Democracy does not exist in the Modern World
Jerry Kraus
rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
system,
which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
Mich...@gmail.com
Can you imagine a system that required a public vote on every issue.
This would be anarchy.
In the US the system of governance was derived so as to equally
protect separate groups (states) of people without making that
governance overly cumbersome.
Any form of government is a balance between efficiency (i.e.
productive and usefully) and personal freedom. The most efficient
government may well be a dictatorship while the most free form is
anarchy. Most people want something in the middle.
Jerry Kraus
As you correctly point out, true democracy has its disadvantages.
That is why Plato didn't care for it. As you say, he complained that
it was too anarchic, and that people didn't always know what was in
their best interests and couldn't effectively govern themselves. He
favored "aristocracy", rule by the best people, and tried to develop a
system for cultivating and choosing such people. I'm simply noting
that what we have as a form of government is certainly not true
democracy or anything remotely like it. So all of the high-profile
hypocrites lauding the praises of democracy -- from George Bush, to
Tony Blair to Vladimir Putin -- are actually and obviously lying
through their teeth, and have some entirely different agenda in mind.
Most likely, personal power, for themselves.
skyeyes
So, what else is new? I don't know what country you're posting in (or
talking about, for that matter), but here in the United States*** our
form of government is called a *democratic republic.* That means that
we democratically elect officials to represent us and vote on issues.
***Or, that's what we had until Bush and the neocons took over. Not
sure what you would call it now.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
skyeyes
<Snippage>
> Can you imagine a system that required a public vote on every issue.
> This would be anarchy.
To a great extent, this is the type of government that Switzerland
had, last time I looked. Of course, Switzerland is full of Swiss,
which is probably why it works there.
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>
> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>
> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"? Just having
elections can be a purely symbolic exercise by dictators such as
Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Hussein etc. Republics need not be democratic
at all. Having multiple candidates to choose from need not result in
any of them actually representing the desires or interests of the
people who elect them.
I would argue that "democratic republics" or "parliamentary
democracies" are simply oligarchies or dictatorships, depending on the
degree of control exercised by the Prime Minister or President, in
which the ballot box replaces the battlefield as the means of deciding
who is the most powerful. Given the influence of money and power on
both who is on the ballot, and what people know about them, what do
such "democracies" really have to do with "rule by the people". You
don't need a ballot box to throw out a dictator. A battlefield will
do just as well. Or better.
Jerry Kraus
>
> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>
> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
Allow me to be more precise. I would argue that the term
"parliamentary democracy" and "democratic republic" are actually
contradictions in terms. They represent attempts by the rich and
powerful to justify their power on the basis of popular support, when,
in fact, all they are doing is herding the poor and middle class --
effectively by force -- into supporting them at the ballot box, as
their de facto dictators/rulers. The intention is to convince the
poor and middle class NOT to use force against the rich and powerful,
by arguing that they have been "elected" or "chosen" as rulers. This
is not the case. They have simply conquered, by force, on the
election battleground. They do not represent the popular interest.
They represent their own. As dictators/rulers. Not as democrats.
Bret Cahill
Industry" where he accurately warns how industrialists could
reintroduce aristocracy with a back door entrance.
This is exactly what happened a few decades later, the 2nd half of the
19th century, and America has become less democratic ever since.
What we now have is at best some of the superficial forms of democracy
that fool only the ignorant.
Most Americans, however, are bright enough to read _Democracy In
America_ and figure out the Big Lies put out by the _NY Times_ and
other robber baron media:
1. Art. I, Sec. 8 means corp. shills control national economic
policy.
2. The First Amendment is only for "bong hits for Jesus" and naked
nazi flagburner parades, never economic issues.
3. Pat Robertson came over on the Mayflower.
4. Jefferson wasn't a populist.
5. Anyone who questions the wisdom of 12 USC 357, the banking act
establishing the Fed's unlimited power to change the interest rate any
amount any time is just like Hitler Stalin Ross Perot and David Duke
all rolled up into one.
All this is changing now with the internet. Those in power might not
like getting their mitts pried off of the levers of power but they
_will_ leave.
One way or another.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
slaves.
DeTocqueville recommended that people in democratic societies read the
ancient Greeks because it was an aristocracy and _not_ a democracy.
Bret Cahill
Jerry Kraus
> Ancient Athens only had 25,000 citizens. The other 325,000 were
> slaves.
>
Athens did.
Jerry Kraus
> slaves.
And how many nations have almost 10% of the total population directly
controlling all aspects of government, at all times?
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
The tyrant with a gun or a 1000 people with a vote, whats the
difference?
MG
Michael Gordge
>
> - Show quoted text -
Democracy = Two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner.
MG
Michael Gordge
Democracy is not meant and ought not be used an end in itself.
Might does not mean right.
Democracy is meant to be a means to an end.
If man want his liberty / freedom and his natural ambition to pursue
his happiness, to be that end, then logically mobocracy needs a
bridle, unbridled mobocracy is the tyrant with a gun.
MG
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So why all the nonsense by politicians about how great democracy is?
And how "democratic" our countries are? And how all "good" countries
are democratic? What are they trying to hide?
Wexford
What the Greeks thought and did is irrelevant. We redefined
"Democracy" to mean Republican-Democracy, i.e., Democratically elected
representative government. Republican-Democracy is too much of a
mouthful to say, so we shorten it to Democracy. For some reason, right
wing pricks like Neal Bortz continuously like to make the point that
the United States is NOT a Democracy because we don't do things like
the Greeks did. He then somehow tries to link this with the Democratic
party, as if there were something phoney and seditious about the party
becasue of its name. Of course we don't do things like the Greeks did.
Our Democractic-Republican forms derive from Germanic traditions.
Roman and Greek names were used to make it seem like it sprang from
classical roots. In any event, if we call it a Rose, it is a Rose.
Forget the Greeks; they're long gone.
The ancient Greeks, by the way, were well aware of the limitations of
the Athenian system. Aristotle flaty stated that if the Polis became
larger than 10,000 citizens, popular Democracy would have to be
limited in some way. Plato, by the way, is no great source for
opinions on Democracy. He was Socratic, a admirer of Sparta, and his
"Republic" is nothing but a bad dream, a Totalitarian system that
would have been as bad anything the Communists or Nazis dreamed-up.
Wexford
> On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>
> > <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>
> > Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
>
> Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
> exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"? Just having
> elections can be a purely symbolic exercise by dictators such as
> Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Hussein etc. Republics need not be democratic
> at all. Having multiple candidates to choose from need not result in
> any of them actually representing the desires or interests of the
> people who elect them.
???????
> I would argue that "democratic republics" or "parliamentary
> democracies" are simply oligarchies or dictatorships, depending on the
> degree of control exercised by the Prime Minister or President, in
> which the ballot box replaces the battlefield as the means of deciding
> who is the most powerful. Given the influence of money and power on
> both who is on the ballot, and what people know about them, what do
> such "democracies" really have to do with "rule by the people". You
> don't need a ballot box to throw out a dictator. A battlefield will
> do just as well. Or better.
You go live in a country where the ruler is overthrown on the
battlefield and see how you like it. There's a tendency for people to
view any democractic government through a reducio ad absurdam argument
that, since the powerful and rich are infuential, all forms of
democracy are a sham. If that were the case, we'd never have pure food
and drug laws, transportation safety would be neglected, the courts
would not regularly uphold Contitutional rights, not only would your
car pollute the air in quantities unthought-of, cars would be
intrinsically unsafe, the sky would be gray with pollution, your water
would be barely drinkable or undrinkable, only the rich could afford
any kind of decent medical care (even vaccinations), etc. Whatever the
problems of Democracy, I'll take it over anything else you have to
offer.
Wexford
> On Sep 21, 2:47 pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:> Ancient Athens only had 25,000 citizens. The other 325,000 were
> > slaves.
???????
> True, but how many modern nations have 25,000 rulers? Effectively,
> Athens did.
>
It didn't work that way. The City Counsel had a lot of influence and
independence. They could pass their own laws and rules, and they did.
Michael Gordge
An honest politician is an oxymoron, its time for the masses of
sheeple to THINK.
The revolution must start in the head, not at the ballot box.
Next time you get a chance, ask a politician what he thinks of the
idea of placing a bridle on his democratic ambitions, e.g. so as
democracy cant be used to violate the values and actions of peaceful
human beings, e.g individual private property rights , the hall mark
of any and all civilized societies, ought be kept out of reach of the
voting mob.
He will tell you, "that's certainly good idea in theory but its bad in
practice", soooo you reply, good ideas in theory always work in
practice indeed that is why they are called good ideas and the reverse
is also true, bad theories are bad in practice and then point to the
violations in individual private property rights that even his own
party have been guilty of.
At that point he will want to end the discussion as ALL left wing and
right wing conserative clowns do.
Michael Gordge
Jerry Kraus
I'm not convinced post-colonial America was so bad. We had just
overthrown the British rulers on the Battlefield, in 1785.
There's a tendency for people to
> view any democractic government through a reducio ad absurdam argument
> that, since the powerful and rich are infuential, all forms of
> democracy are a sham. If that were the case, we'd never have pure food
> and drug laws, transportation safety would be neglected, the courts
> would not regularly uphold Contitutional rights, not only would your
> car pollute the air in quantities unthought-of, cars would be
> intrinsically unsafe, the sky would be gray with pollution, your water
> would be barely drinkable or undrinkable, only the rich could afford
> any kind of decent medical care (even vaccinations), etc. Whatever the
> problems of Democracy, I'll take it over anything else you have to
> offer.- Hide quoted text -
Bret Cahill
> difference?
You can't get shot dead with a ballot?
Bret Cahill
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>>
>> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
>
>Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
>exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"?
Selecting leaders from more than one alternative by a process of
voting. "True Democracy" was bullshit. The Athenian voting public
was fundamentally a relatively large oligarchy ruling over a majority
who had no franchise.
David Johnston
It isn't nonsense. They just aren't talking about the nonexistent
form of democracy you are.
Bret Cahill
> > Athens did.
> It didn't work that way. The City Counsel had a lot of influence and
> independence. They could pass their own laws and rules, and they did.
No one likes to discuss it but by the time Socrates appeared they were
all as gay as, well, Republican congressmen and didn't have time to
participate politically.
Like the U. S. today, it was only run by two or three people working
part time.
So the problem was the opposite of what JK is suggesting.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
> opinions on Democracy. He was Socratic, a admirer of Sparta, and his
> "Republic" is nothing but a bad dream, a Totalitarian system that
> would have been as bad anything the Communists or Nazis dreamed-up.
Even the Taliban would have been considered pretty progressive back
then.
Bret Cahill
Nick
about the issues of day-to-day government. That's why we have
representative democracies, and not every citizen casting a vote by
telephone or online about each and every piece of legislation. We
could do that, but then each and every one of us would have to give up
our day jobs and become experts on everything, even if it was something
to do with agriculture and some of us lived in the city!
How would you like to have it? Personally, I can't wait until the day
when I get home after picking up the kids, feeding them, dropping my
daughter off to her dance lessons and driving my son to his hockey
game; only to turn on the computer so I can vote on the bills facing
the legeslature that day!
Sanity
"Michael Gordge" <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1190407973.0...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...
Saddam Hussein had free elections.....of course he was the only one on the
ballot...
>
Sanity
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1190414227.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
....guess you could always cram some hanging chads into a 12 guage shell and
give it a try.
>
>
>
>
>
Michael Gordge
Wanna bet dopey?
Fact, peaceful human beings have been sent to jail and some peaceful
human beings have been shot or hung by govt decree in democratic
societies e.g. Singapore.
If a peaceful human being charged and found guilty of committing an
invented crime of the mob, chooses to defend his / her freedom, rather
than be taken to jail, they can be shot, thats the law.
Indeed, the law can have no meaning unless death is the ultimate
threat.
"The Rule of Law Bwet", have you ever heard of it?
Tyrant with a gun = mobs with votes.
MG
Bret Cahill
to popular vote several times a year while congressmen continued to do
their silly resolutions and act patriotic wasting hundreds of billions
on a quagmire of mass distraction.
Uh, let me change that. If popular control of the major aspects of
national economic policy were restored with referenda, the silly
resolutions and congressmen acting patriotic would vanish so fast you
wouldn't even remember the Iraq quagmire.
Art. I Sec 8 didn't give these powers to Congress because Madison
liked to give monied interests the opportunity to buy off politicians.
Congress got these powers because communications moved at the speed of
a horse.
Now that the country is wired there is no reason not to hold referenda
on national economic policy.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
If you would quit charging so much for lamb maybe we wolves could eat
2 sheep for dinner instead of just one.
Bret Cahill
Nick
> A few major issues like fiscal and monetary policy could easily be put
> to popular vote several times a year while congressmen continued to do
> their silly resolutions and act patriotic wasting hundreds of billions
> on a quagmire of mass distraction.
>
> Uh, let me change that. If popular control of the major aspects of
> national economic policy were restored with referenda, the silly
> resolutions and congressmen acting patriotic would vanish so fast you
> wouldn't even remember the Iraq quagmire.
I absolutely agree. There are certainly top level decisions that the
electorate could and should be involved with. Not the minutiae.
But then again, there would need to be a responsible method of the
public being informed.
The US system of "lobbyism" combined with extensive partisan medias on
both sides; and just about any governmental systems (including my
Parliamentary Democracy's) less than open method of saying "what's up"
puts that idealistic notion in severe jeopardy.
