1
   

"Democracy"

 
 
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 07:26 pm
Is democracy really the voice of the people?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,004 • Replies: 36
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 May, 2005 07:28 pm
By definition, democracy is the rule of the people. If you've got an agenda here, just spit it out. People don't like to feel they've been suckered.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 May, 2005 07:34 am
Rule by the Majority.
0 Replies
 
paul andrew bourne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 11:19 am
Is democracy better than other social arrangements of governance? I am forwarding the position, that democracy by any social definition is oppressive . .
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:23 pm
Every form of government has aspects of oppression.

Even anarchy.
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:30 pm
Lash wrote:
Every form of government has aspects of oppression.

Even anarchy.


Good point.
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 01:00 pm
A pure democracy has the potential to be every bit as oppressive and tyrannical as any other form of unlimited government.

That's why our founders crafted a republican form of government with limited powers.
0 Replies
 
john w k
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 01:15 pm
paul andrew bourne wrote:
Is democracy better than other social arrangements of governance? I am forwarding the position, that democracy by any social definition is oppressive . .


Democracy is no better than two wolves and a sheep voting for what shall be for dinner. Our Founding Fathers knew this and is why they gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government in which the inalienable rights of the individual were intended to be protected by government, not trampled upon as they now are.


Those who confuse our system of government [a constitutionally limited Republican form of government, protected by Art. IV , Sec. 4, u.s.const.] with DEMOCRACY should find the following quite interesting.

Madison, who, in talking about "democracies", points out in Federalist Paper No. 10. "...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..."; and during the Convention which framed our Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."; and then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...".

Democracy can best be described as mob-rule government…very different from our constitutionally limited Republican form of government...our constitution being designed to protect life, liberty and rights associated with property ownership, democracy yielding to mob-rule feeling and group theft!

There may be many definitions of what one calls "democracy", but the irrefutable fact is, our system was created with a specific intent to restrain the excesses of "democracy" .


JWK
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 01:34 pm
[size=7]How nice to agree with Merry![/size]

Very Happy
0 Replies
 
Merry Andrew
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:13 pm
Lash wrote:
[size=7]How nice to agree with Merry![/size]

Very Happy


You don't have to whisper, Lash. (Although, come to think of it, maybe it's best that nobody knows we actually canagree on something from time to time. Smile)
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 02:08 pm
Debra_Law wrote:
A pure democracy has the potential to be every bit as oppressive and tyrannical as any other form of unlimited government.

That's why our founders crafted a republican form of government with limited powers.


wonder what they would think about the state of our union today ?

you always seem to have a good grip on the constitution, any comments ?
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 02:14 pm
[size=7]No one will suspect us when we form an alliance, Merry! Shhh[/size]

As I understand--and until someone makes a better opposing point--the checks and balances made vast improvements on straight democracy. There is room for abuses--but the room is small--and I think our remedies are installed, as well.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2005 11:41 pm
Re: "Democracy"
paul andrew bourne wrote:
Is democracy really the voice of the people?


As close as it comes.

That the voice of the people may argue for oppressive actions is irrelevant as respects your question, but it is inevitable that there are A2K voices who, gratuitously, insist upon educating us on the dark side of our treasured concepts.

For those who would work so diligently, and reliably, to find the flaws in democracy, please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.

Sadly there is an conclave on A2K who believe that they are somehow demonstrating a unique intelligence by offering up the dark side of each and every principle that might be held deeply by the majority (those oppressive bastards!).
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 06:24 am
Re: "Democracy"
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
paul andrew bourne wrote:
Is democracy really the voice of the people?


As close as it comes.

That the voice of the people may argue for oppressive actions is irrelevant as respects your question, but it is inevitable that there are A2K voices who, gratuitously, insist upon educating us on the dark side of our treasured concepts.

Forsooth, what is this pernicious little word, educate, that you seek to impose upon my comfortable little world. I have my flag, my prejudices, my ignorances to keep me warm; what need have I for education?

For those who would work so diligently, and reliably, to find the flaws in democracy, please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.

How about democracy mixed with some morality, some respect for others, some tolerance, some open-mindedness? How about imagining that democracy cannot be taught at the point of a cruise missile? How about democracy brought to a country without shock and awe, without blugeoning a populace into submission?

How about a democracy that holds to democratic principles; the sanctity of life, not just for the "us's" but for the "thems" too. How about a democracy that gives more than lip service to making this a better world for all? How about a democracy that puts their money where their mouth is instead of using their wealth as a tool to advance only themselves and their interests?


Sadly there is an conclave on A2K who believe that they are somehow demonstrating a unique intelligence by offering up the dark side of each and every principle that might be held deeply by the majority (those oppressive bastards!).

Even more sadly, there are those who hide behind talking points and vague generalities and then mistakenly believe that they are being democratic. It is the very antithesis of democracy that "principle[s] that might be held deeply by the majority" are somehow off limits to criticism.

But sad as it makes me to say so, I'm not at all surprised to find that you hold to such beliefs, Buzz.


0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 06:30 am
Quote:
... please provide us with the preferable alternative to the governance of Man.


Maybe a "participatory democracy" -- what we enjoy now is a spectator's democracy; a minority of citizens, once every few years, gets off its collective duff and wearily makes a choice between tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee, then the winning side congratulates itself on being part of the process, the losers claim the vote was rigged, then everyone goes back to whatever they were doing before all those horrible political commercials started running non-stop.

I don't think US democracy is incurably ill, but I don't think it's particularly healthy at the moment either.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 07:04 am
Well spoken, Hightor . . .
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 12:07 pm
Participatory democracy-- Raging civic minded individuals raid into y0our home, shake you by the collar, and demand you mark the ballot they hold under your nose?

If you can't get off your duff, ... <imagine profane suggestion here>.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 04:17 pm
Hi Lash,
I was suggesting participatory democracy not compulsory democracy; I'd be happy to discuss some models of how this might work and how it might be accomplished, although it doesn't sound as if I'd particularly enjoy discussing them with you.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 05:21 pm
Pretend you're discussing it with someone else.
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2005 07:54 pm
Lash wrote:
Participatory democracy-- Raging civic minded individuals raid into y0our home, shake you by the collar, and demand you mark the ballot they hold under your nose?

If you can't get off your duff, ... <imagine profane suggestion here>.


"vee half vays off makingg you sign zee pepperz." :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » "Democracy"
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 10:16:38