Democracy Failed... right in front of our very eyes... Now what the hell do we do?

I would say we give Anarchy a shot... but I know for a fact the people need to be governed.

So now that we've seen Democracy come crashing down, what is left? What the hell do we do?

I for one think the foolish thing to do is to keep our faith in this current system of the "Democratic Process" because we should all be fully aware the dark path it's lead us down in this corporate America.

Will voting in 2012 help? Why would you think that?

Look at what happened to JFK. Look at what happened to his brother.


Seems to me the only place left to turn to is my understanding of God. I don't have faith in the people, I don't have faith in the government... maybe now it's time for me to focus on my Spirituality.

Anybody else have a better solution than this?

If democracy appears to have failed, then perhaps that's because America was never a democracy - nor intended to be one. It's a Constitutional Republic. "A nation of laws, not men" - as John Adams put it. Why despair over the failure of America to live up to a political model that it was never intended to follow? By the same token, one could say that the monarchy has failed miserably in Cuba over the last few years.

[edit on 18-11-2009 by Lasheic]

Darn I saw your post, and was about to say "hey, let's give anarchy a shot". But that's been covered...

reply to post by Lasheic


A republic is a form of Democracy. I wish people would stop saying this crap, man. it's like saying "That's not a dog, it's a collie!"

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Since it is "America" you are referring to I would think the only appropriate response is that democracy has rightfully failed since the form of government established by Constitution is not at all a democracy but rather a republic. In fact, at no point anywhere in the Constitution for the United States of America will you ever find the word democracy. What you will find is the word republican and it is found in Article IV Section 4 of that Constitution and states:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."

This is the binding contract that has been made between the people and the government they have ordained. The reason the word democracy can not be found in this Constitution is because democracies fail. Out of democracy rises tyranny! History has shown this time and time again, and the founders of The United States knew this. The republic was established to prevent the majority from trampling over the rights of the minority and there is no greater minority than that of the individual.

There has been much propaganda put out by government officials and even taught in public schools that The United States is a democracy but it is patently false. The Constitution is famously, or infamously depending upon your viewpoint, anti-democratic. This is why the people do not elect the President of the United States but rather the electoral college does. At one time the Senate was not elected by the people of each state but was chosen by the legislatures of the House of Representative until Congress passed the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913. It is arguable that since that Amendment effectively changed the Constitution from its original intent that said Amendment is unconstitutional. Congress, from a strictly conservative viewpoint, should not have the authority to change the Constitution by Amendment but only have the ability to add to the Constitution in ways that are wholly harmonious with that Constitution as written. The Seventeenth Amendment is not harmonious with the Constitution and decidedly changed an undemocratic process into a more democratic one.

The propaganda of democracy being the hallmark of free societies is abundant and the whole push to "make the world safe for democracy" began with Woodrow Wilson and continues to this day. It is argued also that the hallmark of a free people is the ability to vote democratically, one person one vote being the "best" form of government, but this is not the hallmark of freedom and what is are the natural rights of individuals. Voting, by the way, is not a natural right but is a government granted privilege only granted to those who are citizens of that government while natural rights belong to all people regardless of citizenship.

Natural rights are not granted by governments but preexist them and people who have secured those natural rights will often times come together to form a government to secure those rights but do not create governments in order to have those governments turn around and grant them those rights. The confusion only grows when natural rights become "civil rights" or "civil liberties". What does this mean? What is the difference between a right and a "civil right"? Why preface a right with "civil"? What is accomplished by doing this other than dilute the power of a right? What free people do they do by right and require no approval or permission from the government to enjoy this right.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


In a democracy people will come to believe they have the luxury to sacrifice rights in order to gain more security from their government and will use their democratic right to create a majority in order to vote away some of their rights. In the republic established by The Constitution for the United States, no person nor the government may legally abrogate or derogate the rights of another and can not just vote away certain rights regardless of the majority who may condone it.

There is nothing wrong with turning to God in time of trouble and dark despair but be rest assured that God does help those who help themselves. In the United States all the people are presumed to know the law and the Supreme Law of the Land is the Constitution for the United States of America. It is wise to know this law and understand it fully. It is wiser still to understand exactly what law is. Some will tell you that law is whatever the legislature say's it is. This is demonstrably false. Legislation is not law but merely evidence of law in the same way that Newtons mathematical equation describing gravity is not law but evidence of law. The law of gravity existed long before Newton wrote it down on paper and the natural rights of people existed long before legislatures wrote it down in statutes and Amendments in Constitutions.

In terms of government and legislatures, law becomes a collection of statutes and ordinances designed to protect the rights of the individual. Any other form of legislation is not law but something else entirely, usually contrary to law and in one form or another an obstruction of justice or "legal plunder". If a piece of legislation is written that does not protect an individuals right but instead prohibits individuals from certain activities, the argument will be made that such prohibitions have been legislated "for your own good". However, any law, such as gravity or freedom, is self evident, and if something is "for your own good" that too is self evident and needs no explanation, but intrusive laws that enforce prohibition always require governments explanations which always become; 'its for your own good".

The only valid prohibition law is the law that prohibits one person from abrogating or derogating the right of another. Now, some people will argue that one persons right will abrogate or derogate another persons right but this too is demonstrably false, and such an argument can only be defended by pointing to unsolicited aggression as being a right. No one has the right to murder another, but we all have the right to kill another who is threatening to kill us. The primary difference between these two actions lies in the intent. Self defense is a right but murder is an abrogation and derogation of a right. Because we all have the right to life we all have the right to defend our lives, so if one is attempting to murder us, we have the right to stop them from that using any means of force necessary. We do not have the right to use that force if our own lives or the lives of our loved ones are not in danger.

In order to secure our natural rights we have formed a government to help us protect those rights but if we truly believe, even just for a second, that from that point on all we need to do in order to secure the blessings of liberty is vote, then our freedoms will surely be lost. Voting is the very least one can do in the constant battle against tyranny. Protest is the next very least action we can do in order to secure our rights as protesting indicates that we are the effect of our government rather than the cause.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


In the battle against tyranny, and particularly under a Constitution written by people who did their very best to facilitate peaceful revolution against tyranny, there are many actions we as individuals can do to prevent that tyranny and the first thing we can do is protect ourselves against our ignorance. Do not forget that ignorance of the law is no excuse! Your rights, my rights, all of our rights preexist governments and can not be granted by them, if they were then surely that same government can take them away but by the Supreme Law of the Land here in The United States of America that government can not take away your rights...and yet, we have let them do so, gradually and incrementally every step of the way.

Consider this, how is it that today's Congress believe they have the "authority" to demand that you or I or anyone else purchase health insurance? Some arguments made have been that the Constitution grants Congress that authority. Does it? Read the Constitution for yourself, you will discover it does not. Others will point to the precedent of states that have required people to purchase automobile insurance for their vehicles. Even worse are those who will dismiss the governments claim of legal precedence by pointing out that those are states that have more leeway then the federal government or even worse than that will argue that driving is not a necessity or right. Indeed every Department of Motor Vehicle agency in the U.S. has made the assertion that driving is a privilege and not a right. Is this true? What authority does the state have to decide what is a right and what is not? If rights preexist governments, and they do, then the states have no more authority then the federal government does to declare what is and what is not a right.

How is it then that a state administrative agency has grown so powerful as to assert to the people that they do not have the right to travel freely in an automobile? They have found this authority quite legally through the voluntary actions of the people who at all times hold the inherent political power in The United States of America. The people voluntarily have gone into agreement with the DMV's across the nation and allowed them to control their right to drive. They voluntarily apply for a license to drive and voluntarily give up the bill of sale to their motor vehicle in exchange for a "title" to that car in order to gain registration. They are asked to sign a contract with that administrative agency known as the DMV and that contract becomes legally binding. In other words the people voluntarily relinquish their right to drive in order to be licensed to drive and have a registration to their car and this contract makes them beholden to all rules and regulations of that agency. So, when that agency demands proof of automobile insurance those who have voluntarily joined the club must play by those rules.

Why would we the people agree to such tyranny? It can be argued we do because the state wrote up legislation requiring us to do so, but if legislation is merely evidence of law and not law in and of itself then why do we obey it? We obey it for the sake of expedience. We do not want to risk imprisonment or fines so we go along with and agree to suffer this indignity. But look at what this agreement has accomplished! It has encouraged the ugly beast of tyranny to be even bolder and more aggressive. At some point, if we truly cherish the blessings of liberty, then we will gladly risk fines and imprisonment or even death in order to repel the beast of tyranny. This is what our forefathers did in the American Revolution and if we do not successfully use the peaceful means provided us by our Constitutions then we will find ourselves in the same violent situation they found themselves in.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


It is far better to affect revolution through peaceful means than violent ones and we are far from a situation that would require violent revolution. What can we do? We can embrace our inherent political power and begin to use the court system in the way it was intended to be used to begin with. We do not have to wait decades for a small hope that the Supreme Court will strike down intrusive legislation as unconstitutional when we can use our own power of peer review as a way to nullify bad legislation. How many of us actually go out of our way to avoid jury duty rather than embrace it? We the people have an immense amount of power as a member of jury and if we are fortunate enough to be picked for the Grand Jury all the better! If we are a member of the Grand Jury we can use our presumed understanding of the law to refuse to indict people that have been charged with a "crime" under legislation that does nothing to protect a right and everything to trample over one. If we are not so lucky as to be picked for the Grand Jury we can use our power as a jury member in a civil or criminal trial to refuse to convict a person who has been prosecuted for a "crime" under legislation that has nothing to do with protecting a right and everything to do with destroying a right.

Our power doesn't stop there. We can begin to openly and respectfully challenge the dubious jurisdiction of errant government officials. Once jurisdiction is challenged it is incumbent upon those government officials to prove they have jurisdiction and if they don't the only legal authority they have is to leave us alone! They can huff and they can puff and they can bluster all they want but they can not legally prosecute us. If they do they have obstructed justice, they have acted under color of law, they have engaged in malicious prosecution and they have impersonated the government official they believe themselves to be because with out that jurisdiction they are nothing more than a private citizen abrogating and derogating our rights and are behaving criminally and should be treated as such. Prosecute them for their crimes!

Easier said than done? You bet ya! Should it be done? Absolutely!! Your remark about turning to God reminds me of a story I once heard. A big flood came to town one year and the town had to evacuate. Mr. Jones was warned by city officials and friends that he should evacuate but he insisted that all he had to do was place his faith in God and all would be all right. Once the flood reached biblical proportions and the water was rising all around Mr. Jones a man in a boat came by and offered Mr. Jones a way out of his situation but he assured the man in the boat that all he needed to do was place his faith in God and all would be all right. Soon the flood got to a point that Mr. Jones was near drowning and men in a helicopter flew over head offering a line to Mr. Jones to help him, but Mr. Jones assured the men in the helicopter that all he had to do was place his faith in God and all would be all right. Soon after that Mr. Jones drowned.

Once in heaven, God welcomed Mr. Jones and offered to answer any questions he might have. Mr Jones said: "Yes God, I do have one question, I placed my deepest faith in you when that flood came but you did not help me and instead let me drown, why?" God smiled and said; "But I did help you! First I sent city officials and your own friends to warn you that you must evacuate but you ignored me. Then I sent you a man in a boat to help you but you ignored this. Finally I sent you a helicopter to save you from drowning but you ignored that. You claimed to have faith, but were blind to my calls and in the end it was your own foolish vanity that caused your death."

Pay attention my friend because God may very well be talking to you now and offering you a way out.

Originally posted by Ismail
Darn I saw your post, and was about to say "hey, let's give anarchy a shot". But that's been covered...

I like your avatar.

Very creative.

But maybe the people......... instead of governed, should be policed... the right way.


A police State for the people by the people?


Get rid of the government all together and just have the Police?

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


The PRC is The People's Republic of China and is not a form of democracy. The U.S.S.R. was the Union of Soviet Socialists Republic and in no way was a form of democracy. A republic in and of itself is no assurance to freedom anymore than democracy is. Freedom is found in the natural rights of individuals and needs to be protected zealously and passionately.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Wow... Very good post.

VERY, VERY, VERY, Good Post.

But what about Slavery and Women's rights?... I'd like to somehow bring those two subjects into your post.


You see... the fact of the matter is the public is so dumbed down now that your post means very little. The first half your post that is.



The second half of your post only serves as a reminder that you don't want to become a religious radical.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You're kind of making an arbitrary argument here, man.

Republic equals freedom unless it's a democracy then it doesn't equal freedom unless it's us because we're a Republic not a Democracy unlike those other Republics which aren't democracies because democracies are free unless they're not a republic so long as they're us.

That about sum it up?

A republic is a form of democracy. Emphasis on a form of. Our particular republic is a representative democracy.

The USSR was made of several single-party Republics that actually did hold elections. Not "free" by any stretch, but it was democratic - you could choose Party Apparatchik #1 or Party Apparatchik #2.

Still a form of democracy.

The opposite of a democracy is an autocracy - rule by a single person. Think Napoleon or Saddam Hussein - Stalin and Mao didn't have the state control of Autocrats, though they tried. Boy did they try.

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


Slavery was an abrogation and derogation of peoples rights and as such needed to be prohibited. The most shameful and tragic aspect of the Constitution for the United States of America is indeed the three fifths compromise that sought to placate the Southern slave states in terms of apportionment by declaring "all other persons" not as whole people but rather as three fifths of a person. It took the passage of the 13th Amendment to correct that problem and the reason the 13th Amendment remains wholly harmonious with the Constitution and in no way changed it is because of the vagueness of what "all other persons" means. Once slavery was prohibited the three fifths clause was rendered moot.

In terms of a women rights they have the exact same rights as men do and always have, if their rights are being abrogated or derogated they have the same recourse to correct that crime as any man does. The issue of a woman's rights gets confused with women suffrage which was an issue of a woman's privilege to vote. I have stated that voting is not a right but rather a government granted privilege and that privilege should have been extended to women from the get go but was corrected by the Nineteenth Amendment. The second issue that tends to confuse the subject of a woman's rights is the equal pay issue. This is confused issue mainly because there just is no such thing as equal pay even amongst men. Some people get paid more than others but we all have the right to contract for the pay we believe we are entitled to. If we are unable to negotiate that pay, we are not obligated to work for less.

There are prejudices in this world, to that there is no doubt, and as I have said, it is up to us to defend our rights with all means available to us. If a woman is being paid less than a man simply because she is a woman this unjust, no doubt, but because there is an injustice that woman should walk away from such a job and find a better situation for herself. Easier said than done? You bet ya! Should it be done? Absolutely! However, the Constitution itself never disparaged the rights of women, and if their were government officials who did so, they were acting beyond the scope of their jurisdiction. All that I said in my previous posts applies to a woman's rights.

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
I would say we give Anarchy a shot... but I know for a fact the people need to be governed.

So now that we've seen Democracy come crashing down, what is left? What the hell do we do?

I for one think the foolish thing to do is to keep our faith in this current system of the "Democratic Process" because we should all be fully aware the dark path it's lead us down in this corporate America.

Will voting in 2012 help? Why would you think that?

Look at what happened to JFK. Look at what happened to his brother.


Seems to me the only place left to turn to is my understanding of God. I don't have faith in the people, I don't have faith in the government... maybe now it's time for me to focus on my Spirituality.

Anybody else have a better solution than this?

Democracy has failed warrants turning to an imaginary friend? Then you'll be screwed on 2 fronts lol. Believe in yourself and don't be so close minded to think America is the only country on Earth. Yes America is crashing down into oblivion and nothing can stop it. You really want to know what to do? It's a big planet, find a better part of it to live. I did that 10yrs ago and have never been happier. You are 'awake' and if you can tolerate the madness more power to ya, if not save yourself and get the hell out of there.

I say we build "Colossus: The Forbin Project" super-computer from the 1970 movie to govern us. And eliminate all human governments. And we also need to build a robot/android mass-production facility, to produce a slave-labor work force for us.

Colossus would be self-maintaining (using robots), and the robots would build replacement robots. Then everyone on Earth is given a free robot to do their daily chores, and Colossus instructs everyone of their freedoms and restrictions. All Earth resources are divided evenly and fairly among everyone. And adjusted in advance to accommodate natural changes in environmental conditions.

[edit on 11/18/2009 by Larryman]

reply to post by Doomsday 2029


If you ask me people first have to know why it failed before any healing/moving forward can take place. If you ask me the best video to show people that they are in fact played by the government is this video video.google.com...#

After they watch that video and understand that they were never meant to gain a foothold in anything in the first place and that it was set up to be one big circle; well finally then can step out of it. Then once we learn what not to do, then we can move on with what to do...

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029So now that we've seen Democracy come crashing down, what is left? What the hell do we do?

Was pondering this very question today, rather poigniently... came across the following food for thought, although it doesn't exactly make cheery reading.
Source (PDF file):
www.markswatson.com...

...In short, [a necrophiliac] is somebody who is in love with the dead. It is to long and pine for a rotting, corrupted corpse while one is still in the land of the living. Such persons (I should not have to say) are very, very ill.
Am I referring to literal necrophiliacs? No. But I am referring to
something just as thoroughly disgusting ...

What is it that is 'dead' that so many...are deeply in love with? I
will tell you. It is the old 'Constitutional' America. It is dead and buried. It
is decaying in the grave and like any rotting corpse, it stinks and is no
longer beautiful. It is a horribly disfigured carcass of the past that no
matter how much make up and perfume our leaders put on it, it still
looks like a corpse, is stiff like a corpse and stinks like a corpse. The old
America is dead and a new anti-Constitutional America is rising up in its
place. Our leadership is working overtime not to make this post
Constitutional, but anti-constitutional America.

Why? There is no single answer to this question but there is one that few really talk about and understand.

I mean this only in terms of what you have heard about it in the past. Yes
there will be a New World Order, but forget about the US and its corrupt,
self-destructive elite being a significant player (as it is today) in it.
America is being subverted from within by men and women who are
betraying the nation, not in favor of a vaguely defined NWO by secret
cabalists. But for other nations (espionage), for money and power they
will and already have received from serving these foreign powers.

How do you know for a fact that people need to be governed?
Just curious.

reply to post by Mr Heebie Jeebie


People are governed whether they like it or not and even if they know it or not. We are governed by laws, whether they be the physical laws of the universe or the collection of laws we legislate that act to protect the rights of any individual. Just because we are governed by laws doesn't mean that we will obey those laws and the poor hapless soul who stands perched on the brink of a precipice prepared to jump off in the belief he can soar up into the sky where eagles dare with nothing more than his or her own free will, will discover soon enough, the law of gravity and how that governs that individual in the same way it governs us all.

When it comes to government, this is an artificial institution that we the people create in order to establish justice, provide for a common defense, ensure domestic tranquility and promote the general welfare, but most importantly to secure the blessings of liberty to us and our posterity. No person, truly being of sane mind and sound body, goes into agreement with a tyrant, willingly sacrificing their own liberty in favor of being governed. We agree to government because it becomes necessary to create a body or institution that can act as a third party between two parties who have developed petty differences, or even not so petty differences.

We establish governments because experience has shown us that it is better to establish justice by relying upon legislatures, executive powers and judicial powers to mete out that justice rather than leave it up to our own devices. We have established these governments because just as sure as we have come to accept the physical laws of the universe we have also come to accept that we all have certain unalienable rights and among those rights are the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property and happiness.

When one murders another, the one who has murdered has abrogated and derogated the right of the victim and justice has fallen out. Justice works as a negative in the sense that we don't recognize it until it is absent. Once it is absent we are compelled to bring it back. Thus, if one persons family member has been murdered by another person, either there is an institution put in place to deal with this injustice or those who have lost the family member will seek out justice for themselves. Because such an individual type of vengeance can lead to exponential violence as one family exacts vengeance on another leading to the other looking to exact vengeance on the first and it can continue until all that is left are the pools of blood that soak the decaying flesh of those who were merely looking for justice.

When we agree to forgo such action and replace it with a contract that empowers a third party through the form of government to put the justice in for us, we have bound ourselves by this contract and if we are just and honorable we will honor that contract and abide by its outcome and in doing so minimizing the tragedy of loss in an attempt to establish justice. This is the basic purpose of government, to protect the rights of individuals and when failing to do so, to put justice in as best can be done once it is absent.

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
Democracy Failed... right in front of our very eyes...

Actually, it already failed decades ago. It just took that long for most people to realise it.

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
So now that we've seen Democracy come crashing down, what is left? What the hell do we do?

Return to an ideologically bound unelected leader, like in pretty much every culture on earth before the advent of "democracy".

Originally posted by Doomsday 2029
Seems to me the only place left to turn to is my understanding of God. I don't have faith in the people, I don't have faith in the government... maybe now it's time for me to focus on my Spirituality.

A belief in an imaginary creature high in the sky does not help you spiritually or in real life.

Originally posted by Lasheic
If democracy appears to have failed, then perhaps that's because America was never a democracy - nor intended to be one. It's a Constitutional Republic. "A nation of laws, not men" - as John Adams put it.

In Europe, Republicanism is considered a form of "democracy".

Originally posted by Lasheic
Why despair over the failure of America to live up to a political model that it was never intended to follow?

It doesn't matter how you call the American model. What matters, is that the model failed.