Legislating parameters to make high level decisions by the electorate
good and not damaging would be necessary.
That's a whole different kettle of fish!
Santolina chamaecyparissus
> On Sep 21, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
> > system,
> > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
>
> Can you imagine a system that required a public vote on every issue.
> This would be anarchy.
Anarcho-syndicalism.
Bret Cahill
> human beings have been shot or hung by govt decree in democratic
> societies e.g. Singapore.
Fact: The capitalist Pullman mounted a machine gun on top of a car
and shot dead peaceful working people.
Fact: Democratic societies are peaceful and libertarian societies
like Iraq get a lot of people killed.
Bret Cahill
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>>
>> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
>
>Allow me to be more precise. I would argue that the term
>"parliamentary democracy" and "democratic republic" are actually
>contradictions in terms. They represent attempts by the rich and
>powerful to justify their power on the basis of popular support, when,
>in fact, all they are doing is herding the poor and middle class --
>effectively by force -- into supporting them at the ballot box, as
>their de facto dictators/rulers. The intention is to convince the
>poor and middle class NOT to use force against the rich and powerful,
>by arguing that they have been "elected" or "chosen" as rulers. This
>is not the case. They have simply conquered, by force, on the
>election battleground.
Which is it, by force or by election? Unless you're beating opposing
voters up it isn't both.
Michael Gordge
> Fact: The capitalist Pullman mounted a machine gun on top of a car
> and shot dead peaceful working people.
That's a murderer.
> Fact: Democratic societies...
And thats an oxymoron, keep trying.
MG
Michael Gordge
Is this your first attempt at humor?
Neolibertarian
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country.
The United States is not a democracy--congratulations on your discovery
of the obvious.
"Platonic democracy" isn't either. Or else you gotta show us where the
Philosopher Kings fit in. IIRC, Plato wasn't a big fan of democracy.
Classical Greek democracy wasn't either. They actually had sense.
There is nothing that logically favors democracy over other forms of
government.
> The latter
> system,
> which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
According to my constitution, I don't elect "dictators or oligarchs."
According to my constitution, I elect servants.
Until this last paragraph, I thought you might be writing about the
United States. Obviously, you're not.
What country are you from?
--
NeoLibertarian
³The world is not going to be saved by legislation.²
---William Howard Taft
Immortalist
> True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> system,
> which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
The diverging systems of government are tyranny, oligarchy, and
democracy, which are those systems that "diverge" from the three
"straight systems of government" which are kingship, aristocracy, and
polity.
http://www.stoa.org/projects/demos/article_aristotle_democracy?page=all&greekEncoding=UnicodeC
There are 3 correct constitutions (kingship, aristocracy, polity) for
Aristotle, and 3 deviates from these (tyranny, oligarchy, democracy).
Actually, Aristotle might not think a tyranny is a constitution, which
I will mention again briefly. His categorization is not complete how
stated (i.e. 6 constitutions), but Aristotle leaves it open that
constitutions can be made by mixing and matching different aspects
that go into them.
http://omni.zwolak.org/intellectual/essays/Aristotle2.html
For people in the West, democracy means "liberal democracy": a
political system marked not only by free and fair elections but also
by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of
basic liberties of speech, assembly, religion, and property. But this
bundle of freedoms-what might be termed "constitutional liberalism"-
has nothing intrinsically to do with democracy and the two have not
always gone together, even in the West....
...If the Greek roots of Western liberty are often overstated, the
Roman ones are neglected. When Herodotus wrote that the Greeks were "a
free people" he meant that they were not slaves under foreign conquest
or domination-an idea we would today call "national independence" or
"self-determination." (By this definition, the North Koreans today are
a free people.) The Romans emphasized a different aspect of freedom:
that all citizens were to be treated equally under the law. This
conception of freedom is much closer to the modern Western one, and
the Latin word for it, libertas, is the root of ours. Whereas Greece
gave the world philosophy, literature, poetry, and art, Rome gave us
the beginnings of limited government and the rule of law. The Roman
Republic, with its divided government (three branches), election of
officials to limited terms, and emphasis on equality under law has
been a model for governments ever since, most consciously in the
founding of the American Republic. To this day Roman political
concepts and terms endure throughout the Western world: senate,
republic, constitution, prefecture. Western law is so filled with
Roman legacies that until the early twentieth century, lawyers had to
be well versed in Latin. Most of the world's laws of contract,
property, liability, defamation, inheritance, and estate and rules of
procedure and evidence are variations on Roman themes. For Herbert
Asquith, the gifted amateur classicist who became prime minister of
the United Kingdom, Rome's greatest gift to the ages was that "she
founded, developed and systematized the jurisprudence of the world."
The gaping hole in Roman law, however, was that as a practical matter,
it didn't apply to the ruling class, particularly as the republic
degenerated into a monarchy by the first century. Emperors such as
Nero, Vitellius, and Galba routinely sentenced people to death without
trial, pillaged private homes and temples, and raped and murdered
their subjects. Caligula famously had his horse appointed senator, an
act that probably violated the implicit, if not explicit, rules of
that once-august body. Traditions of law that had been built carefully
during Rome's republican years crumbled in the decadence of empire.
The lesson of Rome's fall is that, for the rule of law to endure, you
need more than the good intentions of the rulers, for they may change
(both the intentions and the rulers). You need institutions within
society whose strength is independent of the state. The West found
such a countervailing force in the Catholic Church.
The Future of Freedom - Illiberal Democracy at Home & Abroad
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393047644/
www.fareedzakaria.com
A tyrant is a single ruler holding vast, if not absolute power through
a state or in an organization. The term carries connotations of a
harsh and cruel ruler who places his/her own interests or the
interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general
population which s/he governs or controls. This mode of rule is
referred to as tyranny. Many individual rulers or government officials
are accused of tyranny, with the label almost always a matter of
controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrant
The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of
democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which
decisions made by a majority under that system would place that
majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be
comparable in cruelty to "tyrannical" despots.
Limits on the decisions that can be made by such majorities, such as
constitutional limits on the powers of parliament and use of a bill of
rights in a parliamentary democracy, are commonly meant to avoid the
problem.
Immortalist
> In article <1190394361.650178.84...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country.
>
> The United States is not a democracy--congratulations on your discovery
> of the obvious.
>
> "Platonic democracy" isn't either. Or else you gotta show us where the
> Philosopher Kings fit in. IIRC, Plato wasn't a big fan of democracy.
>
> Classical Greek democracy wasn't either. They actually had sense.
>
> There is nothing that logically favors democracy over other forms of
> government.
>
> > The latter
> > system,
> > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
>
> According to my constitution, I don't elect "dictators or oligarchs."
> According to my constitution, I elect servants.
>
No, but you state may do so. Accourding to your constitution your vote
is meaningless;
Arguments against the current system;
Unequal weight of voters - Under the current system, the vote of an
individual living in a state with three electoral votes is
proportionally more influential than the vote of an individual living
in a state with a large number of electoral votes.
Losing the popular vote; the loser of the popular vote can win in the
Electoral College.
Focus on large swing states; Most states use a winner-take-all system,
in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all
of the state's electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to
pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as
Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
Favors less populous states; As well as to give more voting power to
citizens of less populated states, the electoral college gives
disproportionate power to those state interests as well. This can
further correspond with national political control, since most states
tend to go either Republican or Democrat, and the less populous states
tending toward the former. Democrats often complain for this reason
that the electoral college favors the Republican party, by boosting
the electoral weight of Republican states.
Disadvantage for third parties; because third parties generally start
as regional phenomena [citation needed] and because the Electoral
College is a form of regional allocation, the Electoral College would
enhance the power of third parties if electoral votes were allocated
by proportional representation. Generally, the winner-take-all manner
of allocating a state's delegates, coupled with the winner-take-all
approach of the college itself, decreases the importance of minor
parties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Arguments_for_and_against_the_current_system
Alexander DeLarge
> No, but you state may do so. Accourding to your constitution your vote
> is meaningless;
>
> Arguments against the current system;
>
> Unequal weight of voters - Under the current system, the vote of an
> individual living in a state with three electoral votes is
> proportionally more influential than the vote of an individual living
> in a state with a large number of electoral votes.
>
> Losing the popular vote; the loser of the popular vote can win in the
> Electoral College.
>
> Focus on large swing states; Most states use a winner-take-all system,
> in which the candidate with the most votes in that state receives all
> of the state's electoral votes. This gives candidates an incentive to
> pay the most attention to states without a clear favorite, such as
> Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.
>
countermanded the vote of the general public at large, different from
when Al Gore won the popular vote of the people in 2000. Which is
meaningless in US and any elections in other places.
I think it was about 124 years-ago.
When the Canadian Conservatives ended up with only two seats in
government back in 1993, they actually had over 40% of the popular
vote. But the "first past the pole" idea of elections fucked them big
time! When Bush won in 2000, the Democrats with Gore had more of the
popular vote.
Neolibertarian
Immortalist <reanima...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 8:15 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1190394361.650178.84...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jerry Kraus <jkraus 1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country.
> >
> > The United States is not a democracy--congratulations on your discovery
> > of the obvious.
> >
> > "Platonic democracy" isn't either. Or else you gotta show us where the
> > Philosopher Kings fit in. IIRC, Plato wasn't a big fan of democracy.
> >
> > Classical Greek democracy wasn't either. They actually had sense.
> >
> > There is nothing that logically favors democracy over other forms of
> > government.
> >
> > > The latter
> > > system,
> > > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
> >
> > According to my constitution, I don't elect "dictators or oligarchs."
> > According to my constitution, I elect servants.
> >
>
> No, but you state may do so. Accourding to your constitution your vote
> is meaningless;
According to my Constitution, the votes are only counted every ten years.
These are not meaning free.
Alexander DeLarge
What kind of security is that? Compared to Canada's 5 years?
If I was 46, I would look so different at 56.
How can your officals tell who you are?
Alexander DeLarge
passport. You just can't get back home without it.
LOL!
God Bless 'meruka.
Clint Hunter
> True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> system,
> which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
Plato was a homosexual and pedophile. Read his "Symposium" for proof
of this.
Plato was also one of the world's first writers to articulate and
recommend socialism
as seen in his "Republic". He was brilliant. but at the same time an
idealistic fool.
Jerry Kraus
> On Sep 21, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
> > system,
> > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
>
> "Democracy" to mean Republican-Democracy, i.e.,
Democratically elected
> representative government. Republican-Democracy is too much of a
> mouthful to say, so we shorten it to Democracy.
Total nonsense and world salad. The word "Democracy", if it means
anything, means "rule by the people". I am not necessarily arguing
that this is an ideal system, any more than Plato was, merely that
that is what the word means. I AM arguing that the rich and powerful
have effectively hijacked the word "democracy" in an effort to confuse
people. We do not have "democratically elected rulers". The concept
is meaningless. Elections are controlled by power and money, just as
battlefields are, and were. The advantages of elections over
battlefields, to the rulers, are twofold:
1. They do not have to risk death in battle.
2. They can argue that they have popular support, when, in fact, they
do not.
For some reason, right
> wing pricks like Neal Bortz continuously like to make the point that
> the United States is NOT a Democracy because we don't do things like
> the Greeks did. He then somehow tries to link this with the Democratic
> party, as if there were something phoney and seditious about the party
> becasue of its name. Of course we don't do things like the Greeks did.
> Our Democractic-Republican forms derive from Germanic traditions.
> Roman and Greek names were used to make it seem like it sprang from
> classical roots. In any event, if we call it a Rose, it is a Rose.
> Forget the Greeks; they're long gone.
>
> The ancient Greeks, by the way, were well aware of the limitations of
> the Athenian system. Aristotle flaty stated that if the Polis became
> larger than 10,000 citizens, popular Democracy would have to be
> limited in some way. Plato, by the way, is no great source for
> opinions on Democracy. He was Socratic, a admirer of Sparta, and his
> "Republic" is nothing but a bad dream, a Totalitarian system that
> would have been as bad anything the Communists or Nazis dreamed-up.
I am well aware of Plato's views. Again, I am not necessarily arguing
for true Democracy. I am questioning the motives of our "rulers" --
becuase that is what they are -- in using the term "Democracy".
Jerry Kraus
> On Sep 21, 3:05 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>
>
> > > <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>
>
> > exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"? Just having
> > elections can be a purely symbolic exercise by dictators such as
> > Hitler, Castro, Stalin, Hussein etc. Republics need not be democratic
> > at all. Having multiple candidates to choose from need not result in
> > any of them actually representing the desires or interests of the
> > people who elect them.
>
>
> > I would argue that "democratic republics" or "parliamentary
> > democracies" are simply oligarchies or dictatorships, depending on the
> > degree of control exercised by the Prime Minister or President, in
> > which the ballot box replaces the battlefield as the means of deciding
> > who is the most powerful. Given the influence of money and power on
> > both who is on the ballot, and what people know about them, what do
> > such "democracies" really have to do with "rule by the people". You
> > don't need a ballot box to throw out a dictator. A battlefield will
> > do just as well. Or better.
>
> battlefield and see how you like it.
America was just fine after we overthrew the British on the
battlefield. It is far from clear to me that if "elections" for our
"representatives" were replaced by armed combat to the death between
the candidates for office the results would be worse than we have
now. They would be equally "democratic", and many of the degenerates
currently in government would be weeded out.
