
http://homepage.mac.com/rcareaga/diebold/adworks.htm

[BagOfEyebrows]

IMHO, imagine how many things would be different if the people voted on it, not a minority who DO NOT represent their constituents.

no.

But that is exactly what they are trying to get people to believe.

Freedom and liberty could not survive (in action) in a democracy. That's why our founders didn't set up our nation as a democracy, but as a Constitutional Republic.

[BagOfEyebrows]

you cant buy my vote or corrupt me and i hope anyone on this board. i'd go with a democracy, if it was my choice.


research more on the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic - those in 'power' want you to believe and buy into this corrupt idea of democracy, but it is not, absolutely not, in your best interest, nor is it in the best interest of liberty and freedom.

Our school systems are so corrupt, they got such a gigantic amount of people to buy into and believe in this 'democracy' garbage, it is going to take quite a bit of educating to get people to understand what happened, how it happened, and why... but it starts here, with Ron Paul supporters...

the word 'democracy' must be the first thing we focus upon, as that is the origin of much of what has gone wrong. The facade of it - the manipulation and push for it.

The day we become a 'democracy' is the day Freedom and Liberty cringe.

[BagOfEyebrows]

Yeah!!! Now the majority gets to oppress me instead of the minority!!!

lol

[constituent]

government = the problem

it will always be overrun by the biggest wankers in town. there is no way around this, it is a universal truth.

the folks w/ the life experience and moral constitution to lead are too busy living.

[Mini-Me]

i like the assumption of things they think would happen.


my remarks was one that represented my view and belief.

which was, my representative voted the way his/her district viewed issues. which we all know is obsolete.

my point is this, our system is corrupted, and they found its flaw. i'd much rather vote a democracy, than whats going on right now as i see things.

I agree there's a huge flaw in our system, but it's not the part about having representatives. Representatives can become quite corrupt if we let them (which is just a symptom of the real flaw, not the flaw itself), but you must remember that in contrast, we have not seen yet firsthand the terrors that direct democracy can unleash upon a sharply divided population...though we have indeed heard of them. Representatives, if held to their oaths by the people, have the potential to make much more informed votes about certain matters, since most people do not have the time to educate themselves on a single issue, let alone all of them. Sadly enough, as stupid as our representatives are, they're actually smarter than most of the people. :( Besides, representatives are at least needed to write coherent legislation in the first place. For instance, the annual budget can't exactly be written well by a direct democracy...nor do I think any budget whatsoever would please enough people to even pass via direct democracy. Plus, we already have to elect officials to the executive branch anyway, which is the most dangerous branch of all.

As I mentioned in my first post in the thread:

Furthermore, representatives are a corollary of having multiple sovereign state (or even local) governments that are then represented in the federal (not national) government. That was why Senators were originally chosen by the states. In other words, representatives are a corollary of overall decentralization of power, a great idea that has unfortunately eroded over the course of our existence as a nation.
The closer America comes to more direct democracy, the less people will identify with their individual states. The danger there is that the "we are all one, so we should all share the same laws" mentality has contributed to federal totalitarianism.

So anyway, what's the real problem that corruption is only a symptom of? The real problem is that it's just too damn easy for representatives to make tons of new laws, and it's too damn hard for us to hold them to their oaths! We the people have no reasonably easy or direct way to cast down laws; we have to rely on a federal judge (and every subsequent judge up the chain) or for our state legislatures/governors to say enough is enough when it comes to each and every unconstitutional law, and we've seen this rarely happens. There are several procedural alternatives to this that we could implement, all of which would make this MUCH easier and closer to foolproof. For instance:
To make laws harder to implement, we could raise the bar for what kind of majority of representatives laws need to pass.
To make it easier to hold them accountable, we could allow citizens to literally sue the government over a law and have the law's Constitutionality/justness be determined by a jury, rather than giving federal judges the sole jurisdiction over Constitutionality.
To make it easier to hold representatives accountable, we could even have partial direct democracy via referendums, like in Switzerland. In that case, citizens do not actually vote for the laws at the outset, but we'd be able to create ballot initiatives to vote against existing laws to cast them down. So long as the types of laws this applies to are limited with well-chosen wording, this will prevent the "two wolves and a sheep decide what's for dinner" aspect of direct democracy and other dangers while still retaining the ability for the majority of citizens to veto an existing tyrannical law. I really do not see too much outstanding danger here, since the main problem with direct democracy is when citizens can directly enact arbitrary laws. The procedure to get an initiative on the ballot must be easy, and it must be ingrained into the Constitution in a way that legislatures cannot hike the requirements to save their asses. (Like they do for barring third parties today...)
The Constitution could even be amended to become enforceable on politicians and allow citizens to press civil or criminal charges against any Congressperson who voted for or any executive who enforced an unconstitutional law, where juries determine their fate and whether the law was indeed unconstitutional. For starters, a suitable penalty is being banned from federal politics forever and being fed a pound of raw sewage once a day for life...or similar creative punishments. (If you can't tell, I'm really damn serious about implementing procedural methods of holding the government accountable.)


In any case though, unbridled direct democracy in which citizens vote on every piece of legislation is not the answer, especially if citizens directly write that legislation. I see few problems with referendums, but direct democracy in its purest form would probably turn into a shitstorm in a large and diverse country like the United States...and since so few people would turn out to vote so often, we could end up being ruled by small numbers of unelected people. Sure, you could say that the laws a direct democracy enacts must be Constitutional (e.g. direct democracy where laws still cannot violate rights), and that's an absolutely necessary requirement, but it might not mean much if most of the population doesn't care. If three quarters of the people want to metaphorically rape the other quarter and think they can get away with it, that immediately discounts the effectiveness of the referendum measure I mentioned above for casting down unconstitutional laws. You said that regular citizens could not become corrupt like representatives, but they can...they are not corrupted by lobbyists, but instead way too many are corrupted by their own greed, general selfishness, and shortsightedness. People in a mob tend to lose their moral compass and sense of decency, and unfortunately, there are enough idiots to make laws enacted by a direct democracy a REAL hazard. Unfortunately, I think the "sheople" would tear each other - and us - to pieces. I could be wrong, but with the alternative possibility of safer procedural checks like some of those I mentioned above, I don't think pure direct democracy is in any way worth the added risk.

[Truth Warrior]

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson