Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 46 of 46

Thread: Freedom vs Democracy

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    we agree that the election of some people is a democratic election. But that is a component of a republic.
    Again, I don't want to squabble over semantics, but I'd define those terms differently.

    democracy = any state in which the rulers are elected by the general public

    ...it need not be universal suffrage, but a large number of people; the border between democracy and oligarchy becomes blurred at the margin.

    republic, i.e. public thing = any non-proprietary state

    ...i.e. state revenues are public property in a sense, rather than the personal property of the rulers

    Republics need not necessarily be democratic: e.g. the Venetian Republic was an hereditary oligarchy.

    What exists in the US (and most of the rest of the world) could be called a constitutional, democratic republic.

    ...constitution, rulers elected by general public, state revenues not personal property of rulers

    And the problem is the democratic and republican part, which the constitutional part - however well intended - is powerless to solve.

    Your points all are included in the definition of our constitutional republic.
    I'm not sure what you mean.
    Last edited by MallsRGood; 02-17-2017 at 06:46 PM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post

    I'm not sure what you mean.
    The key missing in your definition of a republic is that elected officials have rules to follow or abide by. The USA is a constitutional republic because the constitution is the laws which estsblish and limit the federal government. Just because citizens become complacent and are uneducated on the form of government we have and don't push back, doesn't change the original structure. The federal government overreaches, violating the constitution and its the job of the people to resist. But if those people think we are in a democracy then there is no push back because the king has already been elected by popular vote. As there are constitutional violations happening all the time, there isn't enough educated resistance. I'm not arguing that the structure of our government is or isn't collapsing but that doesn't give us a democracy.

    May i ask, why are you so resistant to see the nation as a republic? Not sure if Ben Franklin said this or not when asked by a lady what he has given the people, "a republic ma'am, if you can keep it.", but he didn't say a democracy. the founders actually opposed democracy very much. And again, I don't mind debating where the nation has devolved to, but what's so wrong with seeing this nation as a republic? I see many points which were put in place to establish anything but a democracy - the electoral college is a great example, the original senate is another. Why spend all this time forming a non democracy if they just wanted a democracy in the first place? If you say this has changed over time, i completely agree. But can you point to evidence of how this federal govemtnt, in its creation, was a democracy? With agreement on this point we can move on to other issues in modern times if you'd like



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    @Tommy,

    Most of our disagreement is semantic. As I've tried to explain, you're using terms like democracy and republic differently than I am.

    The substance of our debate is whether the constitution restrains the state, no?

    I say, it's supposed to (that was the idea at the founding), but in fact does not.

    ...my overall point being that constitutionalism itself is altogether futile.

    State power cannot be restrained by a piece of paper interpreted by the state.

    Nice idea...

    ...doesn't actually work.

  6. #34
    Democracy, the God That's Failing



    ...

    Things are getting strange in America when Michael Moore and Dennis Prager start to sound the same, and that’s arguably a very good development. We are close to a time when the democracy illusion will be shattered, for good and all. Democracy was always a bad idea, one that encourages mindless majoritarianism, political pandering, theft, redistribution, war, and an entitlement mentality among supposedly noble voters. It’s an idea whose time has passed, both on a national and international scale. The future of liberty is decentralized, and will be led by smaller breakaway nations and regions where real self-determination and real consensus is not an illusion. Jefferson and Hoppe were right about democracy, but it took Trump and Brexit to show the world how quickly elites abandon it when they don’t prevail.
    https://mises.org/blog/democracy-god-thats-failing
    Last edited by Suzanimal; 02-18-2017 at 09:01 PM. Reason: Added cute pic of Deist with his quote.:)
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
    The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    @Tommy,

    Most of our disagreement is semantic. As I've tried to explain, you're using terms like democracy and republic differently than I am.

    The substance of our debate is whether the constitution restrains the state, no?

    I say, it's supposed to (that was the idea at the founding), but in fact does not.

    ...my overall point being that constitutionalism itself is altogether futile.

    State power cannot be restrained by a piece of paper interpreted by the state.

    Nice idea...

    ...doesn't actually work.
    The individual states made a contract with each other (called the constitution) and that contract formed a new entity, the federal government. So the constitution does nothing, it's a piece of paper. But parties who joined said contract (the colonies and now 50 states) should be restraining the federal government. Just because the states don't restrain the federal government (or citizens retrain the states), doesn't turn the form of federal government from a constitutional republic into a democracy. It does, however, pervert the structure of the government and it also means we no longer have a true constitutional republic. As for your semantic comment, wouldn't you agree that it's a problem the public isn't taught exactly what type of federal government was formed? Im happy to concede the semantic debate with you but genuinely request you consider a little research about the possibly that a constitutional republic is a more specific verbiage describing the USA government - and maybe you'll consider using that term in the future. Cheers.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    Not arguing good or bad. Pointing out that we have a constitutional republic and not a democracy. It's a point many don't understand and since they aren't synonymous, I believe it's good to know the difference. There's a reason the people in power continually say democracy and conveniently forget we are a republic. Coincidence? I think not.
    As much as I disagree with your political philosophy, you're right. The statists do purposely water down the language for the very reasons Orwell said they did. It's a tool for mass manipulation by creating a matrix of distorted, hollow, almost meaningless and ever-bendable language that changes at the capricious whims of TPTB.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    As much as I disagree with your political philosophy, you're right. The statists do purposely water down the language for the very reasons Orwell said they did. It's a tool for mass manipulation by creating a matrix of distorted, hollow, almost meaningless and ever-bendable language that changes at the capricious whims of TPTB.
    I appreciate your articulate post. Unfortunately the watered down language is happening all too often. As for our political philosophies, maybe there is more hope for agreement than we currently realize.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    The individual states made a contract with each other (called the constitution) and that contract formed a new entity, the federal government.
    Right

    So the constitution does nothing, it's a piece of paper.
    Right

    But parties who joined said contract (the colonies and now 50 states) should be restraining the federal government.
    Right

    Just because the states don't restrain the federal government (or citizens retrain the states), doesn't turn the form of federal government from a constitutional republic into a democracy.
    Does the law say the majority can do what it likes? No.

    In practice, can the majority do what it likes. Yes.

    I'm talking about the practical reality of the situation, not the legal formalities.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Right



    Right



    Right

    im good ending this on multiple areas of agreement. Thanks for the back and forth

  12. #40
    Again:

    Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

    The US was NEVER meant to be a democracy.

    A Constitutional Republic is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.
    Last edited by Ender; 02-22-2017 at 10:01 AM.
    There is no spoon.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by TommyJeff View Post
    im good ending this on multiple areas of agreement. Thanks for the back and forth
    My pleasure

    I don't think we really have any substantial disagreement: just semantics, as discussed.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    When I say that the state has grown since the advent of democracy, I'm referring to the state's behavior vis a vis its subjects (e.g. how much it taxes, regulates, etc). This is distinct from the form of the state (e.g. monarchy, democracy, etc). The form of the state is in itself unimportant from a libertarian POV. It only matters insofar as it affects how the state behaves toward the population. And the indisputable empirical fact is that democratic states behave far worse toward their subjects than did non-democratic states.



    I would argue that most of the more harmful things moderns states do pre-modern states could have done, had they so desired. But, even supposing that Louis XVI would have been technologically unable to imitate the modern American welfare-regulatory state (and I do agree that, on the margin, there are some things which would have been impossible at that time), what's more important is that he would have had no incentive to do so in the first place. Sure, it's possible that Louis would just happen to be a foaming at the mouth ideological socialist, but he has no external pressure driving him toward socialism, unlike the elected politician, who is constantly pushed by his constituents for every greater subsidies, competition-suppressing regulations, etc, etc.
    I don't see how the state has changed at all. I agree that the form fo the state doesn't matter. American efforts at a limited state are more or less a historical aberration. But the nature of the state -power based on violence- has been the same since the beginning of human history. The only thing that has changed is the ability of the state to achieve the goal of total control. It isn't the desire to gain total control, it is the ability to actually do so. And this is where technology comes in.

    I chose King Louis because he, and his fore bearers like him, were absolute rulers -kings with total power- who stood on the precipice of the Industrial revolution's complete and radical technological changes. But there is nothing special about him. You could go back to Caesar or Pharaoh and encounter the same nature of the state -the grasping for absolute power. The difference is that a thousand years ago it took Caesar's orders weeks to travel across the empire, giving you or I enough time to get out of dodge and completely disappear if we needed to do so. Today communication is nearly instantaneous. With the presence of satellites and the Internet, the ability of the state to watch every step you take. Industrialization of food, production, travel, and weapons have given the state the tools it needs to track you down and do as it wishes to you, if you could escape at all. That it wants to do so is nothing new. Every king and monarch has claimed absolute ownership of everything in the kingdom -which is essentially socialism's dictatorship of the proletariat- since the inception of monarchies. heck, William the Conqueror literally had a book of everything everyone owned in the kingdom made up so he could know how much stuff HE owned.

    And Louis XVI's incentive was the same as any modern politician's. The concentration of wealth and power into his own hands. He suppressed the market all together and allowed the nobles of the kingdom to hold absolute monopolies on the wealth and production powers of the country.

    Modern states are nothing new. Their claim to authority and power and control are nothing new. The only thing new is their ability to realize that power and enforce those claims through technology.

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender View Post
    Again:

    Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner.

    The US was NEVER meant to be a democracy.

    A Constitutional Republic is 2 wolves and 1 lamb deciding what's for dinner, but lamb's not on the menu.
    But $#@! the cows. Because they sure are what's for dinner.

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    I don't see how the state has changed at all.
    Spending relative GDP has increased by nearly an order of magnitude, to give one metric.

    I agree that the form fo the state doesn't matter.
    It doesn't matter in itself; it does matter insofar as it affects state behavior (and it most definitely does affect state behavior).

    American efforts at a limited state are more or less a historical aberration. But the nature of the state -power based on violence- has been the same since the beginning of human history.
    All states are "power based on violence," sure, but there are crucial differences of degree.

    The only thing that has changed is the ability of the state to achieve the goal of total control. It isn't the desire to gain total control, it is the ability to actually do so. And this is where technology comes in.
    I disagree, for reasons explained.

    Non-democratic states had no incentive to do most of the things which democratic states do.

    I chose King Louis because he, and his fore bearers like him, were absolute rulers -kings with total power- who stood on the precipice of the Industrial revolution's complete and radical technological changes. But there is nothing special about him. You could go back to Caesar or Pharaoh and encounter the same nature of the state -the grasping for absolute power.
    Show me an example of a non-democratic ruler attempting (and failing due to technological constraints) to implement universal health care.

    Or universal old age pensions.

    etc, etc, etc

    The difference is that a thousand years ago it took Caesar's orders weeks to travel across the empire, giving you or I enough time to get out of dodge and completely disappear if we needed to do so. Today communication is nearly instantaneous. With the presence of satellites and the Internet, the ability of the state to watch every step you take. Industrialization of food, production, travel, and weapons have given the state the tools it needs to track you down and do as it wishes to you, if you could escape at all. That it wants to do so is nothing new. Every king and monarch has claimed absolute ownership of everything in the kingdom -which is essentially socialism's dictatorship of the proletariat- since the inception of monarchies. heck, William the Conqueror literally had a book of everything everyone owned in the kingdom made up so he could know how much stuff HE owned.
    That's wildly inaccurate.

    Absolute monarchs (or monarchs feigning absolute power) did indeed claim ownership of all property within their domains, but this should not be taken literally in the way you're taking it. They were claiming ultimate political control (i.e. rejecting the right of any individual, noble, parliament, church, etc to resist their [rather modest] demands). They were most certainly not trying to actually control all property within their domains; to actually seize, posses, and operate it in a socialistic fashion.

    By way of analogy, no private person in the US holds their land in fee allodium (true ownership); all land is held in fee simple (feudal tenure). This reflects the practical ability of the state to force landowners to pay whatever taxes it demands (as would a feudal overlord). In a sense, the state owns all land in the US, and we individuals just rent it from them. But this is only a formality expressing the sovereignty of the state; it does not mean that all land is actually possessed and operated by the state in a socialistic fashion.

    And Louis XVI's incentive was the same as any modern politician's. The concentration of wealth and power into his own hands.
    The difference lies in the means by which each would go about that.

    For an elected politician, the best method of enriching himself is to dole out privileges to special interests, whatever the cost to society.

    For the monarch, the best method of enriching himself is to enrich society as a whole, as that increases his own revenues.

    He suppressed the market all together and allowed the nobles of the kingdom to hold absolute monopolies on the wealth and production powers of the country.
    Feudalism was essentially dead by the time of the 1789 revolution, destroyed by the kings themselves, in opposition to the nobility.

    ...a story repeated over and over all across early modern Europe (See "General Crisis" of the 17th century)

    The French economy c. 1788 was vastly more liberal than is the French economy of 2017.

    ...in terms of spending, regulation, number and extent of state owned enterprises, etc.

    Any comparison of absolutism and totalitarianism is baseless. It conflates two separate issues:

    (a) who holds sovereignty (1 king, 535 congressman, whatever)

    and (b) what the sovereign does (taxes a lot or taxes a little, e.g.)