There's a tendency for people to
> view any democractic government through a reducio ad absurdam argument
> that, since the powerful and rich are infuential, all forms of
> democracy are a sham. If that were the case, we'd never have pure food
> and drug laws, transportation safety would be neglected, the courts
> would not regularly uphold Contitutional rights, not only would your
> car pollute the air in quantities unthought-of, cars would be
> intrinsically unsafe, the sky would be gray with pollution, your water
> would be barely drinkable or undrinkable, only the rich could afford
> any kind of decent medical care (even vaccinations), etc. Whatever the
> problems of Democracy, I'll take it over anything else you have to
> offer.- Hide quoted text -
>
None of these things have anything to do with democracy. Virtually
all rulers have attempted to take reasonably good care of their
people, including ours. Pol Pot types, who exterminate en masse for
no reason, are extremely rare. All you are arguing is that we have
good rulers. NOT that we have a Democratic government.
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>
> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>
> >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>
> >> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
>
> >Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
> >exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"?
>
> voting. "True Democracy" was bullshit. The Athenian voting public
> was fundamentally a relatively large oligarchy ruling over a majority
> who had no franchise.
You are missing my point David. I am arguing that there is no
difference between an election and a battlefield, in terms of the term
"democracy". People are part of a battlefield too. Does that mean
leaders who win on battlefields are democratically elected?
Democracy means rule by plebiscite, nothing else. Otherwise, you are
playing the same word games that gave us the "German Demcratic
Republic" and give us the "People's Republic of China".
Athens gave 10-20% the population -- tens of thousands of people --
complete control. Anyone in authority could be removed at any time.
No comparable democracy exists today.
Jerry Kraus
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:03:55 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>
>
> >So why all the nonsense by politicians about how great democracy is?
>
> It isn't nonsense. They just aren't talking about the nonexistent
> form of democracy you are.
>
>
>
> >And how "democratic" our countries are? And how all "good" countries
> >are democratic? What are they trying to hide?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Democracy of the type I am discussing is, as far as I am aware,
currently non-existent. What you are discussing is not Democracy, but
oligarchy/dictatorship pursued through electoral warfare. The people
have no real power at all. The people would be just as well off, if
not better, if the leaders fought duels to the death for the privilege
of representing the public, rather than fought in elections.
Elections benefit the rulers, not the people.
Jerry Kraus
> > > True, but how many modern nations have 25,000 rulers? Effectively,
> > > Athens did.
> > It didn't work that way. The City Counsel had a lot of influence and
> > independence. They could pass their own laws and rules, and they did.
>
> No one likes to discuss it but by the time Socrates appeared they were
> all as gay as, well, Republican congressmen and didn't have time to
> participate politically.
>
> Like the U. S. today, it was only run by two or three people working
> part time.
>
> So the problem was the opposite of what JK is suggesting.
>
> Bret Cahill
"Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an
Athenian model, but none were as powerful or as stable (or as well-
documented) as that of Athens. It remains a unique and intriguing
experiment in direct democracy where the people do not elect
representatives to vote on their behalf but vote on legislation and
executive bills in their own right. Participation was by no means open
to all inhabitants of Attica, but the in-group of participants was
constituted with no reference to economic class and they participated
on a scale that was truly phenomenal. Never before had so many people
spent so much of their time in governing themselves."
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
"Other Greek cities set up democracies, most but not all following an
Jerry Kraus
This is the type of thing I have been thinking of, Bret. A
Constitutional Amendment giving the general public the right to have
legally binding plebiscites on matters of importance, particularly
where their views differed from those of their elected
representatives. That would end the war in Iraq very quickly! It
would also get rid of George Bush.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
My point is, David, that elections are manipulated by wealth and
power. Do you really disagree with this? Would you really argue that
anyone has an equal opportunity to win in so-called "democratic"
elections, regardless of socio-economic status?
Jerry Kraus
> In article <1190394361.650178.84...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
I'm not necessarily arguing for democracy. I'm arguing against
politicians pretending that we are a democracy and that they represent
the views of the people, when they do not. They are rulers who win on
the electoral battlefied. Using wealth and power, which are forms of
force. Why not just have them fight duels to the death for the
privilege of representing us? How would we be worse off?
Jerry Kraus
Plato opposed democracy. He advocated aristocracy. His definition of
the term "democracy" is valid, however
Clint Hunter
> On Sep 22, 8:22 am, Clint Hunter <cicer...@rogers.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 1:06 pm, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
> > > system,
> > > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
> >
> > Plato was a homosexual and pedophile. Read his "Symposium" for proof
> > of this.
> > Plato was also one of the world's first writers to articulate and
> > recommend socialism
> > as seen in his "Republic". He was brilliant. but at the same time an
> > idealistic fool.
>
> Plato opposed democracy. He advocated aristocracy. His definition of
> the term "democracy" is valid, however
>
a supply side laissez faire capitalist utopia!
Hoffman
> He was brilliant. but at the same time an
> idealistic fool.
>
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Most Chinese would disagree. They complain of having to work in
factories for pennies a day. They also complain of persecution for
any kind of religious beliefs, particularly "Falan Gong", which is
illegal in China. Of course, they do have a very lucrative black
market in human bodily organs for transplants -- from condemned
prisoners, for example. Truly, a laissez-faire capitalist utopia!
ZerkonX
> There is nothing that logically favors democracy over other forms of
> government.
This is pretty interesting.
So the question I have is: If this is so, why is the word used so much in
political discourse?
Logically, democracy seems to be favored at some level. What level is
this? Political sheep-speak?
Neolibertarian
ZerkonX <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote:
Is there any instance in history where the majority was proved right
about anything?
I have yet to find such a record.
'
When Socrates swilled the hemlock, his broad-shouldered apprentice
hardly seems to have been convinced that majority rule has any value.
No new evidence in the two millennia since seems to upset the hypothesis.
There is no inherent virtue in majority rule. A tyranny of the majority
seems every bit as evil and destructive as any other kind of regime in
the long, sad history of mankind.
Why the word is used so much in political discourse is no secret.
Bret Cahill
> force.
That argument doesn't really help restore democracy.
Money can only subvert democracy when no one says or does anything.
To be sure the corp. media have been trying to keep the public from
the public debate but there is some responsibility on the part of the
people to read up a little on the constitution, Federalist Papers,
etc.
A lot of early Americans read _Spirit of Laws_ in the original French.
Someone needs to tell Cindy Sheehan that she should have gotten
involved politically at the national level _before_ the Iraq tragedy.
You get involved from the day you are born
You do not listen to the corp. media when they sneer "joe sixpack."
You do _not_ listen to corp. nonsense like Maslow's pyramid.
You get involved in politics _before_ you have a place to live,
_before_ you have something to eat, _before_ you take your next
breath.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
Yum yum.
No wonder popular gummint is so popular!
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 10:15 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1190394361.650178.84...@r29g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > ?The world is not going to be saved by legislation.?
> > ---William Howard Taft
>
> I'm not necessarily arguing for democracy. I'm arguing against
> politicians pretending that we are a democracy and that they represent
> the views of the people, when they do not.
To the best of their not too exceptional abilities, they do, in fact,
represent the views of the (likely) voters from their districts.
These views, for the most part, conflict with each other, so often there
are myriad compromises involved.
> They are rulers who win on
> the electoral battlefied.
They are pretending they own me, my life, land and sacred honor.
The world has always been full of such. Legislation, your police force,
and even a Revolution will not get rid of these men.
> Using wealth and power, which are forms of
> force.
No, in fact, they aren't. Force is force. The rest is all about threats
to your convenience.
> Why not just have them fight duels to the death for the
> privilege of representing us?
BRAVO! I'm very much in favor of THAT!
However, maybe we should, instead, have voting booths locked out by a
random quadratic equation. Solve the equation, and you can vote.
> How would we be worse off?
Having The Peepul learn they can vote themselves Bread and Circuses, of
course.
Which, alas, they seem to have already learned.
Bret Cahill
> > and shot dead peaceful working people.
> That's a murderer.
Which is why no one likes capitalists.
Now take a libertarian paradise like Iraq where,
1. there are no taxes,
2. there is no gummint, and
3. everyone is armed.
Who wants to live in "libertaria?"
Idiots?
Bret Cahill
pba...@worldonline.nl
> True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> system,
> which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
As only a minority was involved in the Greek plebisit it was actually
less Democratic than parliamentary systems.
Calling - for instance - the Netherlands a Dictatorship or an
Oligarchy is insane.
In order to form a government one clearly needs the support of more
than one man and the people you need as support are not the richest
people, but the parties that had the support of the majority of the
voters.
It may not be perfectly Democratic, but it is not totally flawed
either
Whatever you may say about parliamentary systems,
they cannot be called undemocratic.
By the way, the plebecit systems still exists or at least existed the
last time I checked in Switzerland. Of course the people do not get to
vote several times a day, but they do get to vote on the more
important issues.
As the Swiss - unlike the Greeks - do not hold slaves - Switzerland
should be - by your standards - the ulitimate democracy
PS The republic Plato insisted on, would have been something like the
Sovjet Union, or present day China, on a small scale. I doubt whether
any democrat (or republican:) would have liked to live in it
Peter van Velzen
September 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlands
Rick Emberson
Wexford
> In article <pan.2007.09.22.16.05.37.183...@zerkonx.net>,
Silly conceit.Whatever problems democratic republics have, they're
immensely superior to rule by monarchs or dictators.
Jerry Kraus
You take my point. The concept of Democracy is being used to
manipulate people. There is no such thing as "representative
democracy". This is a contradiction in terms. Democracy is direct
control of the government by plebiscite, as was effectively the case
in ancient Athens, quibbles regarding who were citizens aside.
"Representative Democracy" is simply oligarchy or dictatorship, with
elections instead of armed conflict. The oligarchs gain the advantage
of not having to kill each other to gain power, and also the
appearance of popular support. In fact, they are simply manipulating
people through the media.
Jerry Kraus
> In article <pan.2007.09.22.16.05.37.183...@zerkonx.net>,
But selective plebiscites combined with a representative oligarchy, of
the type we have now, might be a preferable, hybrid form of government.
Jerry Kraus
How about combining plebiscites on critical issues with our current
"represntative oligarchy" system? A hybrid Democracy/Oligarchy. Some
kind of Constitutional Amendment to arrange things, perhaps?
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
I suspect both the Netherlands and Switzerland are more democratic
than the United States, currently. The sheer size of the system in
the U.S. may be a factor undermining democracy, of course. Too many
people being represented by too few representatives.
I'm merely using Plato's definitions by the way, which are sound. I
am not advocating Plato's views on government, particularly. Athenian
Democracy was NOT representative democracy. It was direct democracy.
Jerome Raymond Kraus
Jerry Kraus
wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 21, 12:14 pm, skyeyes <skye...@dakotacom.net> wrote:
> > On Sep 21, 10:06 am, Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense, is simply
> > > rule by plebiscite. All decisions are put to majority popular vote,
> > > including court decisions. Sometimes a military leader would be
> > > appointed popularly to command a battle, and sometimes a random
> > > selection of citizens would be used to decide court cases. But there
> > > would be no "elected" leaders who ran the country. The latter
> > > system,
> > > which we have, is not democracy, but simply a variation, or
> > > variations, on dictatorship/oligarchy, with the rich and powerful
> > > fighting over the ballot box, as a battlefield.
>
> > talking about, for that matter), but here in the United States*** our
> > form of government is called a *democratic republic.* That means that
> > we democratically elect officials to represent us and vote on issues.
>
> > ***Or, that's what we had until Bush and the neocons took over. Not
> > sure what you would call it now.
>
> > Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
> > EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
> > skyeyes at dakotacom dot net
>
> Representative democracies are rarely either. In fact, they are
> invariably neither.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is precisely my point, my friend.
Bret Cahill
I suggested that above. That's the _only_ solution.
> A hybrid Democracy/Oligarchy.
The oligarchical part would vanish as soon as it saw Jeffersonian
democracy was going to be restored. As DeTocqueville pointed out, you
can not mix 'n match the desirable parts of different political
systems.
Above I pointed out the showboat posturing bs legislation that causes
more damage than good would evaporate if the people ever got their
mitts on national economic policy as clearly stated under Art. I., Sec
8.
> Some
> kind of Constitutional Amendment to arrange things, perhaps?
It wouldn't be hard to push through.
When the elitist politicians argued that the people are too dumb to
vote directly on national economic policy just say, "well then they
are too dumb to vote for you."
If the people are too dumb to vote for a number which cannot be bribed
or flip flop or lie or get arrested for soliciting sex public wash
rooms, then how can they vote for human beings who are easy to bribe?
Bret Cahill
Jerry Kraus
Sounds pretty good, Bret. How and when can we arrange it?
> Bret Cahill- Hide quoted text -
Bret Cahill
> > last time I checked in Switzerland. Of course the people do not get to
> > vote several times a day, but they do get to vote on the more
> > important issues.
>
> > As the Swiss - unlike the Greeks - do not hold slaves - Switzerland
> > should be - by your standards - the ulitimate democracy
>
> > PS The republic Plato insisted on, would have been something like the
> > Sovjet Union, or present day China, on a small scale. I doubt whether
> > any democrat (or republican:) would have liked to live in it
>
> > Peter van Velzen
> > September 2007
> > Amstelveen
> > The Netherlands
>
> I suspect both the Netherlands and Switzerland are more democratic
> than the United States, currently.
