Democracy is not a dirty word -

[PaulaGem]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

[Kludge]

//

[apropos]

Tyranny naturally arises out of democracy. - Plato, The Republic.

[aravoth]

Our founding fathers believed in Democracy

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/filephp-1.gif

[MyLibertyStuff]

I agree that they wanted consent of the people, but they wanted it within the confines of the constitution. Rule by law, republic, and to the republic for which it stands. Read some quotes of the founding fathers who did not want a Democracy in the context it is in today.

Democracy, the way I understand it, is a majority thing. This is why the electoral college was implemented (I think). If the majority says that they want to kill your family and confiscate your land, it is fine in a Democracy because the majority wants it. In a Republic, rule by the law, it is prohibited.

[MyLibertyStuff]

Also, Democracies form into Oligopolies over time.

[torchbearer]

Tyranny of the majority. Wohoooo!!!!!

[Reason]

Tyranny of the majority. Wohoooo!!!!!

qft

[Original_Intent]

The United States of America is an emerging democracy; it was not founded as a democracy. In fact, our Founding Fathers made their aversion to democracy well known. James Madison in Federalist #10 had this to say about democracy:

“From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Their disdain was apparent; the why of their disdain was also apparent.

To the end of protecting the people against the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party, to protect the rights of property, to provide personal security, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were carefully written and enacted. Those first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, providing equal access and equal protection under the law.

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter97.htm

[FindLiberty]

I can't say it better than these SNIPS from THIS URL - Democracy: 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner
October 16th, 2008, 5:42 pm · 1 Comment · posted by Mark Landsbaum
(http://orangepunch.freedomblogging.com/2008/10/16/democracy-2-wolves-and-a-sheep-voting-on-whats-for-dinner/4400/)
...
When this nation was born, the will of the people was what we might call less than universal. About a third wanted to break from the King’s grip. About a third wanted to snuggle with the Crown. And about a third were like today’s muddled middle, not terribly inspired or committed one way or the other.
...
As Ben Franklin said, the new government was a republic, “if you can keep it.”
...
Franklin wasn’t warning about another war with the Brits. The threat wasn’t from beyond the colonies. It was from within. The founders knew from whence the threat emanated. From within men’s hearts. The will of the people. More precisely, the will of the majority.
...
“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived,” said John Quincy Adams, early president and son of a president and founder.
...
“Democracy,” Adams’ father had earlier explained, “will soon degenerate into an anarchy; such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man’s life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure. . . “
...
The founders had thrown off the tyranny of imperial monarchy, and clearly also rejected the equally threatening tyranny of the masses. They understood that when “every man will do what is right in his own eyes” it would be a path to disaster. Instead, the founders opted for a new way, not a way dictated by arbitrary potentates, nor by the equally arbitrary whims of the majority.

They rooted their new republic in a system of checks and balances that recognized men’s inherent propensity to exploit and oppress their fellow men for personal advantage. They based this system not on “the wanton pleasures (or) the capricious will” that the elder Adams recognized to be inherent in pure, direct democracies.

As another of the founders, James Madison, put it: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”

The founders knew the majority is just as easily a mob as a choir, and that arbitrary and whimsical moralities leave no man safe. Mobs rob and loot and do unto others as they wouldn’t have done to themselves.

[Njon]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.


You are confusing popular sovereignty with mob rule (democracy). The founders hated democracy.

[Anti Federalist]

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c370/aravoth/filephp-1.gif

Yeah, that...pass the popcorn.

I've had this argument too damn many times, I'll sit this one out.

[torchbearer]

I'm starting to get to the point of saying, the people in this country are getting the government they deserve... I hope costa rica elects their libertarian majority so i can have one place on this god forsaken rock to go and be free from tyranny.
otherwise, i'd rather die.

[PaulaGem]

The United States of America is an emerging democracy; it was not founded as a democracy. In fact, our Founding Fathers made their aversion to democracy well known. James Madison in Federalist #10 had this to say about democracy:

“From this view of the subject, it may be concluded, that a pure Democracy, by which I mean a Society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the Government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert results from the form of Government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party, or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is, that such Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives, as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretical politicians, who have patronized this species of Government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”

Their disdain was apparent; the why of their disdain was also apparent.

To the end of protecting the people against the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party, to protect the rights of property, to provide personal security, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution were carefully written and enacted. Those first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights, providing equal access and equal protection under the law.

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter97.htm


He defined the term and applied his criticism to the term as defined. I just defined it a bit differently and believe as I defined it democracy has merit and was the gleam in the fouding fathers' eye.

Too bad the government as we now have it is the product of abortion.

[RSLudlum]

Hence they pursued a limited constitutional Republic based on a federal system where the states (closer and more efficiently limited by the people) held more power.

You really need to distinguish between social and political democracy if you want to discuss 'democracy' and the founding of these Unitied States. ;)



Felix Morley, "Freedom and Federalism" (1959)

"A strongly centralized government is aided by political ignorance and apathy among its subjects. But the docile acceptance of paternalism spells morbidity for a federal system, which can only prosper if its self-governing localities take politics seriously. So there is cause for concern in the fact that so many Americans have come to regard their Federal Republic as a centralized democracy. And this concern is not lessened by noting that the communists describe their system as "democratic centralism," operated throught eh medium of "People's Democracies."



BTW, even tyrants have to have the 'consent of the people' to stay in power.

[silverhawks]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

The American system of governance is best described as a constitutional republic with democratic institutions, such as voting, elected representatives, proportional representation, etc. The republic was founded not on the rule of people, but on the rule of law - the only way to equally protect the rights of all of its citizens. We have expanded upon that principle over time by abolishing slavery and rightfully allowing women to vote. By stating that everyone's rights are equal, individual and equally protected, everyone SHOULD have a vested interest in defending those rights ad infinitum, but a lot of people have lost sight of that fact where we are today.

In a democracy - which I consider more of an intermediate phase of government, and not a system of government in itself - the people vote to alter rights by wielding the "tyranny of the majority" that Torchbearer mentioned; a majority of 51% can legally alter or remove the rights of a minority of 49% if they are convinced it is right to do so. For an excellent example of this at work: Proposition 8 in California.

Looking at it from a historical point of view, this phase is usually the end result of incompetent and/or corrupt government, who are allowing the people to "vote themselves largesse", i.e. vote themselves handouts in some form or another. This phase always leads to dictatorship or oligarchy. Look up Rome as it transitioned from republic to democracy to dictatorship; research Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany pre-WW2 as they voted in their respective dictators, or the democratic government of Somalia before it fell to socialism.

Finally, you will not find one mention of the word "democracy" in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights or even the Articles of Confederation. The Founders indisputably created a constitutional republic, for good reason.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm starting to get to the point of saying, the people in this country are getting the government they deserve... I hope costa rica elects their libertarian majority so i can have one place on this god forsaken rock to go and be free from tyranny.
otherwise, i'd rather die.

There's always Somalia, bro! :D;) I guess I'll see ya there when this is all done and all the freedoms are gone. :cool:

[Alawn]

Yes it is. Democracy is pure evil and tyrannical mob rule of the majority over minorities.

[torchbearer]

There's always Somalia, bro! :D;) I guess I'll see ya there when this is all done and all the freedoms are gone. :cool:

there are no freedoms in somalia either. you'd need a mob bigger than the ones enforcing islamic law on the people who can't stand up against them.
I'd rather die that live in the law of the jungle.

[RSLudlum]

the "tyranny of the majority" that Torchbearer mentioned; a majority of 51% can legally alter or remove the rights of a minority of 49% if they are convinced it is right to do so.



What's quite interesting about our system is the Supreme Court by a democratic vote in their decisions can actually re-instate minority rights that were taken by a majority vote. Which is in itself undemocratic. Also add the fact that the Justices aren't democratically elected but appointed.

The Constitution is full of walls put in place to thwart democracy in order to protect individual rights against a national gov't.

[torchbearer]

What's quite interesting about our system is the Supreme Court by a democratic vote in their decisions can actually re-instate minority rights that were taken by a majority vote. Which is in itself undemocratic. Also add the fact that the Justices aren't democratically elected but appointed.

The Constitution is full of walls put in place to thwart democracy in order to protect individual rights against a national gov't.

then it is not a democracy, but a republic with protection for the minority.
no one can vote an inalienable right away.

[LibertyEagle]

Here Paula, watch this.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

Our Founders gave us a constitutional republic, or rule by law. As opposed to a democracy, or mob rule. A republic's intent is to protect the rights of the minority, or the one, against the force of the majority (the mob).

[Kludge]

no one can vote an inalienable right away.

Unless they're appointed by the president and wear a spiffy robe.

[RSLudlum]

no one can vote an inalienable right away.

But they sure do try, don't they? And then attempt, usually succeeding, using monopolistic force to make the individual comply.

[Dr.3D]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

Paula, please watch this little video. It will explain everything you need to understand.

YouTube - Forms of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U08Y6KQVCtI)

[Brian4Liberty]

Too bad the government as we now have it is the product of abortion.

And circumcision. ;)

[torchbearer]

Unless they're appointed by the president and wear a spiffy robe.

nope.

[torchbearer]

But they sure do try, don't they? And then attempt, usually succeeding, using monopolistic force to make the individual comply.

UNtil you stand up against this shit, it will keep happening.

[Dr.3D]

And circumcision. ;)

And that is the the cruelest cut of them all. ;)

[apropos]

There is also the fact that only landowners could vote when America was originally founded...the idea being that only informed citizens with a vested interest in the country's direction should steer it.

Which further precludes democracy as the original intention of the founders. The thought is that ignorant voters make ignorant decisions. Our PC sensibilities don't allow us to debate this in America's public forum too much, though.

[torchbearer]

There is also the fact that only landowners could vote when America was originally founded...the idea being that only informed citizens with a vested interest in the country's direction should steer it.

Which further precludes democracy as the original intention of the founders. The thought is that ignorant voters make ignorant decisions. Our PC sensibilities don't allow us to debate this in America's public forum too much, though.

amen.

[Dr.3D]

There is also the fact that only landowners could vote when America was originally founded...the idea being that only informed citizens with a vested interest in the country's direction should steer it.

Which further precludes democracy as the original intention of the founders. The thought is that ignorant voters make ignorant decisions. Our PC sensibilities don't allow us to debate this in America's public forum too much, though.

I thought I heard, illegal aliens are allowed to vote too. Is this true?

If this is true, then I can understand why we are having such a hard time with illegal aliens entering this country. They could get here and vote for people who would let them stay or have some other privileges.

[Imperial]

All republics inherently include democracy in their pinnings. Similarly, a republic will always legitimize some elite group over another by its nature of representing the many by the few.

It is simply a balance game. You can go more towards democracy or more towards oligarchy. I think it is nice to have differing balances in differerent areas to have competition. Thus, we have horizontal checks and balances in the national government and vertical checks and balances between individual, local, state, and national.

[PaulaGem]

The judicial system, established on the rule of law was to be blind, ruling according to law, equally for all. Under democracy the judicial system becomes a legal system with activist judges who rule not according to law but according to their own passions, opinions and prejudices. The result is that the Bill of Rights has been pretty much nullified.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Stuter/stuter97.htm

My personal experience is that the judicial system has been co-opted by the legal industry, individual passions and prejudices play a much smaller role in the prostitution of Lady Justice.

[PaulaGem]

I thought I heard, illegal aliens are allowed to vote too. Is this true?

If this is true, then I can understand why we are having such a hard time with illegal aliens entering this country. They could get here and vote for people who would let them stay or have some other privileges.

In Colorado people register to vote when they get their driver's license. There is no check on citizenship, only a check box that can be filled out by an illegal by accident or by fraud claiming the right to vote.

Still, I think the above issue is another one of those red herrings being served up by the media. Corporations are now raping this country. Individuals could never cause harm on the scale that it is being done now.

Why worry about illegals voting when the voting machines regularly go on sleepovers that allow them to be reprogrammed, and use technology that allow the flipping of the vote with a garage door opener tuned in to the voting machine?

[PaulaGem]

. Thus, we have horizontal checks and balances in the national government and vertical checks and balances between individual, local, state, and national.


I don't think those "vertical checks" that you refer to exist any more. The vote is broken.

[CUnknown]

I understand what Rand Paul means when he says stuff like "We are drifting dangerously towards democracy in this country and away from being a Republic." But honestly, I don't care for this kind of rhetoric. It sounds like he is disparaging democracy, although of course he isn't. What he wants is a return to the rule of law, and we all agree of course. A Republic is a type of democracy.

The way I would phrase it is that we are drifting away from being a democracy and towards fascism. But I know we mean the same thing when we say these things.

So, I tend to agree with the OP, but at the same time the exact phrasing isn't really important to me.

[BenIsForRon]

You guys know, if only landowners could vote, Ron Paul wouldn't have gotten nearly as many votes. Most college students don't own land.

[LibertyEagle]

You guys know, if only landowners could vote, Ron Paul wouldn't have gotten nearly as many votes. Most college students don't own land.

And many of Obama's votes would not have been made.

The whole idea is for the voters to be only those people who are being asked to fund the government. Those living off of government largesse should not be able to vote to steal more money out of their brethren's pockets to line their own.

Think about it.

[LibertyEagle]

Here are a couple of good articles if you're interested.

"A Republic, if You Can Keep It"
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/659-qa-republic-if-you-can-keep-itq

Republics and Democracies -- best treatise on this that I've ever read
http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/welch.html

[silverhawks]

Still, I think the above issue is another one of those red herrings being served up by the media. Corporations are now raping this country. Individuals could never cause harm on the scale that it is being done now.

I think that bears some clarification. Corporations are being allowed by corrupt government to rape this country; and people are allowing corrupt politicians to maintain a presence in office.

[BenIsForRon]

And many of Obama's votes would not have been made.

The whole idea is for the voters to be only those people who are being asked to fund the government. Those living off of government largesse should not be able to vote to steal more money out of their brethren's pockets to line their own.

Think about it.

K, I've thought about it, and it's BS. Not everybody cares about owning property, and may make a decision to rent most of their life and use their money for other purposes.

[PaulaGem]

I think that bears some clarification. Corporations are being allowed by corrupt government to rape this country; and people are allowing corrupt politicians to maintain a presence in office.

If the vote is truly broken, as I believe it is, people can't do much to stop this trend, can they?

[LibertyEagle]

K, I've thought about it, and it's BS. Not everybody cares about owning property, and may make a decision to rent most of their life and use their money for other purposes.

lol. No, it's not bullshit. Back in the day, property ownership was a good distinguisher. Today, I'm not sure. That's why I mentioned what the real purpose of it being designated as it was back then. So, maybe we can come up with a different way of achieving the same ends. Bottom line, people deriving money from sucking off of others, should not be able to vote to elect someone or pass some kind of ordinance that allows them to further their suckage.

I frankly can't see why you would disagree with that. Please explain.

[sdczen]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

I see someone is still hanging onto their public education dogma. :rolleyes:

All democracy is a 51% dictatorship over the 49%.

[silverhawks]

If the vote is truly broken, as I believe it is, people can't do much to stop this trend, can they?

I think they can, in several ways.

They can protest corruption in their government, working with local newspapers and news outlets, which at least raises public awareness; they can email information to their friends and family members as well.

They can start grassroots campaigns to run for local, state and federal office, and support other liberty candidates.

They can educate people to the differences between capitalism and corporatism.

They can start businesses that develop products to lessen people's reliance on government - for example, renewable energy.

They can organise boycotts of corporate products, and vote with their wallet.

They can stop voting Republican and Democrat.

[BenIsForRon]

lol. No, it's not bullshit. Back in the day, property ownership was a good distinguisher. Today, I'm not sure. That's why I mentioned what the real purpose of it being designated as it was back then. So, maybe we can come up with a different way of achieving the same ends. Bottom line, people deriving money from sucking off of others, should not be able to vote to elect someone or pass some kind of ordinance that allows them to further their suckage.