    P.S. To further beat this horse...

    Sovereignty is conserved (credit to Mencius Moldbug for coining that fine maxim). In other words, a sovereign state (of whatever form, democratic or otherwise) always has absolute power to do what it likes to its subjects. That is what sovereignty means. The only question is how this power is divided up, i.e. who holds this power, and (crucially) the incentives which drive their decision-making. An absolute monarch has one set of incentives in deciding how to use his absolute power. A republican government has another set of incentives in deciding (through some collective decision-making process) how to use their absolute power. And incentives matter.
    Last edited by MallsRGood; 02-23-2017 at 05:31 PM.

  18. #45
    Responses in bold.

    Quote Originally Posted by MallsRGood View Post
    Spending relative GDP has increased by nearly an order of magnitude, to give one metric.

    Irrelevant metric. technology has increased production and GDP is a meaningless number for anything other than teh most general sense. The point is that the nature of the state hasn't changed.


    It doesn't matter in itself; it does matter insofar as it affects state behavior (and it most definitely does affect state behavior).


    All states are "power based on violence," sure, but there are crucial differences of degree.

    Not really. The form of the state effects the hoops those in power must jump through, nothing more. The ultimate end goals are still the same.



    I disagree, for reasons explained.

    Non-democratic states had no incentive to do most of the things which democratic states do.

    Of course not. Non-democratic states can dispense with the illusion of rulership for the most part.

    Show me an example of a non-democratic ruler attempting (and failing due to technological constraints) to implement universal health care.

    Or universal old age pensions.

    etc, etc, etc

    Every fascist, ever. Every Communist, ever. Don't confuse popularity with democracy.

    That's wildly inaccurate.

    Absolute monarchs (or monarchs feigning absolute power) did indeed claim ownership of all property within their domains, but this should not be taken literally in the way you're taking it. They were claiming ultimate political control (i.e. rejecting the right of any individual, noble, parliament, church, etc to resist their [rather modest] demands). They were most certainly not trying to actually control all property within their domains; to actually seize, posses, and operate it in a socialistic fashion.

    They absolutely were. To claim ultimate political control is to claim absolute control. You're trying to split hairs that don't exist.

    By way of analogy, no private person in the US holds their land in fee allodium (true ownership); all land is held in fee simple (feudal tenure). This reflects the practical ability of the state to force landowners to pay whatever taxes it demands (as would a feudal overlord). In a sense, the state owns all land in the US, and we individuals just rent it from them. But this is only a formality expressing the sovereignty of the state; it does not mean that all land is actually possessed and operated by the state in a socialistic fashion.

    Except it really does. It means your title of ownership is a meaningless piece of garbage. Luckily there is still some rivalry between the different apparatuses of the State here that you might get out from any State claims. But it is unlikely. Just becaus eyou get to enjoy the illusion that sopmething is yours doesn't mean that it is so.

    The difference lies in the means by which each would go about that.

    For an elected politician, the best method of enriching himself is to dole out privileges to special interests, whatever the cost to society.

    For the monarch, the best method of enriching himself is to enrich society as a whole, as that increases his own revenues.

    No, it isn't. The way kings maintain power is to literally dole out privileges to special interests who then serve him. What do you think the nobility and knights are other than special interests that the king placates with money and goods seized from the public in order to maintain power? The king doesn't give a single crap about the enrichment of society. The whole argument falls to pass the basic test of history.

    Feudalism was essentially dead by the time of the 1789 revolution, destroyed by the kings themselves, in opposition to the nobility.

    Yes, kings doing exactly what you claim they weren't doing.

    ...a story repeated over and over all across early modern Europe.

    The French economy c. 1788 was vastly more liberal than is the French economy of 2017.

    ...in terms of spending, regulation, number and extent of state owned enterprises, etc.


    Again, only because modern technology has given the State teh ability to actually do what it could only theoretically do in the past.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    Spending relative GDP has increased by nearly an order of magnitude, to give one metric.
    Irrelevant metric. technology has increased production and GDP is a meaningless number for anything other than teh most general sense. The point is that the nature of the state hasn't changed.
    A. No, it's not meaningless. There's no such thing as cardinal value, of course, but to say that GDP is meaningless is absurd.

    B. Do you have some other empirical metric, or are you essentially taking the nihilist approach here?

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    It doesn't matter in itself; it does matter insofar as it affects state behavior (and it most definitely does affect state behavior).