DC politics has nothing to do with the people. As Madison wrote, "a
popular government without popular information or the means of
acquiring it, is only a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy; or perhaps
both."
> The sheer size of the system in
> the U.S. may be a factor undermining democracy, of course.
A large country just isn't going to be as free as a small state. The
original goal of the "several states" or a "republic of republics" in
the U. S. Constitution was to combine the freedom of a small state
with the security of a large one.
It would have worked without slavery in part of the country. Then the
federal government was more pro freedom than some states and it's been
screwed up ever since.
In the 20th Century the centralization of power in Russia induced a
centralization of power in the U. S. which screwed things up even
more.
The framers knew about the former problem. They probably didn't know
about the robber barons or the wars of the 20th Century until decades
after the constitution, not too long before they died.
> Too many
> people being represented by too few representatives.
I've heard that before, that we need to have each politician represent
a smaller number of people.
That's low priority at best because,
1. monied interests have enough cash to buy off tens of thousands of
congressmen, and,
2. I don't have much trouble getting through to my congressmen. I
never even get a busy signal when I call or fax. Clearly the real
problem is the citizens of the U. S. just don't even try. DC is some
distant place that doesn't directly affect their interests.
DeTocqueville mentioned this back in 1833. He said if the county
starts to build a road over someone's property THEN he gets interested
in local politics.
Local politics is more sophisticated than state and state is more
sophisticated than national.
It takes two brain cells to figure everything out at the national
level.
Bret Cahill
Bret Cahill
If we had referenda on major economic policy, it wouldn't be necessary
to have referenda on quagmires, etc.
All the scams would evaporate.
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
Wexford <wry...@gmail.com> wrote:
"Superior" in what way? And why?
Neolibertarian
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 11:58 am, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <pan.2007.09.22.16.05.37.183...@zerkonx.net>,
> >
> > ZerkonX <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 03:15:11 +0000, Neolibertarian wrote:
> >
> > > > There is nothing that logically favors democracy over other forms of
> > > > government.
> >
> > > This is pretty interesting.
> >
> > > So the question I have is: If this is so, why is the word used so much in
> > > political discourse?
> >
> > > Logically, democracy seems to be favored at some level. What level is
> > > this? Political sheep-speak?
> >
> > Is there any instance in history where the majority was proved right
> > about anything?
> >
> > I have yet to find such a record.
> > '
> > When Socrates swilled the hemlock, his broad-shouldered apprentice
> > hardly seems to have been convinced that majority rule has any value.
> >
> > No new evidence in the two millennia since seems to upset the hypothesis.
> >
> > There is no inherent virtue in majority rule. A tyranny of the majority
> > seems every bit as evil and destructive as any other kind of regime in
> > the long, sad history of mankind.
> >
> > Why the word is used so much in political discourse is no secret.
> >
> > --
> > NeoLibertarian
> >
> > ?The world is not going to be saved by legislation.?
> > ---William Howard Taft
>
> But selective plebiscites combined with a representative oligarchy, of
> the type we have now, might be a preferable, hybrid form of government.
You're only arguing over different ways to own me.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
So, we seem to be in agreement that some system of formal plebiscites
should exist to balance out the greed and incompetence of our
"representatives". But how exactly to implement such a system? How
can we get it past the resistance of our rulers/oligarchs/
representatives?
Jerry Kraus
> In article <1190484207.603503.274...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > NeoLibertarian
>
> > > ?The world is not going to be saved by legislation.?
> > > ---William Howard Taft
>
> > But selective plebiscites combined with a representative oligarchy, of
> > the type we have now, might be a preferable, hybrid form of government.
>
> You're only arguing over different ways to own me.
>
> --
> NeoLibertarian
We must all make compromises to live in society. But we should make
the best ones, not the worst.
>
> "The world is not going to be saved by legislation."
> ---William Howard Taft- Hide quoted text -
Mich...@gmail.com
superior or inferior to another. Rather it is the people who run that
system of government. In America's past we have certainly had some
"bad" politicians, but I also think we have had a large number of
elected rulers that have placed their ideals and their country ahead
of themselves. Certainly that can be said of the founding fathers.
While beauty of the US form of governance is not who votes (or the
vote at all), but rather the balance of power between the three
branches of government. This works toady (for the most part) and will
continue to work as long as those in power (and those that elect them)
continue to uphold this form of government.
I.E. We don't believe in the US's form of democracy because it
works. Rather this democracy works because we believe in it.
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
It looks like we should start gathering petition signatures for those
interested in seeing an amendment to the Constitution that would
require binding national referenda on critical matters of interest to
the electorate, in which there might be disagreement with the elected
representatives. That's the best way to get the ball rolling, as far
as I can tell.
http://www.fsmlaw.org/fsm/code/title01/t01ch07.htm
Jerry Kraus
It's not working.
Free Lunch
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1190495753.9...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>:
Cynicism among the electorate certainly has helped Washington to ignore
what we want.
Jerry Kraus
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 14:15:53 -0700, in alt.atheism
> <1190495753.902495.249...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>:
>
> - Show quoted text -
Are you suggesting that if we believe in our rulers that they will
treat us better? That does sound a bit like grovelling, doesn't it?
Wouldn't direct referenda empowering the electorate to pass their own
laws, direct democracy like the Athenians had, be more effective?
That's a rhetorical question, by the way. It would be MUCH more
effective
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, Bret, there is no formal, popular method of amending the
U.S. Constitution. The Courts and/or the Congress must do it. Why
would they voluntarily undermine their own power? That could be a bit
of problem, don't you think?
Jerry Kraus
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, it does appear that the framers of the U.S. Constitution
were very determined indeed that we could not have national referenda
and that "democracy" here would always be "representative democracy"
not "direct", otherwise known as "real democracy". Hmmmmm. Maybe
Washington, Jefferson, Adams et al. weren't so noble after all. Maybe
they were just trying to make sure an elite could hold onto power
without any possible challenge. How likely is the Congress to pass an
amendment that undercuts their own power by giving the people the
power to overrule them? Not very.
We need referenda in this country, and we need a method to enact
them. Enough of the American Oligarchy.
Michael Gordge
> > > Fact: The capitalist Pullman mounted a machine gun on top of a car
> > > and shot dead peaceful working people.
> > That's a murderer.
>
> Which is why no one likes capitalists.
Dumb cunt people dont like murderers, those who dont like capitalists
are liars and or hypocrites, most are both and ewe can add are scum
are unproductive parasites to that as well.
A capitlaist seeks a greater for a lesser value, why? because the
opposite is called sacrifice, the scourge of the socialist.
You seek a bargain, in no different a manner to the capitalist, dont
fucking lie Bwet.
MG
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 5:46 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 14:03:55 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>>
>>
>> >So why all the nonsense by politicians about how great democracy is?
>>
>> It isn't nonsense. They just aren't talking about the nonexistent
>> form of democracy you are.
>>
>>
>>
>> >And how "democratic" our countries are? And how all "good" countries
>> >are democratic? What are they trying to hide?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
>Democracy of the type I am discussing is, as far as I am aware,
>currently non-existent.
Democracy of the type you are discussing is a figment of the
imagination.
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 21, 5:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 12:05:19 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>>
>> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Sep 21, 1:45 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:06:01 -0700, Jerry Kraus
>>
>> >> <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >True Democracy, in the Platonian, classical Greek sense,
>>
>> >> Is not what we mean when we say "democracy".
>>
>> >Leaving aside the question of who "we" is, for the moment, what
>> >exactly is meant in the modern world by "democracy"?
>>
>> Selecting leaders from more than one alternative by a process of
>> voting. "True Democracy" was bullshit. The Athenian voting public
>> was fundamentally a relatively large oligarchy ruling over a majority
>> who had no franchise.
>
>You are missing my point David. I am arguing that there is no
>difference between an election and a battlefield, in terms of the term
>"democracy".
Your point is bullshit. People _die_ on battlefields.
>Democracy means rule by plebiscite, nothing else.
Until you can come up with a better for our government systems, and
get it accepted, you are wrong.
David Johnston
<jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Which is it, by force or by election? Unless you're beating opposing
>> voters up it isn't both. - Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>My point is, David, that elections are manipulated by wealth and
>power.
So? There is no form of government which is not manipulated by wealth
and power.
Michael Gordge
> Democracy of the type you are discussing is a figment of the
> imagination.
To a Kantian that would of course make it a real democracy.
Any figment of man's imagination qualifies as reality to a Kantian,
just ask Mortal and chazzzzz.
MG
pba...@worldonline.nl
>
> - Tekst uit oorspronkelijk bericht weergeven -
You mean George Bush is an adequate president?:)
ZerkonX
> Is there any instance in history where the majority was proved right
> about anything?....
Well I believe we can get hung up on a lot of things here, like: when
did the majority ever rule and for how long?, or, is majority consent
the same a majority rule? .. but I will start.
As far as the majority being right.. umm, this is a good one.. OK I'll go
out on a limb on this..
The Revolutions of England, America, France and Russia. The Labor
revolutions during the late 1800's early 1900's. The revolutionary
activities that are taking place in Mexico today... many more but that's
enough for now.
OK, now my position is that the political outcomes of all these social
upheavals are not the same as the upheavals themselves. so I think that is
enough for a good argument..
> There is no inherent virtue in majority rule.
I think you are wrong here. But then it comes down to the definition of
virtue.
I would like you to provide an example of a 'majority rule'.
pba...@worldonline.nl
People who don't like capatalists are liars?
Sorry in order to be a liar, you have to say something,
not have dislikes.
In fact real capatalists do not seek bargains,
that's what the working class women do.
Capitalists seek to have power by means of money.
People who do not like capitalist are mostly people with little money
honestly:) . . .
Peter van Velzen
September 2007
Amstelveen
The Netherlalnds
Bret Cahill
> > popular government without popular information or the means of
> > acquiring it, is only a prologue to a farce, or a tragedy; or perhaps
> > both."
. . .
> > Local politics is more sophisticated than state and state is more
> > sophisticated than national.
>
> > It takes two brain cells to figure everything out at the national
> > level.
. . .
> You mean George Bush is an adequate president?:)
We're already down to one brain cell?
Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
Jerry Kraus <jkrau...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 3:16 pm, Neolibertarian <cognac...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In article <1190484207.603503.274...@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> > Jerry Kraus <jkraus_1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > > NeoLibertarian
> >
> > > > ?The world is not going to be saved by legislation.?
> > > > ---William Howard Taft
> >
> > > But selective plebiscites combined with a representative oligarchy, of
> > > the type we have now, might be a preferable, hybrid form of government.
> >
> > You're only arguing over different ways to own me.
> >
> > --
> > NeoLibertarian
>
> We must all make compromises to live in society. But we should make
> the best ones, not the worst.
>
I'll compromise as far as you might wish, on almost any issue.
But on the issue of who owns me, there is no compromise. If the contract
doesn't explicitly state that I entered into it as a full and equal
party, it's no contract--it's a deed of ownership.
--
NeoLibertarian
Neolibertarian
ZerkonX <ZER...@zerkonx.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 11:58:38 -0500, Neolibertarian wrote:
>
> > Is there any instance in history where the majority was proved right
> > about anything?....
>
> Well I believe we can get hung up on a lot of things here, like: when
> did the majority ever rule and for how long?, or, is majority consent
> the same a majority rule? .. but I will start.
>
> As far as the majority being right.. umm, this is a good one.. OK I'll go
> out on a limb on this..
>
> The Revolutions of England, America, France and Russia. The Labor
> revolutions during the late 1800's early 1900's. The revolutionary
> activities that are taking place in Mexico today... many more but that's
> enough for now.
None of these instances represent a majority.
The revolution in England (Magna Carta, Cromwell, et al) wasn't
represented by a majority. The American Revolution was instigated and
supported by only about a third of the colonials. The revolution in
France, while supported by a majority of the French, ended up with
Napoleon, and the revolution in Russia...well, we ALL know how that
ended up, and with whom.
I'm certainly not trying to be argumentative for argument's sake, but I
AM attempting to make the point (in the larger sense) that majorities
are not necessary for either making the correct decisions, nor for
making RIGHT decisions. Nor do majorities have a very good record for
both.
>
> OK, now my position is that the political outcomes of all these social
> upheavals are not the same as the upheavals themselves. so I think that is
> enough for a good argument..
A good start, at least. Because they illustrate the equation: Popular /=
Right.
They point out that Something Else = Right.
>
> > There is no inherent virtue in majority rule.
>
> I think you are wrong here. But then it comes down to the definition of
> virtue.
Majorities can't even decide virtue for themselves--there was no virtue
in Napoleon. There was no virtue in electing the Nazis to parliament.
Freedom is the highest virtue in any "social contract."
>
> I would like you to provide an example of a 'majority rule'.
I feel you might think I'm being argumentative here, but I have to point
this out:
The majority always rules--most often by silent consent. Democracy is
merely an acknowledgment of this fact. Its various historical forms are
merely methods of keeping this silence.
But its a compromise which has no virtue within itself.
I would prefer a constitutionally limited government, one that
guarantees personal liberty--even were it ruled by Julius Caesar--I
would prefer it to an unlimited tyranny of the majority.
Consider, for instance, the relationship between Melville's Ishmael and
Ahab.