I frankly can't see why you would disagree with that. Please explain.

I understand your argument. I reminds me of when Daniel Hannan brought up how those in the labor party create more government jobs so that no one in those jobs would vote for a person eliminating government jobs. Thus, the labor party maintains control and continues the trend

Even so, people on federal aid of whatever form should still be able to vote. They're still people. Anybody I've ever known to take federal aid did so reluctantly, and it doesn't automatically make them a big government liberal.

Just because there are some people taking advantage of the situation doesn't mean we should prevent a certain "type" of person from voting. There are better ways of fixing a republic.

[Theocrat]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.


"Republic v. Democracy" by David Barton (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=111)

[PaulaGem]

I think they can, in several ways.

They can protest corruption in their government, working with local newspapers and news outlets, which at least raises public awareness; they can email information to their friends and family members as well.

They can start grassroots campaigns to run for local, state and federal office, and support other liberty candidates.

They can educate people to the differences between capitalism and corporatism.

They can start businesses that develop products to lessen people's reliance on government - for example, renewable energy.

They can organise boycotts of corporate products, and vote with their wallet.

They can stop voting Republican and Democrat.

When you go to the polls you have no guarantee that your vote will be counted!
Everything you have just listed is useless if the voting process remains the farce that it is.



FIX IT!!!!

This is what must be demanded before any of those other things are even dealt with.

[LibertyEagle]

When you go to the polls you have no guarantee that your vote will be counted!
Everything you have just listed is useless if the voting process remains the farce that it is.



FIX IT!!!!

This is what must be demanded before any of those other things are even dealt with.

So, what are you doing to "FIX IT"? The voting mechanisms used are state issues. So, if each of us would determine who in our states handles this, and initiative was taken by us, we might be able to get paper ballots back in, etc.

Beyond that, I'd think we'd need to concern ourselves with the fact that so many people have no clue about how to fix the problems we have in this country. I mean, it's not going to fix any root problems to get honest voting and then have the majority going to vote for big government and its inherent force. I've got to tell you, Paula, it's really very concerning to me that so many people have bought the lie that our country was established to be a democracy, rather than the Republic, that we were given. It may sound like a nit, but it's fundamental to the form of government that our Founders gave us.

[PaulaGem]

I see someone is still hanging onto their public education dogma. :rolleyes:

All democracy is a 51% dictatorship over the 49%.


I am referring to the etymology and the root meaning of the word. Perhaps your education does not extend beyond personal stereotypes.

Words are just puffs of air or marks on a paper or an electronic screen. It's all in how they are used.

You will find that most writers who wish to be taken seriously, including the fouding fathers, define a word carefully before they expound upon a concept. Words have multiple meanings and those who give them static meaning and assume those who use the word in another way are ignorant reveal their own shallow thinking.

[PaulaGem]

So, what are you doing to "FIX IT"? The voting mechanisms used are state issues. So, if each of us would determine who in our states handles this, and initiative was taken by us, we might be able to get paper ballots back in, etc.

Beyond that, I'd think we'd need to concern ourselves with the fact that so many people have no clue about how to fix the problems we have in this country. I mean, it's not going to fix any root problems to get honest voting and then have the majority going to vote for big government and its inherent force. I've got to tell you, Paula, it's really very concerning to me that so many people have bought the lie that our country was established to be a democracy, rather than the Republic, that we were given. It may sound like a nit, but it's fundamental to the form of government that our Founders gave us.

I believe the Fed and the Vote are two fundamental issues that must be approached before this country can even begin to function as the founding fathers hoped it would.

Both require a massive grass roots educational effort. Grass roots politics are fine, but education and getting people to think again comes first. BlackBoxVoting.org is a great non-partisan site for those who wish to educate themselves about the issues surrounding the Vote in this country and it provides ways to become active locally.

The founding fathers believed that an educated and enlightened electorate would eventually get it right. I do think the Republic vs Democracy thing is a "nit".

On a local level we MUST have a functioning Democracy. Every citizen has a right to be heard. At some level direct democracy becomes impractical and representational democracy or a republic must be implimented. This can't be implimented without a functioning democratic base, that's how we got where we are now.

[LibertyEagle]

I believe the Fed and the Vote are two fundamental issues that must be approached before this country can even begin to function as the founding fathers hoped it would.

Both require a massive grass roots educational effort. Grass roots politics are fine, but education and getting people to think again comes first. BlackBoxVoting.org is a great non-partisan site for those who wish to educate themselves about the issues surrounding the Vote in this country and it provides ways to become active locally.
I'm well aware of BlackBoxVoting.


The founding fathers believed that an educated and enlightened electorate would eventually get it right.
Being educated and enlightened includes knowing the difference between a republic and a democracy; it also includes knowing the form of government our Founders intended for us and why.


I do think the Republic vs Democracy thing is a "nit".
You think wrong. It is critically important. Mob rule never works; it is socialism, Paula.


On a local level we MUST have a functioning Democracy. Every citizen has a right to be heard. At some level direct democracy becomes impractical and representational democracy or a republic must be implimented.
Make up your mind.

This can't be implimented without a functioning democratic base, that's how we got where we are now.
Have you watched the short video that both I and another individual linked to for you, or read any of the articles? There is a huge difference between a republic and a democracy, Paula, and until you understand that, it doesn't make much sense to go further.

[Original_Intent]

Paula seems to think that a Republic and a representational democracy are essentially the same thing, as opposed to a pure democracy.

Paula, from many of your posts you seem like a sharp person. It is not lack of brains, but you are definitely short on listening skills, or like most smart people, you make the mistake of assuming you always know more than the person you are talking to. The diefference between a republic and a democracy (even a representational one) are huge and fundamental. Because from your posts you seem to favor democracy more, that may also be influencing you to minimize the difference.

In any democracy, pure or representative, you have NO inalienable rights. That is kind of a big deal.

I agree with you that every citizen has a right to be HEARD. That does not a democracy make. Within our family, each member, including children, has a right to voice their opinion and say what they think. But it isn't a democracy. It's also not the form that I want government to take, it was just to illustrate the point that being heard does not equal democracy.

Your heart really seems to be more or les in the right place. You feel that people need to be educated and the general population needs to take a more active role, and I don't think you'll find any disagreement on these boards. But people have to understand fundamental principles, or instead of a peaceful revolution that leads to more freedom you have the Bolshevik revolution and a century of purges, tyranny, and poverty.

[acptulsa]

Excellent post, as always, OI. Someone agreed with you:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=1704562&postcount=111

[PaulaGem]

I think my vision of society and mankind is quite different from most on this board. I also believe that inalienable rights are in fact inalienable and in any functioning democracy they will not be at risk, this is a presumption you probably would not make.

I believe that your peaceful political revolution will not occur unless mankind is able to evolve socially and Spiritually to a point where that functioning democracy can be sustained.

I understand the Constitutional protections built into our government by the founding fathers, but all it took to defeat them was a power structure that was willing to ignore the Constitution and a people that was willing to let them get away with it.

[acptulsa]

I think my vision of society and mankind is quite different from most on this board. I also believe that inalienable rights are in fact inalienable and in any functioning democracy they will not be at risk, this is a presumption you probably would not make.

I believe that your peaceful political revolution will not occur unless mankind is able to evolve socially and Spiritually to a point where that functioning democracy can be sustained.

Sure sounds good. Unfortunately, I think a pure democracy is as unlikely as a pure anarchy. In theory it would be utopia, but in practice people tend to wind up trying to bend their neighbors to their will. When you hear about people in jail because they didn't mow soon enough to suit the people with homes nearby, it makes you wonder if we can get there. That said, well, the represenative system promises cooler heads in the middle, but usually produces corporate shills instead.

Perfection probably isn't possible. I think history teaches us that while we still followed our Constitution this nation came about as close as any, ever.


I understand the Constitutional protections built into our government by the founding fathers, but all it took to defeat them was a power structure that was willing to ignore the Constitution and a people that was willing to let them get away with it.

Yeah, that. So, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Or do we try to find a way to ensure we stick to the letter of the document? Because I'd rather live in a Constitutional U.S. than in an Athens where some slick talker can convince 51% of the city that the only cure for me is a nice, tall glass of hemlock...

[PaulaGem]

Sure sounds good. Unfortunately, I think a pure democracy is as unlikely as a pure anarchy. In theory it would be utopia, but in practice people tend to wind up trying to bend their neighbors to their will. When you hear about people in jail because they didn't mow soon enough to suit the people with homes nearby, it makes you wonder if we can get there. That said, well, the represenative system promises cooler heads in the middle, but usually produces corporate shills instead.

Perfection probably isn't possible. I think history teaches us that while we still followed our Constitution this nation came about as close as any, ever.



Yeah, that. So, do we throw the baby out with the bathwater? Or do we try to find a way to ensure we stick to the letter of the document? Because I'd rather live in a Constitutional U.S. than in an Athens where some slick talker can convince 51% of the city that the only cure for me is a nice, tall glass of hemlock...

The answers always lie somewhere in the middle, don't they?

Perhaps will take idealists and more practically oriented people working togehter to come up with the answer.

My personal perception is that the problem is rooted at the local level. More pride, more education, more responsibility is something that would be required to make more democracy work.

Realizing how we are getting screwed by the guys at the top might make people angry enough to go there... I don't know.

What I do know is that change in opposition to the current power base in D.C. is really rowing upstream. It is going to take a very large grassroots movement to get enough oars in the water to get anywhere at all. That movement will have to be inclusive and it will have to have a strong local base. It will also have to attack local and state political issues in order to fix the problems at the Federal level. I percieve that to be a move toward local democracy.

The hemlock thing is silly. No theory of government will work without a responsible constituency. The old "people get the government they deserve" thing.

I didn't say anything about throwing out the Constitution either, I said it won't work with the current government and the current apathy of the people.

[acptulsa]

What I do know is that change in opposition to the current power base in D.C. is really rowing upstream. It is going to take a very large grassroots movement to get enough oars in the water to get anywhere at all. That movement will have to be inclusive and it will have to have a strong local base. It will also have to attack local and state political issues in order to fix the problems at the Federal level. I percieve that to be a move toward local democracy.

Well, it's going to take quite a bit of getting over the old 'left/right' false paradigm and getting involved. Even on this board, there are quite a few who can't be bothered to get down to the local party meeting and sign up--much less show up for public votes on every subject at town meetings. And then you have the problem of not getting the numbers together to put constitutionally-minded people in charge because a lot of people won't come to a Republican convention--apparently out of fear they'll come out smelling like Cheney or something. And yet, if the socialist states of Europe vs. the experiences of the formerly communist Soviet Russia and Red China are any indication, a set of small socialist states in competition with each other is far, far better in every way than one big, centralized, planned nation where the powers that be are too far removed from the people to remember that 'all politics is local'. Because if these 'liberals' ever did stop and consider these facts, they'd be down at the G.O.P. county and state conventions in a trice trying to get tiny-government candidates into national office, just to give their socialist dreams for their local state house room to maneuver.

We have a lot of language to refine, develop, or even invent to pull something like that off.


The hemlock thing is silly.

Don't tell me, tell Socrates. Or that guy in jail for not mowing soon enough.

[Deborah K]

Some history on the word democracy: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=193247&page=3

[Dr.3D]

Some history on the word democracy: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=193247&page=3

Yes, and I'll refer back to the nice short video explaining all of the forms of government.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2132862#post2132862

[Original_Intent]

I am referring to the etymology and the root meaning of the word. Perhaps your education does not extend beyond personal stereotypes.

Words are just puffs of air or marks on a paper or an electronic screen. It's all in how they are used.

You will find that most writers who wish to be taken seriously, including the fouding fathers, define a word carefully before they expound upon a concept. Words have multiple meanings and those who give them static meaning and assume those who use the word in another way are ignorant reveal their own shallow thinking.


`To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little *****. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything; so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. `They've a temper, some of them -- particularly verbs: they're the proudest -- adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs -- however, I can manage the whole lot of them! Impenetrability! That's what I say!'

`Would you tell me please,' said Alice, `what that means?'

`Now you talk like a reasonable child,' said Humpty Dumpty, looking very much pleased. `I meant by "impenetrability" that we've had enough of that subject, and it would be just as well if you'd mention what you mean to do next, as I suppose you don't mean to stop here all the rest of your life.'

`That's a great deal to make one word mean,' Alice said in a thoughtful tone.

`When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, `I always pay it extra.'

`Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.

;)

[Theocrat]

Paula seems to think that a Republic and a representational democracy are essentially the same thing, as opposed to a pure democracy.

Paula, from many of your posts you seem like a sharp person. It is not lack of brains, but you are definitely short on listening skills, or like most smart people, you make the mistake of assuming you always know more than the person you are talking to. The diefference between a republic and a democracy (even a representational one) are huge and fundamental. Because from your posts you seem to favor democracy more, that may also be influencing you to minimize the difference.

In any democracy, pure or representative, you have NO inalienable rights. That is kind of a big deal.

I agree with you that every citizen has a right to be HEARD. That does not a democracy make. Within our family, each member, including children, has a right to voice their opinion and say what they think. But it isn't a democracy. It's also not the form that I want government to take, it was just to illustrate the point that being heard does not equal democracy.

Your heart really seems to be more or les in the right place. You feel that people need to be educated and the general population needs to take a more active role, and I don't think you'll find any disagreement on these boards. But people have to understand fundamental principles, or instead of a peaceful revolution that leads to more freedom you have the Bolshevik revolution and a century of purges, tyranny, and poverty.

And might I add that in any form of democracy there is no absolute, objective law that people are subject to which limits what the 51% can agree to over the 49%. Just because people are allowed to participate in a vote does not make that action righteous in and of itself. It depends on what it is they vote on, and that is decided by the rule of law, which ultimately comes from God's eternal, universal, and immutable Law.

[Conza88]

Refute this: anyone here... please do.

You won't be able to... but good luck. :rolleyes:

Stop lieing to yourselves people..

YouTube - The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU)

[Theocrat]

Refute this: anyone here... please do.

You won't be able to... but good luck. :rolleyes:

Stop lieing to yourselves people..

YouTube - The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU)

Dude, you need to start a new thread for that topic because he has so many holes, inconsistencies, and false assumptions in his premises that it would take me more than five minutes to refute his ideas.

[newbitech]

I believe the Fed and the Vote are two fundamental issues that must be approached before this country can even begin to function as the founding fathers hoped it would.

Both require a massive grass roots educational effort. Grass roots politics are fine, but education and getting people to think again comes first. BlackBoxVoting.org is a great non-partisan site for those who wish to educate themselves about the issues surrounding the Vote in this country and it provides ways to become active locally.

The founding fathers believed that an educated and enlightened electorate would eventually get it right. I do think the Republic vs Democracy thing is a "nit".

On a local level we MUST have a functioning Democracy. Every citizen has a right to be heard. At some level direct democracy becomes impractical and representational democracy or a republic must be implimented. This can't be implimented without a functioning democratic base, that's how we got where we are now.

holding politicians accountable doesn't start or end at the ballot box. I agree the voting system is manipulated, however, I disagree that solving the voting discrepancies will solve our problems.

The fundamental issue has and always been following the rule of law set out by our constitution.

[Jeremy]

Our founding fathers believed in Democracy...

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by PaulaGem
Our founding fathers believed in Democracy...

Uh huh. They believed it was horrible.


Democracy: a government of the masses. Authority derived thru mass meeting or any other form of direct expression. Results in Mobacracy. Attitude toward property is communist - negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion. prejudice and impulse without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

Republic: Authority is derived thru the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobacracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. Is the standard form of government throughout the world.

Benjamin Franklin: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy...it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

John Adams: Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

Thomas Jefferson: A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.

James Madison: Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

Thomas Jefferson: The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Benjamin Franklin (maybe): Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.



Read the rest here:
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2008/12/democracy-v-republic-founding-fathers.html

[PaulaGem]

holding politicians accountable doesn't start or end at the ballot box. I agree the voting system is manipulated, however, I disagree that solving the voting discrepancies will solve our problems.

The fundamental issue has and always been following the rule of law set out by our constitution.

And without an honest vote, what chance do we have to enforce this rule of law?

[LibertyEagle]

And without an honest vote, what chance do we have to enforce this rule of law?

Step 1. Understand the rule of law.

It's not going to help us any to get the voting system fixed and then have the mob run out and vote for Communism/Socialism.

[PaulaGem]

Republic: Authority is derived thru the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences. A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass. Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobacracy. Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment and progress. Is the standard form of government throughout the world.

Sorry, that is not my experience of this country. Perhaps for "one brief shining moment" it was so, but offhand I can't think of what period in our history that might have been.

Can you point to any other country where this political goal has been achieved?

If it is the "standard form of government around the world", what other government has come close to getting it right? France, Germany, South Africa?

Sorry, that first quote sounds like propaganda to me.

[newbitech]

And without an honest vote, what chance do we have to enforce this rule of law?

What chance do we have of anything if we keep side tracking the main issue of restoring a REPUBLIC FORM of government that was laid out in the Constitution 200+ years ago?

Vote counting was not the issue that led to the establishment of our country. It was clear in the 1760's and 1770's that the Crown was willing to ignore the will of the people.

It is clear now that the false 2 party paradigm is willing to ignore the will of the people.

The more fundamental issue that your argument lacks is ballot access. Since we all believe that the 2 party system is really a 1 party system, why does it matter if we get a correct count of D's and R's? And a follow up, if we cannot have ballot access for independent and 3rd parties equally across all towns districts and states, what does it matter if we get an honest count of political support if less than 30% of the people are represented by that vote?

[LibertyEagle]

Well, I have to agree with you there. I don't think a republic is the standard form of government throughout the world. But, it is the form of government constructed for us by our Founders.

[Conza88]

Dude, you need to start a new thread for that topic because he has so many holes, inconsistencies, and false assumptions in his premises that it would take me more than five minutes to refute his ideas.

Omg. How the fck is it irrelevant? <-- a highly important question. Because your's implies, that you are.

It is remarkably relevant. I am attacking the premise of the OP.


it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

Social Contract theory in a nut shell.

Theo - How about you start a thread and address the fallacies? etc etc. YOu didn't name any.

Again - put up or shut up. ;) Don't call my out with your bullshit if you can't back it up.

The post WAS NOT irrelevant. Thanks, try again.

[FrankRep]

Paula, please watch this little video. It will explain everything you need to understand.

YouTube - Forms of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U08Y6KQVCtI)

I can't believe I missed this thread. The founding fathers hated Democracy. They built a Republic.

[GBurr]

Paula,

Our founding fathers didn't put the word "democracy" in the Declaration or Constitution.

[Dr.3D]

I can't believe I missed this thread. The founding fathers hated Democracy. They built a Republic.

Yes they did.... they wanted nothing to do with such a system. They understood history and what happened to the Roman Empire when it decayed into a democracy.

[CCTelander]

Democracy is indeed a "dirty word." But then, so is government.

[PaulaGem]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199733&page=6

See post number 60.

By defining our government as a Republic you could be equating the U.S. with the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Socialist Republics of the Former USSR.

It seems to me that our government is only properly described as a Constitutional Republic derived from the consent of the governed and based on a representational democracy.

Please research the historic concept of representatative democracy (the link at the top only scratches the surface) before you stone me on this one.

[PaulaGem]

What chance do we have of anything if we keep side tracking the main issue of restoring a REPUBLIC FORM of government that was laid out in the Constitution 200+ years ago?

Vote counting was not the issue that led to the establishment of our country. It was clear in the 1760's and 1770's that the Crown was willing to ignore the will of the people.

It is clear now that the false 2 party paradigm is willing to ignore the will of the people.

The more fundamental issue that your argument lacks is ballot access. Since we all believe that the 2 party system is really a 1 party system, why does it matter if we get a correct count of D's and R's? And a follow up, if we cannot have ballot access for independent and 3rd parties equally across all towns districts and states, what does it matter if we get an honest count of political support if less than 30% of the people are represented by that vote?

So how do you suggest we determine the "will of the people" in this country without an honest vote? Don't you think that if the system hadn't been rigged that Ron Paul would have had a much better showing in the primaries and the election of 2008?

People have to start believing they can change the system with their vote, diminishing the importance of the democratic process which is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic is counter productive.

[acptulsa]

Tell it to Socrates.

Also note the sig.

[LibertyEagle]

People have to start believing they can change the system with their vote, diminishing the importance of the democratic process which is at the heart of our Constitutional Republic is counter productive.

:eek: :)

[erowe1]

Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

Democracy and consent of the governed are two different things. In fact they are mutually exclusive. To the extent that democracy allows the majority to impose things on a minority without its consent, it is just as contrary to the consent of the governed as monarchy is. And to whatever extent that the ability of the majority to dictate to government what it ought to do against the wishes of a minority is limited, to that extent it is not democratic. Which did the founders advocate, democracy or consent of the governed? It can't be both.

I'm not an Ayn Rand fan. But I just saw this interview, and since it goes with this thread and I happen to agree with most of her points here, I'll post it:
YouTube - Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0)

[PaulaGem]

Democracy and consent of the governed are two different things. In fact they are mutually exclusive. To the extent that democracy allows the majority to impose things on a minority without its consent, it is just as contrary to the consent of the governed as monarchy is. And to whatever extent that the ability of the majority to dictate to government what it ought to do against the wishes of a minority is limited, to that extent it is not democratic. Which did the founders advocate, democracy or consent of the governed? It can't be both.



You have to make the following distinctions:

Pure democracy.
Representational Democracy.
Democratic Process.

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.

In that there are Constitutional limitations aimed at controlling the tyranny of the majority, that is the Constitutional Republic.

The limitations on democracy are the covenant of the Constitution and the method of democratic expression - representational democracy.

They all work together and you can't separate these elements without having the system implode.

The fact that we no longer have the consent of the governed expressed through democratic (on more local levels) and representational democratic means is the reason the system has quit working.

[Andrew-Austin]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

It means rule by a mob majority of 50-60%, over the minority. And in a representative democracy, it just means the minority of elected politicians rule. No the elected rulers don't have to, and usually do not represent the people who voted for them at all. Since today's rulers are not bound by law, and they have the camouflage of "the people's consent" thanks to Democracy, they have more power than any tyrant king could have hoped to accumulate and abuse in the past.

Who cares what the founding father believed in, their dead and did not live to see how fucked up their democratic republic would become. I'm pretty sure most of the "founding fathers" believed that people or states could voluntarily leave the union if they wanted to. That is not possible today, the rules have changed thanks to democracy.

If you want to actually read a critique of Democracy, I suggest you read Hans Herman Hoppe's book The God that Failed, he systematically tears apart the idea that democracy is a 'good or ideal system'. It is a failed idea, and a dirty word. You would do yourself a favor to read it, and save a little face by no longer repeating the delusion that "democracy is the consent of the governed".

[FrankRep]

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.

YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

[acptulsa]

This is a lot of discussion on a non-issue, and it's getting pretty circular.

What have we learned? That democracy is a misused word. And so long as we refuse to properly understand our terms, we are going to have trouble ensuring that our voices get heard in the halls of power.

Hell, what does the phrase 'democratic principles' mean? It's like old Saran Wrap--stretched, twisted, and easier to see through than to see. Was it originally intended to muddy discussion with its vaugeness, or did it just work out that way?

While I admit that we shouldn't alienate people by wandering about the countryside yelling 'democracy sucks!' at the top of our lungs, there's no way I'm looking to replace Tulsa's city council with a direct, pure democracy either. The very idea scares the $#!+ out of me. Can anyone blame me for that?

[PaulaGem]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"

[FrankRep]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"
What if people vote to burn you at the stake for being a witch?

Democracy = Mob Rule

[PaulaGem]

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.



The electoral college only elects the president. Our fathers believed in democracy - they only wanted to protect the system from abuse. Hence our system of representational democracy.

[acptulsa]

Our fathers believed in democracy -

I'm not sure mine knew the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The founding fathers did, and their views are well documented in this thread. They seem to have taken a dim view of pure democracy.

[PaulaGem]

This is a lot of discussion on a non-issue, and it's getting pretty circular.

What have we learned? That democracy is a misused word. And so long as we refuse to properly understand our terms, we are going to have trouble ensuring that our voices get heard in the halls of power.

Hell, what does the phrase 'democratic principles' mean? It's like old Saran Wrap--stretched, twisted, and easier to see through than to see. Was it originally intended to muddy discussion with its vaugeness, or did it just work out that way?

While I admit that we shouldn't alienate people by wandering about the countryside yelling 'democracy sucks!' at the top of our lungs, there's no way I'm looking to replace Tulsa's city council with a direct, pure democracy either. The very idea scares the $#!+ out of me. Can anyone blame me for that?


But do you believe that Tulsa's city council should be elected in a purely democratic fashion?

Isn't the corruption of democratic process the reason that the elected officials don't feel that they have to answer to the people anymore?

[Andrew-Austin]

Ultimately the power rests in the Electoral College, not the people. We are ruled by Law and not ruled by the majority.

The founding fathers hated Democracy because it's mob rule; Tyranny of the Majority.


Learn the Truth about the American form of Government.

And I hope you don't say that like that is a good thing. Oh but we have the electoral college, a group of saints way above the lowly drooling masses! Even if in theory they had any significant power to go against the majority vote, they most certainly would not do so just to uphold the constitution. In practice they just quickly approve whoever won the general election, after Obama won everybody talked as if it were a fact that he was already President.


YouTube - The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE)

That is such a dim witted propaganda video, give me a break.

Lowly peasant: "What have you imposed on me without my consent God king master Franklin?"

Heavenly founding father: "A Republic with a very very strong democratic tradition, until it inevitably eats itself up"

[erowe1]

From the Rand interview - "the whole people elects, there is nothing wrong with the democratic process"

That's correct. She's talking about electing officials, and nothing else. The people have no right to grant the government powers beyond what they as individuals have. The context of the discussion leading up to that makes it clear that that's her view. Though I disagree with her on a lot of things, I happen to agree with her on both parts of that. There is nothing wrong with using democratic means of making decisions that in no way infringe on the consent of the governed. But allowing certain things to be decided democratically and having a democracy as a form of government are two different things.

When you say above:

In that the power rests ultimately in the people, the consent of the governed, that is democracy.
that is nothing short of total redefinition of the word "democracy." That is not a democracy. Furthermore, that is not the position of the founders.

The Declaration of Independence states:

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
It does not say that only certain governments, such as democracies or republics, derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, but that all governments do, whatever form they take. Of course governments also exercise unjust powers that are not derived from the consent of the governed, which the Declaration also addresses in a number of specific cases. But both of these parts are true of both democracies and monarchies. Both have just powers that derive from the consent of the governed and unjust powers that do not. The purpose of this phrase is not to advocate one form of choosing leaders over another, the purpose is to advocate the right of secession. And that is where the consent of the governed is most apparent in any government. To the extent that it permits secession it has a greater respect for consent of the governed. The process of how officials are selected is beside the point.

[acptulsa]

But do you believe that Tulsa's city council should be elected in a purely democratic fashion?

Isn't the corruption of democratic process the reason that the elected officials don't feel that they have to answer to the people anymore?

Want to get technical? Tulsa's city council can't be elected in a purely democratic fashion, but its water rates could be set in a purely democratic fashion. As it is, its council is elected more or less (more, in truth) on democratic principles. If Wikipedia is to be believed, it could be called a liberal democracy, in that it's more complex than a represenative democracy but, unlike the national republic, several issues (particularly sales tax questions) are decided by the people, not the council.

Regardless of the fine lines that sort of seperate these definitions, the 'democratic process' has a techinical definition that goes far beyond an application to pure democracy. But, no, that definition doesn't stretch far enough to cover the corruption we enjoy today...

[PaulaGem]

I'm not sure mine knew the difference between a democracy and a republic.

The founding fathers did, and their views are well documented in this thread. They seem to have taken a dim view of pure democracy.

Yes, but this board does seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Pure democracy" even back then was impractical on a national level. They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

[FrankRep]

Our fathers believed in democracy

These founding fathers?

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
- John Quincy Adams

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

I think it's safe to say the founding fathers HATED democracy.

[acptulsa]

Yes, but this board does seem to have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. "Pure democracy" even back then was impractical on a national level. They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

Definitely not. The Athenians built their house on sand. But the stones of that fallen house provided a pretty good foundation for us. People complain that the Constitution didn't ultimately completely check tyranny, though even today it isn't completely inept at retarding its growth, and that's 220 years later. But we've sure outlasted Athens, haven't we?

Even so, if they hadn't done their experiment and documented it well, who knows if any nation could have dragged the world out of the Dark Ages and into the light of a post-Renaissance age the way we did?

[erowe1]

They also created the constitutional protections in an attempt to control the possible abuses of pure democracy. That does not mean that they abandoned all democratic principles.

That's correct. They didn't abandon all possible use of democratic means of decision making in all possible contexts. They just abandoned democracy as a form of government.

Most of the amendments that have been made to our Constitution since the time of the Civil War have been amendments that make the USA run more democratically than the original Constitution allowed. These happened because, unlike the founders, more and more powerful Americans over the years did come to appreciate democracy as a form of government much more than the founders did. Each and every one of these changes has had the effect of making this nation one that respects the consent of the governed less than it used to, not more. Likewise, the driving principle of our current foreign policy to make other countries become more democratic, is one that simultaneously makes those countries less respectful of the consent of the governed. This is true in two important ways: 1) The democracies themselves act against certain citizens without their consent, such as Christians in Iraq; 2) The entire process of a foreign power taking over a country, rather than the people of that country itself doing it, is one that is opposed to the principle that those peoples' government must derive from their consent.

[PaulaGem]

These founding fathers?

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
- John Quincy Adams

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
- John Adams

I think it's safe to say the founding fathers HATED democracy.

NO, that is an overstatement. They feared the abuse of democracy and tried to guard against it.



. If there have been those who doubted whether a confederated representative democracy were a government competent to the wise and orderly management of the common concerns of a mighty nation, those doubts have been dispelled; if there have been projects of partial confederacies to be erected upon the ruins of the Union, they have been scattered to the winds; if there have been dangerous attachments to one foreign nation and antipathies against another, they have been extinguished. Ten years of peace, at home and abroad, have assuaged the animosities of political contention and blended into harmony the most discordant elements of public opinion There still remains one effort of magnanimity, one sacrifice of prejudice and passion, to be made by the individuals throughout the nation who have heretofore followed the standards of political party. It is that of discarding every remnant of rancor against each other, of embracing as countrymen and friends, and of yielding to talents and virtue alone that confidence which in times of contention for principle was bestowed only upon those who bore the badge of party communion.

http://www.usa-presidents.info/inaugural/jqadams.html





Thomas Paine Believed in a Democratic Government:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KShaeJiP_doJ:www.cesa6.k12.wi.us/newsfile17020_1.doc+representation+ingrafted+on+de mocracy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us (http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:KShaeJiP_doJ:www.cesa6.k12.wi.us/newsfile17020_1.doc+representation+ingrafted+on+de mocracy&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)



In order to gain a clear and just idea of the design and end of government, let us suppose a small number of persons settled in some sequestered part of the earth, unconnected with the rest… Some convenient tree will afford them a State-House, under the branches of which, the whole colony may assemble to deliberate on public matters. It is more than probable that their first laws will have the title only of REGULATIONS, and be enforced by no other penalty than public disesteem. In this first parliament every man, by natural right, will have a seat.



Paine believed in representative democracy.




By ingrafting representation upon democracy, we arrive at a system of government capable of embracing and confederating all the various interests and every extent of territory and population... It is on this system that the American government is founded. It is representation ingrafted upon democracy…. What Athens was in miniature America will be in magnitude.




James Madison on representative democracy:


Further Madison claims, in "The Federalist No. 10" (1787), the effect of a representative legislature would be to "refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" (p. 409). Representative, as opposed to directly participatory, institutions provide more continuity and stability, as representative bodies are less likely than the people to act on sudden changes of opinion. Through the new science of electoral engineering a representative government can be made to aim more reliably at a general good that encompasses the interests and preferences of many, more reliably than if all individuals in the people were polled directly. In "The Federalist No. 51" (1788), Madison says a multiplicity of overlapping and opposed constituencies, resulting from divided government and federalism, would make majority domination less likely "by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable" (p. 166). Madison hoped that such institutions would reduce the importance of personal, that is, patron-client, ties between electors and their representatives. Such corruption was endemic in early parliamentary politics, and broad programmatic policies often suffered as a result.

[FrankRep]

James Madison on representative democracy:

Quote:
Further Madison claims, in "The Federalist No. 10" (1787), the effect of a representative legislature would be to "refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations" (p. 409). Representative, as opposed to directly participatory, institutions provide more continuity and stability, as representative bodies are less likely than the people to act on sudden changes of opinion. Through the new science of electoral engineering a representative government can be made to aim more reliably at a general good that encompasses the interests and preferences of many, more reliably than if all individuals in the people were polled directly. In "The Federalist No. 51" (1788), Madison says a multiplicity of overlapping and opposed constituencies, resulting from divided government and federalism, would make majority domination less likely "by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable" (p. 166). Madison hoped that such institutions would reduce the importance of personal, that is, patron-client, ties between electors and their representatives. Such corruption was endemic in early parliamentary politics, and broad programmatic policies often suffered as a result.

Where does Madison talk about democracy in the above statement?


Read this quote:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

[PaulaGem]

Where does Madison talk about democracy in the above statement?


Read this quote:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
- James Madison

It is clearly inferred if you choose not to ignore it. He is speaking directly to the issue being discussed here - representational vs direct democracy.

Our current system is derailed because those bodies do not answer to the people through democratic process. To remove the entire concept of democratic participation in the system is to leave it open to the sort of abuse we have now.

Why do you people insist on over simplifying a complex issue?

[erowe1]

NO, that is an overstatement. They feared the abuse of democracy and tried to guard against it.




http://www.usa-presidents.info/inaugural/jqadams.html





Thomas Paine Believed in a Democratic Government:





Paine believed in representative democracy.





James Madison on representative democracy:

You're mixing disparate things together here. Madison does not express himself at all like Paine does. Madison does not at any point in your quote advocate democracy. In fact, it appears to me that he carefully avoids use of the term democracy in his explanation of representation. And he explicitly pits representation against a form of government that involves all of the people in a direct poll, preferring the former to the latter. Representation and democracy are not the same thing, nor is it impossible to have representation without democracy.

Paine, on the other hand does speak favorably of a form of democracy where he hypothetically discusses the parliamentary forum that he imagines would arise among a group of people inhabiting some new ungoverned place. But nowhere in this does he advocate majority rule. The only decisions that could be made by such a forum that could respect the consent of the governed would be unanimous decisions. But requiring unanimous decisions is not at all what most people have in mind when they advocate a democratic form of government.

[erowe1]

It is cleraly [sic] inferred [sic] if you choose not to ignore it. He is speaking directly to the issue being discussed here - representational vs direct democracy.

That's right, he's contrasting representation (which is not democracy) with democracy, and saying the former is better than the latter. If, on the other hand, you mean to adduce his quote as evidence that he regarded the representational government he advocated as a form of democracy, such as you claim it is, then there is nothing in his quote that indicates agreement with you on that point.

[FrankRep]

It is clearly inferred if you choose not to ignore it. He is speaking directly to the issue being discussed here - representational vs direct democracy.

Our current system is derailed because those bodies do not answer to the people through democratic process. To remoce the entire concept of democratic participation in the system is to leave it open to the sort of abuse we have now.

Why do you people insist on over simplifying a complex issue?

I see him promoting Representation, I can agree with that.

Voting doesn't equal democracy.

[FrankRep]

The founding fathers called our system a Constitutional Republic.

Lets call it that.

[powerofreason]

"Rule by the people"

My, you are brainwashed.

Democracy is a tool used by your rulers to increase their legitimacy, fool.

[PaulaGem]

That's right, he's contrasting representation (which is not democracy) with democracy, and saying the former is better than the latter. If, on the other hand, you mean to adduce his quote as evidence that he regarded the representational government he advocated as a form of democracy, such as you claim it is, then there is nothing in his quote that indicates agreement with you on that point.

OK - if they aren't representing the demos who are they representing, the corporations?

[acptulsa]

Why do you people insist on over simplifying a complex issue?

Because simple concepts can most easily be turned into rock-solid principles, and those in turn can make a nice, firm foundation for something better than what we have today. If you can pull it off without selecting something that doesn't turn out as solid as you hoped.

[torchbearer]

OK - if they aren't representing the demos who are they representing, the corporations?

the highest bidder?

[erowe1]

OK - if they aren't representing the demos who are they representing, the corporations?

It doesn't matter. Having the people represented in government (what Madison advocated) and having a nation ruled by the people (democracy, i.e. what Madison hated) are two different things. In fact, having people represented in a government does not necessarily entail those people who are being represented voting on anything at all, including who their representatives are. It may or may not entail that, but it doesn't by definition have to.

[FrankRep]

Why do you people insist on over simplifying a complex issue?

Why are you stuck on the word "Democracy" ? It is a government system and not an action or process.

Republics can also vote, but we are not ruled by the vote. We are ruled by rule.

[acptulsa]

It seems to me democracy is a far dirtier word than democratic.

[acptulsa]

Why are you stuck on the word "Democracy" ?

Maybe because she sees us confusing many people who, if they weren't confused, might be very sympathetic to us?

[FrankRep]

Maybe because she sees us confusing many people who, if they weren't confused, might be very sympathetic to us?
Instead of defending "Democracy" as a form of government, she needs to be clear that she feels that the public doesn't know what the terms Republic and Democracy mean. We need to be sensitive about that.

That's understandable.

[erowe1]

Instead of defending "Democracy" as a form of government, she needs to be clear that she feels that the public doesn't know what the terms Republic and Democracy mean. We need to be sensitive about that.

That's understandable.

But even within that distinction there is a range of how democratic a representative republic can be. And there's a common notion that the more democratic it is the better. As a result, we have things like the 17th amendment, and the current growing push to abolish the electoral college, and the desire of many to get rid of presidential term limits. These things don't entirely negate the fact that the USA is a representative republic. But they are clearly things that made or would make it more democratic, and at the same time they result in it being a place that is less respectful of the consent of the governed.

So I think it's important to stick to our guns on "democracy" not being a necessarily good thing (although, depending on the context, a democratic process is not always a bad thing either). We can't concede that making our government more democratic would improve it, nor should we allow that the criticism of this or that idea as an undemocratic one is a valid criticism. Even within a representative republic there can be methods of determining things about the government that are either more or less democratic than others, and more democratic does not equal better. And it certainly doesn't equal more respect for the consent of the governed. Consent of the governed is an ideal we should always pursue to maximize, whereas democratic-ness is not.

[PaulaGem]

It doesn't matter. Having the people represented in government (what Madison advocated) and having a nation ruled by the people (democracy, i.e. what Madison hated) are two different things. In fact, having people represented in a government does not necessarily entail those people who are being represented voting on anything at all, including who their representatives are. It may or may not entail that, but it doesn't by definition have to.

Maybe we should find some wonderful selfless Illuminati to take over that responsibility for use poor ole plebeians.

We have a representative democracy. Theoretically we vote people into office and expect them to represent their constituency. The vote is broken and the machine and the dollar press rule - that's why the representative democracy no longer works like our forefathers designed it to work.

Note - "the people" have changed too. They have gone from semi-literate farmers to blue collar factory workers, and now a bunch of media besotted drones.

If "the people" were concerned individuals who cared about their community and the way they are governed, if they believed they had a snowball's chance in hell of changing things, I think "the people" could and should have a bigger voice.

[FrankRep]

We have a representative democracy. Theoretically we vote people into office and expect them to represent their constituency.

We have a Constitutional Republic.

[PaulaGem]

But even within that distinction there is a range of how democratic a representative republic can be. And there's a common notion that the more democratic it is the better. As a result, we have things like the 17th amendment, and the current growing push to abolish the electoral college, and the desire of many to get rid of presidential term limits. These things don't entirely negate the fact that the USA is a representative republic. But they are clearly things that made or would make it more democratic, and at the same time they result in it being a place that is less respectful of the consent of the governed.

So I think it's important to stick to our guns on "democracy" not being a necessarily good thing (although, depending on the context, a democratic process is not always a bad thing either). We can't concede that making our government more democratic would improve it, nor should we allow that the criticism of this or that idea as an undemocratic one is a valid criticism. Even within a representative republic there can be methods of determining things about the government that are either more or less democratic than others, and more democratic does not equal better. And it certainly doesn't equal more respect for the consent of the governed. Consent of the governed is an ideal we should always pursue to maximize, whereas democratic-ness is not.

I believe the push for the electoral college has become greater because the people KNOW they are getting cheated at the polls, they just don't fully understand how it is being done.

I also think the electoral college was more necessary before electronic communication and modern travel. Perhaps its time is past because the conditions which brought it about no longer exist.

[PaulaGem]

We have a Constitutional Republic.

Constitutional Republic and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive.

[FrankRep]

Constitutional Republic and representative democracy are not mutually exclusive.
Why not just call it a Constitutional Republic then?

[erowe1]

I believe the push for the electoral college has become greater because the people KNOW they are getting cheated at the polls, they just don't fully understand how it is being done.

I also think the electoral college was more necessary before electronic communication and modern travel. Perhaps its time is past because the conditions which brought it about no longer exist.

I find it strange that you would say that. I don't see a great push for the electoral college right now. But I do see a big push for abolishing it. This would be a move toward being more democratic, as well as having government more bound by the will of the majority and less bound by the consent of the governed.

[PaulaGem]

Instead of defending "Democracy" as a form of government, she needs to be clear that she feels that the public doesn't know what the terms Republic and Democracy mean. We need to be sensitive about that.

That's understandable.

What you need to understand is what a word means to you may not be what that word means to someone else. Yes, you need to be sensitive to the feelings of others and try to understand what they are actually expressing, not react to the word being used.

[PaulaGem]

I find it strange that you would say that. I don't see a great push for the electoral college right now. But I do see a big push for abolishing it. This would be a move toward being more democratic, as well as having government more bound by the will of the majority and less bound by the consent of the governed.

I was typing quickly , I meant push to abolish actually.

I don't think it would mean government more bound by the will of the majority, I think it would mean government more responsive to the people as a whole as opposed to the political machine.

Given those two choices, I prefer the will of the people.

[PaulaGem]

Why not just call it a Constitutional Republic then?

This thread was started because I perceived an over reaction to the term "democracy" and that it was being treated as a dirty word. The concept of democracy is an integral part of the Constitutional system, it won't work without it and we are seeing the consequences of that now.

[FrankRep]

Given those two choices, I prefer the will of the majority.

What if the majority decides you're a witch and you need to be burned at the stake?

The majority rules!

[FrankRep]

This thread was started because I perceived an over reaction to the term "democracy" and that it was being treated as a dirty word. The concept of democracy is an integral part of the Constitutional system, it won't work without it and we are seeing the consequences of that now.
Where is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

[acptulsa]

What if the majority decides you're a witch and you need to be burned at the stake?

The majority rules!

Foul! Changing her words when you quote her--five yard penalty and loss of down.

[FrankRep]

Foul! Changing her words when you quote her--five yard penalty and loss of down.
I'm just showing that your liberties/freedoms can be taken away through the "will of the majority."

[erowe1]

Foul! Changing her words when you quote her--five yard penalty and loss of down.

Ummmm, he neither quoted her nor changed her words.

[acptulsa]

Ummmm, he neither quoted her nor changed her words.

Look again.

[PaulaGem]

Where is the word "democracy" used in the Constitution?

We the People of the United States=demos, kratis=rule

Since "We the People" are taking credit for the Constitution and establishing it as the rule of law.

That spells democracy folks.

[tremendoustie]

Yes, the idea of a majority using coercive, aggressive violence on a minority in order to steal their property and liberty is very dirty.

[PaulaGem]

Yes, the idea of a majority using coercive, aggressive violence on a minority in order to steal their property and liberty is very dirty.

Maybe you just have a dirty mind......

[FrankRep]

We the People of the United States=demos, kratis=rule

Since "We the People" are taking credit for the Constitution and establishing it as the rule of law.

That spells democracy folks.
We are ruled by LAW, not by the majority.

[mediahasyou]

Your vote is enforced by force. If you disagree with a vote that raises your taxes and don't pay them. Gangsters will take you away and lock you up in a cage. If you resist the gangsters, they will shoot you.

Most of modern civilization relies on voluntary cooperation. We don't need the state to enforce a tip to be given to a waitress. It is done voluntarily. Here is how the rest of society would work voluntarily: http://www.mississaugatherapy.com/FDR_Books/FDR_5_Practical_Anarchy.pdf

[erowe1]

Look again.

OK. I looked again. He didn't change her words. I suppose he did quote her if you are referring just to the blue box he included using the "quote in reply" function.

[Jags~Beach]

Democracy allowed our nation to be sold out to the highest bidder. Seeing America lose battle after battle as the liberals waged their war for the minds of the masses, and the mainstream media having soldout its journalistic integrity to wage its liberal campaign on the masses to the point of forcing the mainstream towards the sea of socialism, has this guy thinking that democracy has proven what an utter failure of an ideology it has been

For a democracy is only as strong as its people and when you have the masses led astray by propaganda that goes aganst the grain of the heritage in which this country was forged it just proves that democracy is a joke.

In the end it is not about democracy but the ideology of a people. When you have the people buying into an ideology that will permanently remove liberty from them, then no democracy in the world is going to help that people anand when that people is america then no democracy in the world is going to help the world in asuring it of liberty and freedom, because when it dies here, it dies forever for there is no power in the world that can stand to the might of the power developed by freedom to preserve freedom, freedom built it and tyrrrany just hijacked it once and for all.

the ideology of freedom has been sold out by democracy, democracy stinks, to prove it all one has to do is ask did democracy allow the majority of independant people who chose to be made dependant on the government, force the rest of the people to be made dependant as well, while having their rights replaced with having to answer to government officials regarding virtually every aspect of their lives thanks to allowing the health care agenda to supercede our bill of rights? Oh this has not happened yet... be patient...

[tremendoustie]

We are ruled by LAW, not by the majority.

And who made that law, FrankRep?

[FrankRep]

And who made that law, FrankRep?
The majority doesn't overrule the law.
Who made the law? --> It's Natural Law or God's Law.


The Law > Democracy

[Krugerrand]

original setup:
electoral college elects president
state legislators elect senators
president selects SC judges

direct election to house of Reps by people (primarily men) who own land.

No land, no vote for anything.

That doesn't sound Democratic to me. It was built that way for a reason ... the majority cannot be trusted.

That said, there was a vehicle for if things get out of control ... but it takes a lot of voting. The branches of government check themselves not the majority.

Individuals all got to own guns. That was their protection from the government. (and it worked)

[PaulaGem]

Democracy allowed our nation to be sold out to the highest bidder. Seeing America lose battle after battle as the liberals waged their war for the minds of the masses, and the mainstream media having soldout its journalistic integrity to wage its liberal campaign on the masses to the point of forcing the mainstream towards the sea of socialism, has this guy thinking that democracy has proven what an utter failure of an ideology it has been

For a democracy is only as strong as its people and when you have the masses led astray by propaganda that goes aganst the grain of the heritage in which this country was forged it just proves that democracy is a joke.

In the end it is not about democracy but the ideology of a people. When you have the people buying into an ideology that will permanently remove liberty from them, then no democracy in the world is going to help that people anand when that people is america then no democracy in the world is going to help the world in asuring it of liberty and freedom, because when it dies here, it dies forever for there is no power in the world that can stand to the might of the power developed by freedom to preserve freedom, freedom built it and tyrrrany just hijacked it once and for all.

the ideology of freedom has been sold out by democracy, democracy stinks, to prove it is democracy that allows the majority of independant people to choose to be made dependant on the government, while forcing the rest of the people to be made dependant as well.

Creeping fascism trashed this country. We will never know if the exercise of the process outlined in the Constitiution could have pulled us back from the brink because we haven't had an honest vote or the opportunity to exercise tht process in a very long time.

[Theocrat]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

Is the 51% always right? Better yet, does having a 51% vote come from a decision by a majority vote (think about that question deeply before you answer)?

[PaulaGem]

Is the 51% always right? Better yet, does having a 51% vote come from a decision by a majority vote (think about that question deeply before you answer)?

I don't answer silly quibbling questions by people that don't understand what the really important issues are.

[FrankRep]

I don't answer silly quibbling questions by people that don't understand what the really important issues are.
It scares me that words are changing meanings... We must protect ourselves from this corruption. The founding fathers opposed the original meaning of "Democracy."

[acptulsa]

It scares me that words are changing meanings...

You might as well try to outlaw erosion, though--or evolution. The main thing is, we either need to remember to include proper definitions so we're absolutely clear as we try to reeducate people, or we need to use the language as we find it. What we don't need to do is go off on a temper tantrum when someone uses the word, as this is not what you'd call good salesmanship.

[Original_Intent]

original setup:
electoral college elects president
governors select senators <-- I believe it was state legislatures, not governors. Or it may have been up to each state to decide how they picked their senators.
president selects SC judges

direct election to house of Reps by people (primarily men) who own land.

No land, no vote for anything.

That doesn't sound Democratic to me. It was built that way for a reason ... the majority cannot be trusted.

That said, there was a vehicle for if things get out of control ... but it takes a lot of voting. The branches of government check themselves not the majority.

Individuals all got to own guns. That was their protection from the government. (and it worked)

Good post, one possible error

[torchbearer]

Good post, one possible error

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

[acptulsa]

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

Nope, he's outlining the Constitutional setup pre-amendments. And, yes, I believe it was state legislatures.

[Original_Intent]

i think the guy was thinking about governors appointing interim senators if one resigns or dies in office.

Ah, reading his entire post I took it to mean that he was laying out how different offices were elected originally under the Constitution. I could have misinterpreted though.

[Krugerrand]

Nope, he's outlining the Constitutional setup pre-amendments. And, yes, I believe it was state legislatures.

Good catch guys. I did get that one right in spirit ... wrong in detail.

[Original_Intent]

Good catch guys. I did get that one right in spirit ... wrong in detail.

Yeah and it was a critical difference in the way things are now. A Senator's MAIN JOB was making sure that no law was passed that infringed on state's rights. This meant the legislature was jealously guarding their turf by electing people as Senator that would defend their sovereign rights. And if a Senator failed to do so he was out.

Making Senators elected by popular vote was a much more significant "nail in the Constitutional coffin" than most poeple realize.

[PaulaGem]

You might as well try to outlaw erosion, though--or evolution. The main thing is, we either need to remember to include proper definitions so we're absolutely clear as we try to reeducate people, or we need to use the language as we find it. What we don't need to do is go off on a temper tantrum when someone uses the word, as this is not what you'd call good salesmanship.

OK- from what I've read the founding fathers were afraid of PURE democracy. The system we have was intended to give people a say in government and to that extent it is democratic (literally the people rule) . The constitutional checks and balances were an attempt do devise a system that would protect minority rights but permit democratic decision making - especially at the local level - with a representational system that goes up the chain of command to the presidency.

As we have found out, this is a delicate system that can easily get off balance. When demos no longer has a say, it quits working.

I find it extremely ironic that the "Ron Paul grassroots column" seeks to empower the people but is so afraid of a word that serves to give people a feeling of empowerment.

What is the origin of this prejudice? It is a prejudice, you know. The term representative democracy is used to describe our system of government by both lay people and scholars, but when I use it all sorts of horrible connotations are given to the term that I have never heard outside of the Libertarian movement. What kind of group think do you have going here? Is it doing more harm than good to your cause?

[acptulsa]

What kind of group think do you have going here? Is it doing more harm than good to your cause?

Is 'groupthink' the right word, or is it education? There are many comments on how the meaning of the word is eroding, and this is muddying the waters. Yeah, it makes people feel empowered. Thing is, tptb and it's pet dog the media use it to make people feel empowered even when they aren't. And that's what gets blood pressures up.

I think it an important educational point. I just hope more of us have more patient ways to educate people on the difference than we've seen used around here...

[Original_Intent]

Paula I think you misunderstand - people and "scholars" have either been programmed or are actively programming everyone to think of the U.S as a democracy or if they start to be called on it they will grumblingly acknowledge "democratic republic".

And of course democracy is not a dirty word to you, you have already said that communism, socialism, etc are also equally acceptable to you. You just want the "workers of the world" to unite and throw off their oppressors, unfortunately, the people on this forum know history too well to fall for your Leninist agitation strategies.

[Krugerrand]

OK- from what I've read the founding fathers were afraid of PURE democracy. The system we have was intended to give people a say in government and to that extent it is democratic (literally the people rule) . The constitutional checks and balances were an attempt do devise a system that would protect minority rights but permit democratic decision making - especially at the local level - with a representational system that goes up the chain of command to the presidency.

I would say they feared more than "PURE democracy." First of all, these people never requested a national referendum on whether to separate from England. They imposed their will on a generally agreeable populace.

They put a system in place that was based on universal distrust. They did not trust those governing. They did not trust militaries. They did not trust local officials. They did not trust bankers. They especially did not trust THE VOTERS. The voters had virtually no say on the national level. Protecting individual property rights was a high priority. Non land owners could not vote to discourage a system that would allow people to vote away somebody else property. The last thing they wanted to see was "democratic decision making." The advantage to keeping things at a local level was that it kept responsibility closer to accountability and drastically reduced the impact that government can have in people's lives.

The check and balances were between the brances of government. The ability for voters to function as a "check" was essentially a last ditch avenue as an alternative to violence.

The constitution was not created to protect the minority. It was there to protect everybody's basic rights.

[powerofreason]

Democracy allowed Hitler to take power, for one.

Monarchs had much less power than modern democratic leaders. They couldn't tax nearly as much, because their powers were in dispute and not clearly written down on paper. And they didn't involve the average citizen in their military adventures. Civilians were not generally targeted in war, either.

Democracy allowed all the US fascists and tyrants to take power and implement their evil plans. Representative government is a failure for 2 main reasons.

1. A representative can only truly represent himself.
2. Representatives vote to help out those people that contributed the most money to his/her election campaign. If they didn't, they wouldn't get re-elected. This leads to both fascism and socialism.

[DAaaMan64]

Imagine the sweet glances you'd get for the T-shirt:


"Patriot against American Democracy"

hahahaha

[powerofreason]

Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy/Republicanism (because there's really no such thing as pure democracy)

[powerofreason]

More reasons why monarchy is better than democracy:

1. A monarch "owns" his country. He has in interest in not wrecking/looting it. He wants to preserve its value.
2. A democratic leader is a temporary caregiver of a country. He has no real interest in preserving its value long term and may loot it/wreck it at will without consequence.
3. There is a chance with monarchy that the person who inherits the throne will be a benevolent and caring person.
4. A democratic leader is nearly always a lying sociopath thug. One has to be that way to succeed in politics.
5. Democracy gives the illusion of control by the people. This empowers the government to enact extraordinarily tyrannical laws, because there is the illusion that the people have automatically endorsed the actions of the elected official. (Even though all the candidates suck and people are choosing the one that sucks less.)

[PaulaGem]

You just want the "workers of the world" to unite and throw off their oppressors, unfortunately, the people on this forum know history too well to fall for your Leninist agitation strategies.

You're a real dickhead, aren't you?

[pcosmar]

You're a real dickhead, aren't you?

Well I can be. ;)
Does blunt and accurate = Dickhead ??


Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.
H. L. Mencken



“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Thomas Jefferson


“Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."
Oscar Wilde

Democracy is the road to socialism.
Karl Marx

[Original_Intent]

You're a real dickhead, aren't you?

You do bring out the best in me, Paula dear. ;)

[powerofreason]

Democracy allowed Hitler to take power, for one.

Monarchs had much less power than modern democratic leaders. They couldn't tax nearly as much, because their powers were in dispute and not clearly written down on paper. And they didn't involve the average citizen in their military adventures. Civilians were not generally targeted in war, either.

Democracy allowed all the US fascists and tyrants to take power and implement their evil plans. Representative government is a failure for 2 main reasons.

1. A representative can only truly represent himself.
2. Representatives vote to help out those people that contributed the most money to his/her election campaign. If they didn't, they wouldn't get re-elected. This leads to both fascism and socialism.


Natural Order > Monarchy > Democracy/Republicanism (because there's really no such thing as pure democracy)


More reasons why monarchy is better than democracy:

1. A monarch "owns" his country. He has in interest in not wrecking/looting it. He wants to preserve its value.
2. A democratic leader is a temporary caregiver of a country. He has no real interest in preserving its value long term and may loot it/wreck it at will without consequence.
3. There is a chance with monarchy that the person who inherits the throne will be a benevolent and caring person.
4. A democratic leader is nearly always a lying sociopath thug. One has to be that way to succeed in politics.
5. Democracy gives the illusion of control by the people. This empowers the government to enact extraordinarily tyrannical laws, because there is the illusion that the people have automatically endorsed the actions of the elected official. (Even though all the candidates suck and people are choosing the one that sucks less.)

Bump for truth.

[Original_Intent]

Bump for truth.

LOL, you quote yourself three times and then "Bump for Truth".

Not that I disagree with you, it just struck me as amusing.

[TortoiseDream]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

http://jamie-online.com/random-jamz/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/facepalm.jpg

[Conservative Christian]

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

~ Winston Churchill


.

[Conservative Christian]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu6.html

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution

------------------------

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

------------------------

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

-------------------------

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

-------------------------

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

--------------------------

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

--------------------------

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835


.

[BenIsForRon]

Jesus, this thread is a clusterfuck of nonsense.


direct election to house of Reps by people (primarily men) who own land.

No land, no vote for anything.

That doesn't sound Democratic to me. It was built that way for a reason ... the majority cannot be trusted.

Wow, did you even stop to think if that even sounds plausible? People in a free society are not going to allow other people to make decisions for them just because they have land. The only way to enforce your little ideal system is through violent suppression.

Second, Have you ever thought that some people might just prefer to rent, and don't care about owning land? Hell, some people don't really want to own anything, and would just rather live in a voluntary community. Should they not be allowed a vote?

Just think for two seconds about the implications of what you're saying. It's a fantasy world. Not reality.

[powerofreason]

LOL, you quote yourself three times and then "Bump for Truth".

Not that I disagree with you, it just struck me as amusing.

:D

[PaulaGem]

it means rule by the people. Our founding fathers believed in Democracy because they believed that legitimate government derived its power from the consent of the governed.

There may be technical variations on the way Democratic government is organized and administered but consent of the people (Demos), those who are governed, is still the only legitimate source of power for a government.

Back to the original post - I still stand by it.


What is consent of the governed and how does one know when it is in play? How does one tell the difference between consent of the governed and say resignation of the governed? Or even hopelessness of the governed? What if 51% of a population are somehow determined to have given their consent and 49% have been determined to have revoked their consent?

Please define "consent of the governed".



Securing social order through the formation of any government invariably requires the direct consent of those who are to be governed. (2nd Treatise §95) Each and every individual must concur in the the original agreement to form such a government, but it would be enormously difficult to achieve unanimous consent with respect to the particular laws it promulgates. So, in practice, Locke supposed that the will expressed by the majority must be accepted as determinative over the conduct of each individual citizen who consents to be governed at all. (2nd Treatise §97-98) Although he offered several historical examples of just such initial agreements to form a society, Locke reasonably maintained that this is beside the point. All people who voluntarily chooses to live within a society have implicitly or tacitly entered into its formative agreement, and thereby consented to submit themselves and their property to its governance. (2nd Treatise §119)

Locke on Consent of the governed. (http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4n.htm)


CHAP. VIII.

Of the Beginning of Political Societies.
Sect. 95. MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.


Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government (http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-b.html)


Apparently Locke believes that if you are in the 49% you can deal with it or leave. It sounds a lot like democracy to me.

[ChaosControl]

Yes it is mr potty mouth.

[PaulaGem]

The General Will
As Rousseau envisioned it, the general will [Fr. volonté générale] is not merely the cancelled-out sum of all the individual wills of those who participate in the social contract, the will of all [Fr. volonté de tous]. Indeed, he warned that the influence of parties representing special interests is directly inimical to the sort of sound public deliberation that can arrive at a consensus regarding the welfare of all. So thoroughly must each individual surrender to the whole as to acknowledge that "sa vie n'est plus seulement un bienfait de la nature, mais un don conditionnel de l'Etat". By entering into the original agreement, I have sworn to seek only the welfare of the community, no matter what the consequences may be for me. The general will must be concerned solely with the general interest, which is the inalienable responsibility of the sovereign body, expressed through legislation.


So to go back to a longstanding argument - if the community after due deliberation believes that second hand smoke is a general health hazard and undermines the welfare of the community they do have the right to outlaw smoking in public places under this theory of government.


The general will, abstractly considered as a commitment to the welfare of the whole, is indestructible in principle, Rousseau held, even though it may be overridden by undesirable motives in practice. The original contract requires perfect unanimity, and major issues should be decided by a major portion of the population, but simple matters requiring quick action may be determined by a simple majority. In each case, Rousseau supposed that open inquiry and debate will converge on an awareness by each individual of what is truly in the best interest of the community as a whole; and that is the general will. Positions of leadership that require skill should be decided by election, while those that demand only good sense should be chosen by lot.

http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/5d.htm#rous

[Theocrat]

I don't answer silly quibbling questions by people that don't understand what the really important issues are.

In other words, you have shown that you are unwilling to answer the questions which destroy your notion that "democracy is not a dirty word."

[ClayTrainor]

In other words, you have shown that you are unwilling to answer the questions which destroy your notion that "democracy is not a dirty word."

Theo FTW! :D

[PaulaGem]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu6.html

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution

"Lunches with Wolves" (the fake Ben Franklin quote on Democracy)
posted by Barry Popik
Wed, 01/24/2007 - 9:42pm
"Lunches with Wolves" was how Wednesday's New York Post editorial described Governor Spitzer's lunch with Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno. The editorial begins: "Democracy has been defined as two wolves and a sheep discussing plans for lunch."

A second line is often added: "Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

And finally the phrase is usually--incorrectly--attributed to Ben Franklin.

The word "lunch" wasn't popular until about the 1820s and would not have been said by Franklin. Wikipedia discusses that the quote is bogus and doesn't appear until 1994!

A colleague today found it in the Los Angeles Times, January 12, 1992:

"Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote. Those rights are spelled out in the Bill of Rights and in our California Constitution. Voters and politicians alike would do well to take a look at the rights we each hold, which must never be chipped away by the whim of the majority."

James Bovard is sometimes credited for the phrase, and he did use it in the Washington Times, August 29, 1992:

"The USDA's concept of democracy reminds one of the old joke: Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Why should the government give some farmers the power to vote to destroy other farmers' property rights?"

Perhaps two wolves and a lamb beats "three men in a room," but I dunno.

LINKS:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01242007/postopinion/editorials/lunches_with_wolves_editorials_.htm
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
[/QUOTE]


------------------------

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers


Duh.... that's why we don't have a PURE democracy.




"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

Perhaps we have suicided ourselves by not taking care of the democratic system of government we were given.




"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

Jeffersonian vision of democracy defined (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffersonian_democracy)

We currently have no evidence to confirm that Thomas Jefferson ever said or wrote, "Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%" or any of its listed variations. We do not know the source of this statement's attribution to Thomas Jefferson.
(http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Democracy_is_nothing_more_than_mob_rule)





"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution



In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority.
James Madison



The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to an uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
James Madison



James Madison Quote (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/james_madison_2.html)

So it seems that Mr. Madison applied critical thought to "Republics" and absolute right to property too... Gee whoda thunk it?

Also follow the link - there are some fantastic, almost prophetic quotes there.





"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

This did not mean he had a better suggestion, it just means that he was concerned that our democracy would not last. (and don't give me the Republic argument - nothing in the creation of this country denied the power of the demos.)



"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835





MR. CHAIRMAN, I conceive that the object of the discussion now before us is whether democracy or despotism be most eligible. I am sure that those who framed the system submitted to our investigation, and those who now support it, intend the establishment and security of the former. The supporters of the Constitution claim the title of being firm friends of the liberty and the rights of mankind. They say that they consider it as the best means of protecting liberty. We, sir, idolize democracy. Those who oppose it have bestowed eulogiums on monarchy. We prefer this system to any monarchy because we are convinced that it has a greater tendency to secure our liberty and promote our happiness. We admire it because we think it a well-regulated democracy: it is recommended to the good people of this country: they are, through us, to declare whether it be such a plan of government as will establish and secure their freedom. ......
What are the favorite maxims of democracy? A strict observance of justice and public faith and a steady adherence to virtue. These, sir, are the principles of a good government. No mischief, no misfortune, ought to deter us from a strict observance of justice and public faith. Would to heaven that these principles had been observed under the present government! Had this been the case the friends of liberty would not be so willing now to part with it. Can we boast that our government is founded on these maxims? Can we pretend to the enjoyment of political freedom or security when we are told that a man has been, by an act of Assembly, struck out of existence without a trial by jury, without examination, without being confronted with his accusers and witnesses, without the benefits of the law of the land? Where is our safety when we are told that this act was justifiable because the person was not a Socrates? What has become of the worthy member’s maxims? Is this one of them? Shall it be a maxim that a man shall be deprived of his life without the benefit of law? Shall such a deprivation of life be justified by answering that a man’s life was not taken secundem artem, because he was a bad man? Shall it be a maxim that government ought not to be empowered to protect virtue?


Source of the above quote from John Marshall (http://www.bartleby.com/268/8/21.html)


In conclusion, I now state that DEMOCRACY is one of the most precious words we possess. In it lies the only legitimate source of any governmental power. It appears that the folks on this board have been had...

You have bought into a pack of lies that would deprive you of this most precious of all rights, that of self government.

Our founding fathers were wise. They put checks and balances in against the different branches of government, but they also extended this system of checks and balances to the powers exercised by the people so that pure democracy would be tempered by the preservation of those unalienable rights which they fought so hard to establish in the Declaration and preserve in the Constitution.

This was not a denial of democratic right, it was an attempt to ground it and make it more permanent and lasting. If you deny democracy in our government you strip it of all possible claim to legitimacy.

[PaulaGem]

In other words, you have shown that you are unwilling to answer the questions which destroy your notion that "democracy is not a dirty word."

I have chosen to stop replying to someone I perceive to be baiting and argumentative because he has some unresolved psychological issues of self worth.

This party has also shown by his post below that he has no desire to think or read an argument when put before him, otherwise he would have read the post above and found that all of those supposed historical enemies of democracy actually embraced it wholeheartedly as an ideal to be sought after, their only reservations were in the practice of it and the ability of the people to sustain it.

Theocrat appears to be trolling and playing the demos on this board for a fool, how many others are doing the same thing, hoping to remove the Liberty from the Forest?

[Theocrat]

I have chosen to stop replying to someone I perceive to be baiting and argumentative because he has some unresolved psychological issues of self worth.

That statement is really irrelevant to the topic of your thread. I am seeking to show you why democracy is "a dirty word," but all you want to do is give personal attacks and evade questions. The only person dealing with "unresolved psychological issues of self-worth" is you, and that much is evident because you know the intent of the questions I asked you, and you're afraid to answer them, knowing what it proves about the title of your thread.

In many ways, you're no different than liberals who simply take their own political views for granted without evidence and engage in name-calling when they are proven wrong in their unfounded beliefs. It's very sad you have degenerated your own thread to that level, especially for someone who claims to be a "gnostic."

[TurtleBurger]

Democracy is political communism. Communism is economic democracy.

[PaulaGem]

Democracy is political communism. Communism is economic democracy.

Then you are against the Constitutional system of government that is in place in this country.

[TurtleBurger]

Then you are against the Constitutional system of government that is in place in this country.

How could you tell? :D

[Bucjason]

Paula, please watch this little video. It will explain everything you need to understand.

YouTube - Forms of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U08Y6KQVCtI)

awesome video....thanks for posting

[PaulaGem]

awesome video....thanks for posting

I've done my own research. Democracy is integral to our Constitutional Government.

[BenIsForRon]

Democracy is political communism. Communism is economic democracy.

You know that every time you buy something you're making a decision , or voting, as to what parts of society you'd like to support. How is that not a form of democracy?

[ClayTrainor]

"It turns out that Democracy as majority rule, is an effective means for achieving agreement on some things, on things that aren't really important. For really important things, we require much more than a simple majority, we require something as close to unanimity as we can get. That's why we have a constitution, as well as legislative law." - Milton Friedman

[LibertyEagle]

I've done my own research. Democracy is integral to our Constitutional Government.

We use democratic processes, Paula, but our Founders denounced the institute of Democracy and thus, gave us a limited Constitutional Republic as our form of government.

[PaulaGem]

"It turns out that Democracy as majority rule, is an effective means for achieving agreement on some things, on things that aren't really important. For really important things, we require much more than a simple majority, we require something as close to unanimity as we can get. That's why we have a constitution, as well as legislative law." - Milton Friedman


The most important notion that Milton Friedman staked his academic reputation on and that has been adopted in a variety of countries around the world is that societies that rely on the free market will improve the material well being of their people, much more so than if they relied on government to plan, motivate and guide their economics and the industry within those economies. Moreover, those free markets will be more conducive and compatible to the development of individual freedom and democracy.

Friedman seems to be another advocate of democracy. (http://jeffberkowitz.blogspot.com/2006/11/milton-friedman-rip.html)

It's interesting how all of the anti-democracy quotes put up by the trolls can be refuted by another quote by the same person. I sense a disruptive agenda here.

[PaulaGem]

We use democratic processes, Paula, but our Founders denounced the institute of Democracy and thus, gave us a limited Constitutional Republic as our form of government.

It seems to be an abusurdity to say that we can have democratic process without democracy, come on...

Our country is based on democratic principles. The founding fathers had concerns about PURE democracy, not democracy in totality. The Constitutional Republic is the form not the essence. Our founding fathers did not denounce demos as a source of governmental authority and power (democracy) they thought to preserve it by establishing inalienable right as the foundation.

[LibertyEagle]

It seems to be an abusurdity to say that we can have democratic process without democracy, come on...

Our country is based on democratic principles. The founding fathers had concerns about PURE democracy, not democracy in totality. The Constitutional Republic is the form not the essence. Our founding fathers did not denounce demos as a source of governmental authority and power (democracy) they thought to preserve it by establishing inalienable right as the foundation.

Paula, you are splitting hairs here. One can utilize democratic processes, i.e. voting, and still have a form of government that is founded on representative government and the Rule of Law. Thus, a limited constitutional republic.

The Founders told us what they were giving us, Paula. Ben Franklin told us after they had finished. The proof is in the pudding by what they wrote.

Why is it that you are trying so hard to sell us otherwise? What do you think is going to be gained?

[FrankRep]

It seems to be an abusurdity to say that we can have democratic process without democracy, come on...

Our country is based on democratic principles. The founding fathers had concerns about PURE democracy, not democracy in totality. The Constitutional Republic is the form not the essence. Our founding fathers did not denounce demos as a source of governmental authority and power (democracy) they thought to preserve it by establishing inalienable right as the foundation.

Voting doesn't equal Democracy. Besides, the electoral college chooses the president, not the people.

We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Democracy.

[PaulaGem]

Paula, you are splitting hairs here. One can utilize democratic processes, i.e. voting, and still have a form of government that is founded on representative government and the Rule of Law. Thus, a limited constitutional republic.

The Founders told us what they were giving us, Paula. Ben Franklin told us after they had finished. The proof is in the pudding by what they wrote.

Why is it that you are trying so hard to sell us otherwise? What do you think is going to be gained?

I am not splitting hairs - the foundation on consent of the governed is democratic, the process is democratic.

What do you allege the Franklin told us after they had finished? I just disproved your pudding by their own words.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it is a duck.

What is to be gained is restoring the vote, restoring democratic process, and getting back to what this country is based on.

[FrankRep]

What is to be gained is restoring the vote, restoring democratic process, and getting back to what this country is based on.
White Male Land owners choose the representatives. How is this democratic?

[LibertyEagle]

Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government they had given us and he answered, "A republic, mam, if you can keep it".


What is to be gained is restoring the vote, restoring democratic process, and getting back to what this country is based on.

Well Paula, according to the Constitution, we directly elect our representatives to the House and to the Senate. The latter was not in the original and it was a huge mistake to change it to direct elect, because before the Senators had to answer to the respective state legislatures and thus furthered states' rights.

So yes, voting is important. But, what is more important is that regardless of what the majority of people want, their wants, in addition to our legislators' wants, are subject to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution. Without that rule of law, the majority (mob) and the legislators, would have free rein to vote more largess for themselves and to trample the liberty of the individual. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening right now, as we have allowed a slow and gradual erosion of our Constitution for over 100 years.

So, if you want to get back to what this country is founded on, then you want to reinstate the Constitution and the rule of law. That does not include anything about majority rule.

[PaulaGem]

More lies - what Franklin did't say:

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.
I have seen this attributed to him elsewhere, but not sure of its provenance. Anyone can confirm or deny it? -- 86.145.222.229 00:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Checking Google news, Google scholar and Google Books for "they can vote themselves money", I could find no attributions to Franklin earlier than 1988. By contrast, "time is money" is attributed to Franklin as early as 1850.[3]--Nowa123 04:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC) (http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin)



Quite possibly Alexander Tytler:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.

Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2181646/posts

Come on guys, back it up with facts and research - can't you see you are buying into a lie that erodes the very foundation of this country>

[PaulaGem]

Benjamin Franklin was asked what form of government they had given us and he answered, "A republic, mam, if you can keep it".


And the Republic is based on the inalienable rights of men and their right to form a government. That is democracy.



Well Paula, according to the Constitution, we directly elect our representatives to the House and to the Senate. The latter was not in the original and it was a huge mistake to change it to direct elect, because before the Senators had to answer to the respective state legislatures and thus furthered states' rights.

But was it done legally and according to due process?



So yes, voting is important. But, what is more important is that regardless of what the majority of people want, their wants, in addition to our legislators' wants, are subject to the rule of law embodied in our Constitution. Without that rule of law, the majority (mob) and the legislators, would have free rein to vote more largess for themselves and to trample the liberty of the individual. Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening right now, as we have allowed a slow and gradual erosion of our Constitution for over 100 years.



Bull.... the vote has been compromised for a hundred years and now it is totally broken - that is why the so-called legislators have free reign. It is not because democracy has failed us - it is because we have failed democracy.



So, if you want to get back to what this country is founded on, then you want to reinstate the Constitution and the rule of law. That does not include anything about majority rule.

Without restoring the vote - which is the means by which the people enforce their power in a civilized society - there is no way to reinstate the Constitution or the rule of law. The people are the only legitimate source of power for any government and they have been stripped of that power in this country. If by "majority rule" you mean pure democracy - I agree. But of course that isn't what we're talking about is it?

[FrankRep]

Come on guys, back it up with facts and research - can't you see you are buying into a lie that erodes the very foundation of this country>

I don't like the fact that other people can vote my freedoms away in a Democracy.

[FrankRep]

And the Republic is based on the inalienable rights of men and their right to form a government. That is democracy.

That is a Republic.

[PaulaGem]

I don't like the fact that other people can vote my freedoms away in a Democracy.

You have Constitutionally protected rights that theoretically can not be taken away by any vote. They can, however, be taken away by a power structure that nullifies the vote and the consent of the governed.

Think about it, which is really the more likely scenario?

[PaulaGem]

That is a Republic.

Wrong....



Republic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For other uses, see Republic (disambiguation).

This allegorical painting from 1682 depicts Berna, the personification of the Republic, as being protected by bears.A republic is a form of government in which the head of state is not a monarch[1] and the people (or at least a part of its people)[2] have an impact on its government.[3][4] The word 'republic' is derived from the Latin phrase res publica which can be translated as "public affairs".

Both modern and ancient republics vary widely in their ideology and composition. The most common definition of a republic is a state without a monarch,[5] In republics such as the US and France the executive is legitimated both by a constitution and by popular suffrage. In the United States Founding Fathers like James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to only having direct democracy[6], and this usage is still employed by many viewing themselves as "republicans".[7] In modern political science, republicanism refers to a specific ideology that is based on civic virtue and is considered distinct from ideologies such as liberalism.[8]

Most often a republic is a sovereign country, but there are also subnational entities that are referred to as republics. For instance the Soviet Union was composed of distinct Soviet Socialist Republics. Article IV of the Constitution of the United States "guarantee[s] to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government."[9]

Niccolò Machiavelli described the governance and foundation of the ideal republic in his work Discourses on Livy. These writings, as well as those of his contemporaries such as Leonardo Bruni, are the foundation of the ideology political scientists call republicanism.[10][11]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic

[PaulaGem]

Come on guys - think for yourself!!! Research these silly rants!

[FrankRep]

You have Constitutionally protected rights that theoretically can not be taken away by any vote. They can, however, be taken away by a power structure that nullifies the vote and the consent of the governed.

Think about it, which is really the more likely scenario?


"You have Constitutionally protected rights that theoretically can not be taken away by any vote"

How is this democracy? Democracy allows the people to vote those Constitutional freedoms away.

[TurtleBurger]

You know that every time you buy something you're making a decision , or voting, as to what parts of society you'd like to support. How is that not a form of democracy?

Democracy is based on "one person one vote", which enforces an artificial type of equality. Just as communism claims to achieve complete economic equality for all citizens, democracy tries to achieve absolute political equality (although in both cases an elite "ruling class" arises that is "more equal" than everyone else). In capitalism, you are free to set your goals on something higher than mere equality; in communism and democracy it is considered evil to try to achieve a better life or more political power than your neighbors.

[LibertyEagle]

Originally Posted by PaulaGem
You have Constitutionally protected rights that theoretically can not be taken away by any vote. They can, however, be taken away by a power structure that nullifies the vote and the consent of the governed.

Think about it, which is really the more likely scenario?

No, they are taken away by a group of thugs who are ignoring our Constitution and we are allowing them to do it.

[PaulaGem]

No, they are taken away by a group of thugs who are ignoring our Constitution and we are allowing them to do it.

That is what I meant by "They can, however, be taken away by a power structure that nullifies the vote and the consent of the governed."

It is by exercising the power of the demos that we can stop them!

[PaulaGem]

Democracy is based on "one person one vote", which enforces an artificial type of equality. Just as communism claims to achieve complete economic equality for all citizens, democracy tries to achieve absolute political equality (although in both cases an elite "ruling class" arises that is "more equal" than everyone else). In capitalism, you are free to set your goals on something higher than mere equality; in communism and democracy it is considered evil to try to achieve a better life or more political power than your neighbors.

Unsupported B.S. trollish crap.

[Original_Intent]

Unsupported B.S. trollish crap.

Unsupported is a word you shouldn't be throwing around PaulaGem, glass houses and all that.

[FrankRep]

That is what I meant by "They can, however, be taken away by a power structure that nullifies the vote and the consent of the governed."

It is by exercising the power of the demos that we can stop them!

What if the people (demos) vote to abolish the Constitution? With the government fear-mongering about those evil terrorists the people will say, "Help protect us government!" and the government will say "The Constitution prevents us from protecting you. Give up your liberty for security and we'll protect you."

I don't trust the people (demos) with my liberties.

[PaulaGem]

Unsupported is a word you shouldn't be throwing around PaulaGem, glass houses and all that.

Start with post 176 and read the documentation. Realize that most of the anti-democratic quotes you guys have been using all along are fraudulent.

Talk about being a "tool".... I'm sure "they" just love it when you use their planted lies to devalue the very thing that we need to get our country back - DEMOCRACY!!!




What if the people (demos) vote to abolish the Constitution? With the government fear-mongering about those evil terrorists the people will say, "Help protect us government!" and the government will say "The Constitution prevents us from protecting you. Give up your liberty for security and we'll protect you."

I don't trust the people (demos) with my liberties.



Read the Locke and Paine writings linked in my post 176.

The people have a right to create a new system of government if they feel it's necessary, that's what 1776 was about.

What the folks on this board need to understand is that there is nothing wrong with our Constitution or our system of democratic government other than the fact that the demos has permitted itself to become disenfranchised.

The founding fathers would strongly disagree with the anti-democratic sentiment on this board and I've documented it pretty thoroughly.

Now if I could only get you guys to stop using those hackneyed, fraudulent quotes.......

[NerveShocker]

In a way Paula you're right and wrong. While our founders didn't support democracy by itself they did support a perfected form of democracy. They supported and created as many others have already stated a constitutional republic. This is a form of government where instead of only the majority making every decision like a in a democracy the majority makes the decisions as long as they don't interfere with the rule of law. So the majority still has the power to make decisions but their power is limited by the law and the constitution which protects individual rights.

[BenIsForRon]

Our country would be this shit tits if our populations actually had a good education and stayed informed on the issue. Then we wouldn't be talking about Ron Paul, because there would be 400 of him in the house.

[PaulaGem]

Again it goes into a checks and balances thing... the Constitution and the Laws are derived from the consent of the governed, put in place by elected representatives. It all has to work together or it doesn't work at all.

What has really started to scare me about this whole thing is the amount of mis-information that has been published on this thread. I was going on my gut when I decided to investigate some of the quotes people were using to slam democracy, but I was still amazed when I found out how totally WRONG those quotes were.

[PaulaGem]

Our country would be this shit tits if our populations actually had a good education and stayed informed on the issue. Then we wouldn't be talking about Ron Paul, because there would be 400 of him in the house.

Have you seen my other thread? Only one way out, folks. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=199733)

I really think something like this could be a wakeup call and help get people moving. Hopefully it wont' come too late.

[NerveShocker]

You're beating your head against a wall.. a constitutional republic is a form of democracy .. Like I said before you're right and wrong we a have a democratic system but restrained by the rule of law.

This was posted earlier..

YouTube - Republic vs Democracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0)

[FrankRep]

The founding fathers would strongly disagree with the anti-democratic sentiment on this board and I've documented it pretty thoroughly.

PaulaGem is promoting the idea of pushing America down the path to dictatorship. The people will demand a "Direct Democracy" one day and they will get their wish.

By watching the the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it happened in this order:
Republic -> Representative Democracy -> Democracy -> Oligarchy/Caesar Dictatorship


"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States


America is indeed committing suicide just as the founding father's predicted.

[PaulaGem]

You're beating your head against a wall.. a constitutional republic is a form of democracy .. Like I said before you're right and wrong we a have a democratic system but restrained by the rule of law.

This was posted earlier..



Yeah, I've been saying that all along, DUH.

[PaulaGem]

PaulaGem is promoting the idea of pushing America down the path to dictatorship. The people will demand a "Direct Democracy" one day and they will get their wish.

By watching the the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, it happened in this order:
Republic -> Representative Democracy -> Democracy -> Oligarchy/Caesar Dictatorship


"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States


America is indeed committing suicide just as the founding father's predicted.

I'm promoting the idea that there are trolls on here like you who don't give a damn about the truth, learning, or educating.

You just want to bitch -- or are you trying to keep others from participating in a productive discussion? Perhaps your goals are more sinister.

I notice you didn't include any of the fraudluent democracy bashing quotes that I exposed, you just used one out of context. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

The suicide part is coming from not exercising our rights under democracy. See post 176 form my comment on the above quote.

[Theocrat]

I'm promoting the idea that there are trolls on here like you who don't give a damn about the truth, learning, or educating.

You just want to bitch -- or are you trying to keep others from participating in a productive discussion? Perhaps your goals are more sinister.

I notice you didn't include any of the fraudluent democracy bashing quotes that I exposed, you just used one out of context. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

The suicide part is coming from not exercising our rights under democracy. See post 176 form my comment on the above quote.

If anyone is trolling on here, it's you. You refuse to answer the tough questions which show your premises are wrong, and then you turn around and accuse others of not giving a damn about truth? You have some nerve, Paula.

Why don't you put down your book of gnostic heresies and actually study some real history? This thread has made you look more and more like an ignoramus when it comes to the subject of what principles our country was founded upon. You committed mental suicide when you first typed the title of this thread, and then you get angry when others pierce your views. What is your goal of this thread, if it's not sinister in nature?

[PaulaGem]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/chu6.html

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"

~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution

------------------------

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."

~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

------------------------

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

-------------------------

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States

-------------------------

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.

~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

--------------------------

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."

~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

--------------------------

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."

~ John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835


.

The well selected quotes above were sourced from a Chinese attacking the U.S. system. Don't y ou guys get it? There are trolls out there trying to mislead you . I have sent an email to the site pointing out that it should be removed. I have refuted this crap with facts in post 176.. Admit it folks, you've been had.



Democracy is not a dirty word. Paitriots should use the word frequently and explain just how important its role is in preserving our rights under the Constitution.

[PaulaGem]

If anyone is trolling on here, it's you. You refuse to answer the tough questions which show your premises are wrong, and then you turn around and accuse others of not giving a damn about truth? You have some nerve, Paula.

Why don't you put down your book of gnostic heresies and actually study some real history? This thread has made you look more and more like an ignoramus when it comes to the subject of what principles our country was founded upon. You committed mental suicide when you first typed the title of this thread, and then you get angry when others pierce your views. What is your goal of this thread, if it's not sinister in nature?

Then refute my post 176 and explain how I have misquoted Paine and Locke.

As for the gnosticism - if you had a clue you would realize there is no book that gnostics woship.

Wanna see what a troll looks like, folks? Click on Theocrat's name at the beginning of his post. You'll be able to scan his posts. Notice that there is no positive engagement of the issues, just fundamentalist jive (he probably isn't even a real Fundamentalist -he certainally doesnt' bear the fruit of Christian Love, and that's how the N.T. says to tell the real Christians from the fakes). He derails legitimate threads with his rant and constantly gets people to waste time on the nowhere arguments of abortion and evolution.


Buh Bye Mr. Theocrat Troll - I won't be answering any more of your tripe either.

[pcosmar]

Democracy is not a dirty word. Paitriots should use the word frequently and explain just how important its role is in preserving our rights under the Constitution.

WRONG

Unrestrained Democracy is destroying our rights despite the constitution.

The only thing that will"preserve" it is the 2nd amendment. Used to it's intended purpose.
Unfortunate, but true. :(

[xd9fan]

you want dirty words?....... I'll give you dirty words......


Capitalism
Free Market
A balanced Budget
Living within your means
Patriot
Militia
Republic
Constitutional
The 10th Amendment
The 2nd Amendment
The 4th Amendment
Individual Liberty



yes I kiss my mother with this mouth:D

[PaulaGem]

You're beating your head against a wall.. a constitutional republic is a form of democracy .. Like I said before you're right and wrong we a have a democratic system but restrained by the rule of law.

This was posted earlier..

YouTube - Republic vs Democracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFXuGIpsdE0)

So the "essense of freedom is the proper limitation of government. " I've been saying that too...

The propler limitation of government is the right and responsibility of the Demos in a democratic, constitiutional republic.

The above video states an improper premise. Just as monarchy and dictatorship rely on those men behind the curtain, preservation of our Constitutional system depends you the Demos acting as the "men behind the curtain" enabling the republic and properly limiting the scope of government.

[PaulaGem]

WRONG

Unrestrained Democracy is destroying our rights despite the constitution.

The only thing that will"preserve" it is the 2nd amendment. Used to it's intended purpose.
Unfortunate, but true. :(


How the hell can you have unrestrained democracy in a country that hasn't had an honest election in 30 years?

[PaulaGem]

Well I can be. ;)
Does blunt and accurate = Dickhead ??

Please note that your Jefferson quote in post 162 is a fake.


"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." - Thomas Jefferson

Please note that your Jefferson quote in post 67 is a fake.



Uh huh. They believed it was horrible.



Read the rest here:
http://takeourcountryback-snooper.blogspot.com/2008/12/democracy-v-republic-founding-fathers.html

Please note that your Jefferson quote and several others given in post 68 are fakes.

[FrankRep]

I notice you didn't include any of the fraudluent democracy bashing quotes that I exposed, you just used one out of context. I'm not sure that's an improvement.

The suicide part is coming from not exercising our rights under democracy. See post 176 form my comment on the above quote.


Here's the Complete context. Clearly John Adams is NOT a fan of Democracy.


John Adams:

In your fifth page, you say, " Mr. Adams calls our attention to hundreds of wise and virtuous patricians, mangled and bleeding victims of popular fury, and gravely counts up several victims of democratic rage, as proofs that democracy is more pernicious than monarchy or aristocracy."

Is this fair, sir ? Do you deny any one of my facts ? I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. I beseech you, sir, to recollect the time when my three volumes of " Defense " were written and printed, in 1786,1787, and 1788. The history of the universe had not then furnished me with a document I have since seen, — an Alphabetical Dictionary of the Names and Qualities of Persons, " Mangled and Bleeding Victims of Democratic Rage and Popular Fury " in France, during the Despotism of Democracy in that Country, which Napoleon ought to be immortalized for calling Ideology. This work is in two printed volumes, in octavo, as large as Johnson's Dictionary, and is in the library of our late and excellent Vice- President, Elbridge Gerry, where I hope it will be preserved with anxious care. An edition of it ought to be printed in America; otherwise it will be forever suppressed. France will never dare look at it. The democrats themselves could not bear the sight of it; they prohibited and suppressed it as far as they could. It contains an immense number of as great and good men as France ever produced. We curse the Inquisition and the Jesuits, and yet the Inquisition and the Jesuits are restored. We curse religiously the memory of Mary, for burning good men in Smithfield, when, if England had then been democratical, she would have burned many more, and we murder many more by the guillotine in the latter years of the eighteenth century. We curse Guy Fawkes for thinking of blowing up Westminster Hall; yet Ross blows up the capitol, the palace, and the library at Washington, and would have done it with the same sang froid had congress and the president's family been within the walls. O! my soul! I am weary of these dismal contemplations! When will mankind listen to reason, to nature, or to revelation ?

You say, I " might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the pride, folly, and ambition of monarchy and aristocracy." This is very true. And I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

When Solon's balance was destroyed by Aristides, and the preponderance given to the multitude, for which he was rewarded with the title of Just, when he ought to have been punished with the ostracism, the Athenians grew more and more democratic. I need not enumerate to you the foolish wars into which the people forced their wisest men and ablest generals against their own judgments, by which the state was finally ruined, and Philip and Alexander became their masters.

In proportion as the balance, imperfect and unskillful as it was originally, here as in Athens, inclined more and more to the dominatio plebis, the Carthaginians became more and more restless, impatient, enterprising, ambitious, avaricious, and rash, till Hannibal swore eternal hostility to the Romans, and the Romans were compelled to pronounce delenda est Carthago.

What can I say of the democracy of France ? I dare not write what I think and what I know. Were Brissot, Condorcet, Danton, Robespierre, and Monseigneur Egalité less ambitious than Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon ? Were Dumouriez, Pichegru, Moreau, less generals, less conquerors, or, in the end, less fortunate than the last was ? What was the ambition of this democracy? Nothing less than to propagate itself, its principles, its system, through the world; to decapitate all the kings, destroy all the nobles and priests in Europe. And who were the instruments employed by the mountebanks behind the scene, to accomplish these sublime purposes ? The firewomen, the badauds, the stage players, the atheists, the deists, the scribblers for any cause at three livres a day, the Jews, and oh! that I could erase from my memory the learned divines,—profound students in the prophecies, — real philosophers and sincere Christians, in amazing numbers, over all Europe and America, who were hurried away by the torrent of contagious enthusiasm. Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-and-twenty years.

Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world, and produced a combination unexampled, to prevent its further progress.

I Hope my last convinced you that democracy is as restless, as ambitious, as warlike and bloody, as aristocracy or monarchy.


SOURCE:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XFJ3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA484&dq=Remember,+democracy+never+lasts+long.+It+soon+w astes,+exhausts,+and+murders+itself.+There+never+w as+a+democracy+yet+that+did+not+commit+suicide.&as_brr=0&output=text

[pcosmar]

Please note that your Jefferson quote in post 162 is a fake.



Please note that your Jefferson quote in post 67 is a fake.




Please note that your Jefferson quote and several others given in post 68 are fakes.

Please note that you are full of SHIT.
Thank you for your time.

[PaulaGem]

Here's the Complete context. Clearly John Adams is NOT a fan of Democracy.


John Adams:

In your fifth page, you say, " Mr. Adams calls our attention to hundreds of wise and virtuous patricians, mangled and bleeding victims of popular fury, and gravely counts up several victims of democratic rage, as proofs that democracy is more pernicious than monarchy or aristocracy."

Is this fair, sir ? Do you deny any one of my facts ? I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. I beseech you, sir, to recollect the time when my three volumes of " Defense " were written and printed, in 1786,1787, and 1788. The history of the universe had not then furnished me with a document I have since seen, — an Alphabetical Dictionary of the Names and Qualities of Persons, " Mangled and Bleeding Victims of Democratic Rage and Popular Fury " in France, during the Despotism of Democracy in that Country, which Napoleon ought to be immortalized for calling Ideology. This work is in two printed volumes, in octavo, as large as Johnson's Dictionary, and is in the library of our late and excellent Vice- President, Elbridge Gerry, where I hope it will be preserved with anxious care. An edition of it ought to be printed in America; otherwise it will be forever suppressed. France will never dare look at it. The democrats themselves could not bear the sight of it; they prohibited and suppressed it as far as they could. It contains an immense number of as great and good men as France ever produced. We curse the Inquisition and the Jesuits, and yet the Inquisition and the Jesuits are restored. We curse religiously the memory of Mary, for burning good men in Smithfield, when, if England had then been democratical, she would have burned many more, and we murder many more by the guillotine in the latter years of the eighteenth century. We curse Guy Fawkes for thinking of blowing up Westminster Hall; yet Ross blows up the capitol, the palace, and the library at Washington, and would have done it with the same sang froid had congress and the president's family been within the walls. O! my soul! I am weary of these dismal contemplations! When will mankind listen to reason, to nature, or to revelation ?

You say, I " might have exhibited millions of plebeians sacrificed to the pride, folly, and ambition of monarchy and aristocracy." This is very true. And I might have exhibited as many millions of plebeians sacrificed by the pride, folly, and ambition of their fellow-plebeians and their own, in proportion to the extent and duration of their power. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.

When Solon's balance was destroyed by Aristides, and the preponderance given to the multitude, for which he was rewarded with the title of Just, when he ought to have been punished with the ostracism, the Athenians grew more and more democratic. I need not enumerate to you the foolish wars into which the people forced their wisest men and ablest generals against their own judgments, by which the state was finally ruined, and Philip and Alexander became their masters.

In proportion as the balance, imperfect and unskillful as it was originally, here as in Athens, inclined more and more to the dominatio plebis, the Carthaginians became more and more restless, impatient, enterprising, ambitious, avaricious, and rash, till Hannibal swore eternal hostility to the Romans, and the Romans were compelled to pronounce delenda est Carthago.

What can I say of the democracy of France ? I dare not write what I think and what I know. Were Brissot, Condorcet, Danton, Robespierre, and Monseigneur Egalité less ambitious than Caesar, Alexander, or Napoleon ? Were Dumouriez, Pichegru, Moreau, less generals, less conquerors, or, in the end, less fortunate than the last was ? What was the ambition of this democracy? Nothing less than to propagate itself, its principles, its system, through the world; to decapitate all the kings, destroy all the nobles and priests in Europe. And who were the instruments employed by the mountebanks behind the scene, to accomplish these sublime purposes ? The firewomen, the badauds, the stage players, the atheists, the deists, the scribblers for any cause at three livres a day, the Jews, and oh! that I could erase from my memory the learned divines,—profound students in the prophecies, — real philosophers and sincere Christians, in amazing numbers, over all Europe and America, who were hurried away by the torrent of contagious enthusiasm. Democracy is chargeable with all the blood that has been spilled for five-and-twenty years.

Napoleon and all his generals were but creatures of democracy, as really as Rienzi, Theodore, Massaniello, Jack Cade, or Wat Tyler. This democratical hurricane, inundation, earthquake, pestilence, call it which you will, at last aroused and alarmed all the world, and produced a combination unexampled, to prevent its further progress.

I Hope my last convinced you that democracy is as restless, as ambitious, as warlike and bloody, as aristocracy or monarchy.


SOURCE:
http://books.google.com/books?id=XFJ3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA484&dq=Remember,+democracy+never+lasts+long.+It+soon+w astes,+exhausts,+and+murders+itself.+There+never+w as+a+democracy+yet+that+did+not+commit+suicide.&as_brr=0&output=text

He also criticised republics in another context. Here it is clear that he is speaking directly to the abuses of mob rule which can occur in a pure democracy, specifically the French Revolution.

The founding fathers felt the the Bill of Rights was essential to the Constitution, it served as a grounding force for democracy, what some here call "rule of law", but the truth is that the Constitution and country can not stand if the demos is stripped of power. That is the current issue that must be dealt with.

[TurtleBurger]

Here's the Complete context. Clearly John Adams is NOT a fan of Democracy.


John Adams:

I Hope my last convinced you that democracy is as restless, as ambitious, as warlike and bloody, as aristocracy or monarchy.


Obviously John Adams never read Hoppe. Democracy is far more restless, ambitious, warlike, and bloody than aristocracy and monarchy are.

[FrankRep]

Obviously John Adams never read Hoppe. Democracy is far more restless, ambitious, warlike, and bloody than aristocracy and monarchy are.
Both of capable of horrific atrocities; it just depends on the monarchy in charge. Example: Mary I of England, known as "Bloody Mary."

[FrankRep]

Democracy Is Not Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
February 7, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

[BenIsForRon]

"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"
-George W. Bush

[PaulaGem]

Democracy Is Not Freedom

by Rep. Ron Paul, MD
February 7, 2005

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul233.html

Ok, you've done the same thing with Dr. Paul's paper as you've done with the writings of the founding fathers.

The paper is about speaking honestly and defining terms, showing a constitutional basis for limited government.

He is using the example of how the Bush administration used "democracy for Iraq" as an excuse to en enlarge government and further an economic war.

He shows how both "liberals" and "conservatives" have jumped the rails and permitted the federal government to exceed its Constituitional limits.


If we hope to remain free, we must cut through the fog and attach concrete meanings to the words politicians use to deceive us. We must reassert that America is a republic, not a democracy, and remind ourselves that the Constitution places limits on government that no majority can overrule. We must resist any use of the word “freedom” to describe state action. We must reject the current meaningless designations of “liberals” and “conservatives,” in favor of an accurate term for both: statists.


So, If I walked up to Dr. Paul today and asked him - "How are we the people supposed to take back the power that the federal government has appropriated and stuff it back into the little box it belongs in? What thechniques and methods would you recommend? "

I've moved this question to a separate thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2230594#post2230594

By the way, there was nothing in that paper that has contradicted my original or elaborated position on democracy. It's not a dirty word, it is a word that has been badly abused, especially since the invasion of Iraq.

That does not preclude my point - that when correctly defined within the context of our Constitutional government, democracy - the rule of the demos -the consent of the governed - is the part of our system that has failed.

I hope people on this forum will use the new thread to generate SPECIFIC ideas about how put things back on track. If you believe there is a way that does not include "democracy" tell me what it is.

[FrankRep]

In the spirit of Democracy, should we abolish the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)?


The Electoral College, not the "Demos", who actually elects the President.

[PaulaGem]

In the spirit of Democracy, should be abolish the Electoral College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29)?

I have a concern that by adding a layer of abstraction to the process of electing a president the electoral college makes it easier for "them" to put their man in place.

The concept of an electoral college was useful before the time of mass communication. Having a group of people who supposedly represented the people's will in electing a president that could physically meet and deal with that issue was necessary in the 18th century. A lot has changed, and I think this concept needs a serious re-think.

I also think that with the current broken vote it doesn't really matter if we have an electoral college or not. Things be "arranged" by "them" in any election.

[FrankRep]

Okay, I'll compromise.

Representative Democracy = Okay
Democracy = Dirty word.

Since James Madison defined a Republic as a "Representative Democracy" in Federalist Paper No. 10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10#The_question_of_faction), I'll accept it.

Just to clear up any confusion, people should use "Republic" because when you say "Democracy" people think of a true Democracy, which is dangerous.

[Krugerrand]

So, If I walked up to Dr. Paul today and asked him - "How are we the people supposed to take back the power that the federal government has appropriated and stuff it back into the little box it belongs in? What techniques and methods would you recommend? "

While I notice you've reposted this on another thread ... I'll answer here, since my answer relates to the appreciation of "democracy."

Yes .... the founding fathers setup a system whereby the people could use the vote to overhaul the system. Yes ... We must strive to vote in elected officials that will respect, uphold and adhere to the constitution.

But, as a Constitutional Republic, drastic change by popular vote would have been viewed as a things-are-way-out-of-control scenario. The 2nd Amendment was more intended for that than the vote of the majority. The checks are balances designed by division between executive, legislative and judicial bodies ... all checked by the states.

Overall, the "popular vote" was not considered trustworthy or worthwhile. In fact, the Constitution prevent the majority vote from having much of any impact on things.

As such ... the practical steps are to use the vehicles that are available to return the country to the Constitution.

Almost all voters are only concerned enough to vote for who make the ticket. There is only a slight uptick of interest on primary elections. Thus, one important avenue for change is to influence who makes it onto the ballot. That doesn't mean try and get greater participation of popular vote into who gets on the ballot ... it means get involved in levels that influence ballot access.

The CFL is another vehicle for returning to the Constitution. Organize and direct efforts to influence already elected officials.

Yes, the ballot box is important. But, if you haven't set things up way before election day, you've already lost.

[Krugerrand]

Wow, did you even stop to think if that even sounds plausible? People in a free society are not going to allow other people to make decisions for them just because they have land. The only way to enforce your little ideal system is through violent suppression.

Second, Have you ever thought that some people might just prefer to rent, and don't care about owning land? Hell, some people don't really want to own anything, and would just rather live in a voluntary community. Should they not be allowed a vote?

Just think for two seconds about the implications of what you're saying. It's a fantasy world. Not reality.

Ben, you left out a key part of my post: "original setup."

People in a free society DID allow other people to vote and not them. Yes ... renters did not vote. It was reality.


I was not claiming that we could be successful in returning to that. My post was explaining that given the way things were, it would have been highly inaccurate to call the country a democracy.

Now, would I like to see that. Probably, yes. Land owners voting / poll tax are things that I see as better safeguards to protecting personal property. I'm a fan of the electoral college. I'd rather the state legislator (thanks guys for catching that earlier) elect US senators.

[BenIsForRon]

Poll taxes? Jesus. Listen to what you're saying. Do you really think some guy coming out of inner city detroit can afford to pay a poll tax when he's 18? Now what about an 18 year old coming out of Orange Co, California? Do you not see a problem here? My guess is that you don't care.

[Krugerrand]

Poll taxes? Listen to what you're saying. Do you really think some guy coming out of inner city detroit can afford to pay a poll tax when he's 18? Now what about an 18 year old coming out of Orange Co, California? Do you not see a problem here? My guess is that you don't care.

Allow me to repost a link to Irwin Schiff's book "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't":


Really big file: http://www.restoretherepublic.org/documents/how-an-economy-grows.pdf
(p56...60)

or links to pages:
http://www.takelifeback.com/hegawid/
(p50...54)

Some quotes:
"If a vote costs nothing it's worth nothing."
"The ignorant and irresponsible will vote if it's free, and such votes are dangerous!"
"Let the stupid and who-cares citizens stay home! If he pays to vote he'll pay more attention to the issues and the candidates."

I'd be more interested in ensuring a form of government that protects life, liberty and personal property than being sure that a poor 18 year old has a chance to vote for somebody who promises to redistribute somebody else's property. I think a poll tax would better accomplish that.

[PaulaGem]

Allow me to repost a link to Irwin Schiff's book "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't":


I'd be more interested in ensuring a form of government that protects life, liberty and personal property than being sure that a poor 18 year old has a chance to vote for somebody who promises to redistribute somebody else's property. I think a poll tax would better accomplish that.

Yeah, and if you disenfranchise those without a sufficient amount of property, property will be the only thing that gets protected.... Life and liberty will be subject to groups like the KKK. We've been there, remember?

[BenIsForRon]

Allow me to repost a link to Irwin Schiff's book "How an Economy Grows and Why It Doesn't":

"If a vote costs nothing it's worth nothing."
"The ignorant and irresponsible will vote if it's free, and such votes are dangerous!"
"Let the stupid and who-cares citizens stay home! If he pays to vote he'll pay more attention to the issues and the candidates."

I'd be more interested in ensuring a form of government that protects life, liberty and personal property than being sure that a poor 18 year old has a chance to vote for somebody who promises to redistribute somebody else's property. I think a poll tax would better accomplish that.

So you automatically assume any poor 18 year old will want to take other peoples money? Have you ever considered the possibility that they would rather vote for opportunity, and not hand outs? I guess you think anybody with an income below the poverty line must be an immoral thief.

That first Schiff quote sounds neat, but it makes no sense. I didn't pay for my vote, except through taxes, and it definitely stood for something.

As for the next two quotes, tough shit. There are people who stay informed on the issues who are also poor. If you get some ignorant votes, then that's a problem the society must deal with, like with better education and so on. Cutting poor people out of the situation doesn't help, and might actually make it worse.

EDIT: And you totally missed my point about the 18 year old from orange county. He can be totally ignorant, but he gets to vote because his parents are loaded. Seriously dude, think outside your box for two seconds, you know I'm right.

[Krugerrand]

Yeah, and if you disenfranchise those without a sufficient amount of property, property will be the only thing that gets protected.... Life and liberty will be subject to groups like the KKK. We've been there, remember?

Property ownership is probably better in this sense than the poll tax. I'd be more up on the poll tax if with it we eliminated income, property and inheritance taxes.

I apologize ... why Krugerrand likes the poll tax is a distraction from the thread.

Remember, the popular vote is to be distrusted.

[BenIsForRon]

What kind of property? Some modest people like to rent. They would rather save their money and travel the world instead of hunker down in one spot. I'd say somebody that does that is smart, and their vote would be very valuable.

Also, this is not a distraction from the thread, we're talking about democracy, and discussing who gets to vote in our country would be very relevant.

[Krugerrand]

So you automatically assume any poor 18 year old will want to take other peoples money? Have you ever considered the possibility that they would rather vote for opportunity, and not hand outs? I guess you think anybody with an income below the poverty line must be an immoral thief.

That first Schiff quote sounds neat, but it makes no sense. I didn't pay for my vote, except through taxes, and it definitely stood for something.

As for the next two quotes, tough shit. There are people who stay informed on the issues who are also poor. If you get some ignorant votes, then that's a problem the society must deal with, like with better education and so on. Cutting poor people out of the situation doesn't help, and might actually make it worse.

Krugerrand likes either a poll tax or a property ownership requirement to vote. I apologize for the thread distraction.

I brought the ownership issue up because it used to be the law of the land. It illustrates that 1 - the Constitution was not written with the intention of making a democracy. It was written with a distrust of the majority. (and a distrust of everything else) 2 - as we have eliminated the checks that were in place on the popular vote we have seen negative consequences. Senators don't look out for their states' rights. Presidents run for election by promising free drugs to seniors or health insurance for the uninsured. All paid for with somebody else's money.

[tremendoustie]

... the Constitution and the Laws are derived from the consent of the governed, put in place by elected representatives ...

That's interesting, how does that work exactly? I'm not consenting to be taxed right now. I guess it's the consent of the majority, eh? So, if two theives mug a guy in a back alley, he consented! Makes all the sense in the world. Theft and slavery are ok when the majority support it.

Then there's that nasty detail that only roughly 12,000 out of a population of 3,000,000 were allowed to vote on the constitution (some white male landholders), which would forcibly confiscate wealth from the other 2,988,000.

Then, the fact that the decendents of the 3M are also subjected to it without any choice in the matter at all.

Consent my ass.

[mediahasyou]

If all men are good, they need no government.

If all men are evil, they should not have government because we all know what happened when the evil Hitler came to power.

[Andrew-Austin]

How the hell can you have unrestrained democracy in a country that hasn't had an honest election in 30 years?

Do you really think shit would be different if the elections were not rigged? We've been going down hill for a lot longer than thirty years. All the Republican and Democratic candidates in the primaries are scumbag status quo types, democracy just allows all of these amoral characters to compete at who is the best liar/manipulator and who can siphon off the most taxpayer monies to special interest groups.

We would have been just as screwed had we Gore or Kerry for President, you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

[PaulaGem]

That's interesting, how does that work exactly? I'm not consenting to be taxed right now. I guess it's the consent of the majority, eh? So, if two theives mug a guy in a back alley, he consented! Makes all the sense in the world. Theft and slavery are ok when the majority support it.

Then there's that nasty detail that only roughly 12,000 out of a population of 3,000,000 were allowed to vote on the constitution (some white male landholders), which would forcibly confiscate wealth from the other 2,988,000.

Then, the fact that the decendents of the 3M are also subjected to it without any choice in the matter at all.

Consent my ass.

They did the best they could in 1776. The founding fathers believed that consent of the governed was the only basis for legitimate government. The founding fathers established a government that has been accepted by the people as legitimate for over 230 years now, yes it's the consent of the majority.

If a majority wants a new government we will have it. Under the Constitution there are different methods for changing the basic law or amending the Constitution.

Your argument is facetious and you know it.

[PaulaGem]

Do you really think shit would be different if the elections were not rigged? We've been going down hill for a lot longer than thirty years. All the Republican and Democratic candidates in the primaries are scumbag status quo types, democracy just allows all of these amoral characters to compete at who is the best liar/manipulator and who can siphon off the most taxpayer monies to special interest groups.

We would have been just as screwed had we Gore or Kerry for President, you're deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

I believe people have to start demanding change at the local level and it will filter upward to the national level. I believe starting at the top is like banging your head against the wall, it's only going to feel better if you stop.

I think making sure the vote is not rigged and encouraging non-partisan activity at the local level is a first step.

[Andrew-Austin]

I believe people have to start demanding change at the local level and it will filter upward to the national level. I believe starting at the top is like banging your head against the wall, it's only going to feel better if you stop.

I think making sure the vote is not rigged and encouraging non-partisan activity at the local level is a first step.

I believe scrapping a system that is obviously broken (based on empirical evidence and rational argument) is the first step.




the Constitution and the Laws are derived from the consent of the governed

*pukes*

One of the biggest lies in this thread.