It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Problem Lies in the "Republic"

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:18 PM
Guys, I think the problem of our government lies in the fact that it is a "Representative" Democracy and not a "direct" democracy. We vote for "representatives" to represent us in in Congress and Senate, but do they ever listen?

Do these "representatives" ever vote in our interest? Once they get their position they become dogs of macro-corporations. And what do we do? NOTHING. When's the last time you've heard of some senator, governor, or congressman getting impeached on the news? Me? Never. When's the last time I received something that I voted for them for? Never.

I have no idea how else we can do this, but all I know is that "representatives" undermine the concept of "democracy." To me, those are oxymorons.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 06:44 PM
Personally I feel like it is whitewashing by Political Scientist to label a "Republic" as a "Representative Democracy. " I'm sure many people will try to argue with me on this one, but a republic is supposed to be a nation of laws, nobody above or below the law.

Now what we had with the Articles of Confederation was a true republic, the laws of the land were pretty much set in stone and neutered the federal government. Then came along some federalist that wanted the government to have more power and the Constitution was born.

I agree with your assertions that are Representative Democracy is in fact an oxymoron, because there is no way 49% of the people can be represented by the 51%.

My opinion of course.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:04 PM
The people we choose to represent us have pulled in so many favours getting into power that they cant truely represent us. Plus money has a lot of power so even if they wanted to do something that lost the wrong person money. It wont happen.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:20 PM
Hastobemoretolife is quite correct. The "Constitution" as original signed was a huge mistake that the states attempted to overcome with the Bill of Rights. Democracy and Republic are very different. Democracy is just another form of rule by elite just like a dictatorship. We live in the Illusion of freedom but fortunately it is not too lake. The best solution I can see is with the world freeman society. These people are using real law and real rights and real justice to establish independent "Societies" that govern independently of what passes for current government. The foundations of "Law" are still in tact. Rights do exist but most of the "government/governing" operates as a mafia using what where once Peace Officers as policy enforcers.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:37 PM
The founding fathers abhorrred a democracy.
Here is a quote from James Madison on democracy.

.. there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 07:50 PM
I fear this conversation.

In reality, what we face as a nation, is a challenge of identity.

All of the criticisms of our particular Republican form of government have their merit and deserve to be addressed.

Somehow, however, those whose function in our 'theoretical' society it is to determine the appropriate path, are disengaged and otherwise bewitched into distraction.

How does it come to this? Do we not share some burden of the utter failure of the American dream? Perhaps we do. But then, we have one overriding excuse for it... the clues revealing the degeneration of the system were purposefully concealed from us by crafty opportunists.

I feel a long-winded rant brewing.... I'll spare you my tale of the overthrow of the American dream...

[edit on 6-8-2009 by Maxmars]

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Maxmars
I feel a long-winded rant brewing.... I'll spare you my tale of the overthrow of the American dream...

...i dont wanna be spared, thank ya very much - let 'er rip... lol...

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks

...i dont wanna be spared ....

Well, I'll start, but I suspect I can't go on for very long.... So I will attempt to be brief (if you knew me, you would know just how funny that statement is.)

There are numerous candidate perspectives from which to analyze the Republic and it's particular moment in it's life. Please recognize this statement as prologue, there are too many collateral issues that are significant and influential in the apparent intransigence of the 'establishment.'

We could commence with an observation, such as should have actually frightened America down to her bones. A case can be made that no evil took place, that no intent to wrong was committed, and yet a frightening specter rose up amidst our free society.

Some think that the fact that the 'tell us who says what about the health plan' campaign was no big deal. Some feel that any reaction other than acquiescent trust is acceptable. But I saw the State herself peering into the minds of the Republic, something which is so antithetical to the idea of freedom as should have merited congressional inquiry.

But we have an issue. The State will NOT regulate itself any longer. It has become a 'master' in the relationship between its citizens and their desires.

Our representative system is tiered insulated from control by a layer of career politicians. I suspect that therein began the dissolution of the power of the Republic to lead herself. Slowly, a new patrician class of super citizen does come to exist. There is no formula in the equation of the Republic to account for such a factor.

Perhaps its time to reconsider our definition of 'monopoly' to include these 'citizens' under some guise of social contract. Right now, they can manipulate affairs so deftly and effectively as to seize effective control of machinery of government without so much as a hitch....

Oh..., but I ramble....


posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 09:08 PM
Since recalls (for 18 states) are in effect for US government elected officials but the recall does not have to be listened to by said US government we need another way. I propose a department of sanitation (read assination) where 60% of those who voted in the election that put said official in power may vote to have the trash removed. I think that may be incentive enough to keep said official on the straight & narrow. It is said that if you spare the rod you spoil the child. I think we put people in office you turned straight into spoiled brats and they need a spanking. Though not PC, it is in fact real.

posted on Aug, 6 2009 @ 11:04 PM
Ah yes, democracy. The form of government where the majority rule over the minority. Yeah, can I just say no thanks? It reminds me of that thing we use to call slavery.

What it will always come down to are the following 2 facts.

Centralization of power puts the power into the hands of a few, and that creates your elites.

Decentralization of power puts the power into the hands of the people. The power is spread out more, and you aren't create elites.

The constitution is a tiered form of government. 4 tiers. 1 federal government, 2 state government, 3 local governments, 4 individual choice. Each is supposed to have it's own limited powers, and any powers not claimed are by default passed down to the line - with the 4th tier, individuals receiving the majority of power. Then the power is decentralized.

Today, they treat the constitution as a document of limited rights. It is not that at all. It is a document of limited government. Those listed rights are NOT just things the government can not infringe on, they are supposed to be the things which insures the other forms of governments do not infringe on.

So, the federal government is limited in it's role. It handles foriegn policy, which is what we really vote on for president. And keeps things kosher between the states and such. The reason we have a federal government is for protection, so we don't have 50 individual countries.

But we do want 50 individual states each with their own limited forms of governments. Each state has it's own constitution, and with it picks up a few more limited jobs. What it doesn't pick up is then passed down the communities.

Each level has it's own purposes. The lower the level, the more power it is supposed to have, and the higher levels are supposed to make sure they don't infringe on the rights. The civil rights movement is a prime example of what the federal government is supposed to do. The states and local communities were taking away the rights of people, they stepped in and said no.

You vote every 4 years on a president. You have 1 vote in millions of votes. You have a very small % of say. Lets take it down to the state level. Now you vote every 2 years, and with a much much less total votes. Your % just rose a ton, not to mention every 2 years you get to vote. Now, take it down to local elections. You get to vote all the time, the smaller your town, the more % you vote makes up. You could even become a councilman yourself pretty easy. The people have much more say in things then, and this was the draw to small town living.

Apply this to programs. Federalized, you get 1 program for all. If it's bad, 4-8 years to get change and you don't even really vote on most of those issues. Take the program down to the state level. You have 50 different programs. All these programs working to be the best. It allows for many things to be tried at the same time. If a state does something good, the other 49 can apply it. IF a state does something bad, they have 49 others to look at to improve it. And because you get to vote more often you can get change more often, and you have more say. Take it down to the community level, and it's even more so.

Amazing how that works huh? Power to the people. When the US worked off this, we were #1 in math, science and such. The more things have become centralized, the worse we get. Not a coincidence.

Course people are more worried about the gifts the politicians promise, or having their will imposed on someone else.

I could go on, but most people seem to only want to hear about how the democrats are bad, or how the republicans are bad, or how they can force their way onto the country, and other ridiculous things. So why bother?

posted on Aug, 7 2009 @ 06:12 PM
I think that it is perfectly reasonable to remove the two houses. They don't work. Why have something that doesn't work? Actually, not only do they not work, they screw everything up.

new topics

top topics


log in