Ron Paul: Democracy is not Freedom

[lavender1122]

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Democracy_is_not_Freedom_Ron_Paul#

I just found this, and I thought it was pretty interesting and very well put.

What do you think?

[torchbearer]

Democracy is tyranny.

[lavender1122]

Democracy is tyranny.

I definitely agree. That is better phrased than "not freedom."

[MRoCkEd]

The problem with a Constitutional Republic is that far too often the politicians fail to follow the constitution and the citizens fail to call them out on it. But yes, democracy is tyranny of the majority.

[Kludge]

The problem with a Constitutional Republic is that far too often the politicians fail to follow the constitution and the citizens fail to call them out on it. But yes, democracy is tyranny of the majority.

Is tyranny of the majority much worse than other forms of tyranny?

[torchbearer]

Is tyranny of the majority much worse than other forms of tyranny?

Yes, and here is why...
Is it easier to overthrow one man or to overthrow the majority of men?

[Kludge]

Yes, and here is why...
Is it easier to overthrow one man or to overthrow the majority of men?

One man, until he sets up his own "Democracy".

[torchbearer]

One man, until he sets up his own "Democracy".

correct.
Democracy is the hardest form of tyranny to overthrow.

[MRoCkEd]

Which is why I'm with you on a benevolent dictatorship. ;)

[NathanTurner]

The problem with all forms of government is that they are far too easily corrupted. Whether we're referring to a Socialist republic governed by the collective voice of the working class, a constitutional republic with strict checks and balances, or a "benevolent dictatorship," all of these inherently rely on the goodness of human nature and the vigilance of the people to spot and overthrow corruption. Both of these attributes are in rather short supply, and drastic changes are rarely taken all at once. Rather, since the days of the Founding Fathers, we have had gradual baby steps toward a bloated central government holding all the cards, both militarily and monetarily.

All modes of government tend toward corruption and perversion of its original founding principles, so it is my idea that the ideal way of life is one without an overriding central government. Simply a collection of separate and unconnected communities who cooperate according to a free market based economy: barter and trade being the chief method of commerce, with surplus wealth being stored via gold, silver, and perhaps even platinum, palladium, and small amounts of copper. If certain communities attempt to form monopolies based on their mode of production or geographical position, they are small enough to be easily challenged and overthrown by the majority, thus tyranny would have a difficult time gaining a foothold.

Anarcho-Capitalism, pure and simple.

[torchbearer]

The problem with all forms of government is that they are far too easily corrupted. Whether we're referring to a Socialist republic governed by the collective voice of the working class, a constitutional republic with strict checks and balances, or a "benevolent dictatorship," all of these inherently rely on the goodness of human nature and the vigilance of the people to spot and overthrow corruption. Both of these attributes are in rather short supply, and drastic changes are rarely taken all at once. Rather, since the days of the Founding Fathers, we have had gradual baby steps toward a bloated central government holding all the cards, both militarily and monetarily.

All modes of government tend toward corruption and perversion of its original founding principles, so it is my idea that the ideal way of life is one without an overriding central government. Simply a collection of separate and unconnected communities who cooperate according to a free market based economy: barter and trade being the chief method of commerce, with surplus wealth being stored via gold, silver, and perhaps even platinum, palladium, and small amounts of copper. If certain communities attempt to form monopolies based on their mode of production or geographical position, they are small enough to be easily challenged and overthrown by the majority, thus tyranny would have a difficult time gaining a foothold.

Anarcho-Capitalism, pure and simple.

Anarchy = 6 billion tyrants.

[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

[NathanTurner]

Anarchy = 6 billion tyrants.

Six billion tyrants looking after their own safety and security is preferable, in my opinion, to one tyrant with 6 billion subjects.

The fundamental and instinctual concern of man is for his own well being, and the security of his family, and the only way in which to guarantee this security and his living unfettered and unrestrained from external oppression is through Anarcho-Capitalism, in my opinion.

[heavenlyboy34]

six billion tyrants looking after their own safety and security is preferable, in my opinion, to one tyrant with 6 billion subjects.

The fundamental and instinctual concern of man is for his own well being, and the security of his family, and the only way in which to guarantee this security and his living unfettered and unrestrained from external oppression is through anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion.

+1776 :d:)

[tribute_13]

Democracy is 49% getting anally raped and skullfucked by the other 51%

[.Tom]

Democracy is the ignorant telling the informed how to live their lives.

Anarcho capitalism +1 :)

[Dr.3D]

Kinda looks like this thread is heading toward the drain that leads to the dreaded "Philosophy" forum.

[torchbearer]

Kinda looks like this thread is heading toward the drain that leads to the dreaded "Philosophy" forum.

that is where shit usually gets flushed.

[Dr.3D]

that is where shit usually gets flushed.

Well, it also pays to wear a life jacket when working near a cesspool. :D

[heavenlyboy34]

Anarchy = 6 billion tyrants.

in an unenlightened society, yes. I don't know of many anarchists who expect that the current society is enlightened enough to live free. (hence the importance of education campaigns) But as you pointed out the other day, if society "prepares" for autarchy by progressively shrinking the State (and individually choosing freedom, individual morality, and responsibility), the chance of tyranny taking hold is minimized. :cool: (I doubt we'll ever permanently remove the threat of tyranny no matter what, due to the imperfect nature of man and the world)

(On the other hand, archy=a class full of visible tyrants, their publicly unknown foreign and domestic co-conspirators, and a vast underclass of servants who falsely think that they're free)

[LDA]

A constitutional republic seems preferable to pure democracy, which was the whole point of the constitution and federalism. Of course, there's nothing in place really to punish politicians that blatantly ignore the constitution. The people are supposed to punish them by not voting for them, but that doesn't happen. Most people don't even know what the constitution is, other than maybe the bill of rights.

Anarcho-capitalism seems great, but here's the truth: there will always be people trying to gain control over the rest of the population. Governments will naturally arise where there is no government. Maybe there is no perfect system, but I have no problem with a government that protects individual rights, as long as that's all they do. Of course, by giving governments the power to do that, you give them the power to do much, much more.