    All states are "power based on violence," sure, but there are crucial differences of degree.
    Not really. The form of the state effects the hoops those in power must jump through, nothing more. The ultimate end goals are still the same.
    Private property owners have better incentives to maintain the value of their property than users of a commons have to maintain the value of the common property - Agree? If so, please tell me why that logic does not apply when the "property" in question is an entire population. Why do owners of countries (contra owners of shoe factories or wheat farms or whatever) magically stop being affected by economic incentives?

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    I disagree, for reasons explained.

    Non-democratic states had no incentive to do most of the things which democratic states do.
    Of course not. Non-democratic states can dispense with the illusion of rulership for the most part.
    Confused...

    You're agreeing that non-democratic states had no incentive to do most of the things that democratic states do?
    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    Show me an example of a non-democratic ruler attempting (and failing due to technological constraints) to implement universal health care.

    Or universal old age pensions.

    etc, etc, etc
    Every fascist, ever. Every Communist, ever. Don't confuse popularity with democracy.
    Yes, a handful of recent, populist dictatorships have behaved that way. They are, needless to say, very much exceptional among non-democratic governments. If we were to calculate the fraction of non-democratic states that have pursued elaborate social welfare schemes, and compare it to the fraction of democratic states that have pursued/are pursuing elaborate social welfare schemes (~100%), which would be the larger fraction?

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    That's wildly inaccurate.

    Absolute monarchs (or monarchs feigning absolute power) did indeed claim ownership of all property within their domains, but this should not be taken literally in the way you're taking it. They were claiming ultimate political control (i.e. rejecting the right of any individual, noble, parliament, church, etc to resist their [rather modest] demands). They were most certainly not trying to actually control all property within their domains; to actually seize, posses, and operate it in a socialistic fashion.
    They absolutely were. To claim ultimate political control is to claim absolute control. You're trying to split hairs that don't exist.
    Differentiating between a state which levies minor taxes on private property and one which nationalizes all property isn't splitting hairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    By way of analogy, no private person in the US holds their land in fee allodium (true ownership); all land is held in fee simple (feudal tenure). This reflects the practical ability of the state to force landowners to pay whatever taxes it demands (as would a feudal overlord). In a sense, the state owns all land in the US, and we individuals just rent it from them. But this is only a formality expressing the sovereignty of the state; it does not mean that all land is actually possessed and operated by the state in a socialistic fashion.
    Except it really does. It means your title of ownership is a meaningless piece of garbage. Luckily there is still some rivalry between the different apparatuses of the State here that you might get out from any State claims. But it is unlikely. Just becaus eyou get to enjoy the illusion that sopmething is yours doesn't mean that it is so.
    No, it really really obviously doesn't.

    The state taxing your land =/= state ownership of land.

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    The difference lies in the means by which each would go about that.

    For an elected politician, the best method of enriching himself is to dole out privileges to special interests, whatever the cost to society.

    For the monarch, the best method of enriching himself is to enrich society as a whole, as that increases his own revenues.
    No, it isn't. The way kings maintain power is to literally dole out privileges to special interests who then serve him. What do you think the nobility and knights are other than special interests that the king placates with money and goods seized from the public in order to maintain power? The king doesn't give a single crap about the enrichment of society. The whole argument falls to pass the basic test of history.
    You are aware that early modern European history is largely the history of a struggle between the monarchs and the nobles, with the former ultimately succeeding in stripping the latter of (most of) their privilages? Why do you think the monarchs were doing that? Feudalism was dead/dying long before democracy arrived. It was killed off by absolute monarchs acting in self-interest, having realized that the nobles' privileges impoverished the people (i.e. reduced potential tax revenues).

    Quote Originally Posted by PierzStyx View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mallsrgood
    Feudalism was essentially dead by the time of the 1789 revolution, destroyed by the kings themselves, in opposition to the nobility.
    Yes, kings doing exactly what you claim they weren't doing.
    Kings destroying feudal privilege = kings liberalizing the economy (exactly what I've been claiming kings were doing)

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Sharia Law = Bye Bye Democracy / Freedom Of Religion = The Destruction Of Democracy!
    By David Jeffrey Spetch in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 09-25-2015, 09:34 AM
  2. Individual Freedom vs. Democracy
    By Ronin Truth in forum Individual Rights Violations: Case Studies
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-04-2014, 02:35 PM
  3. Democracy is not Freedom!
    By qwerty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-27-2010, 05:06 AM
  4. [Youtube] Democracy is Not Freedom!
    By norfair18 in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-02-2009, 01:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •