It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Liberty and democracy are eternal enemies, and every one knows it who has ever given any sober reflection to the matter. A democratic state may profess to venerate the name, and even pass laws making it officially sacred, but it simply cannot tolerate the thing. In order to keep any coherence in the governmental process, to prevent the wildest anarchy in thought and act, the government must put limits upon the free play of opinion. In part, it can reach that end by mere propaganda, by the bald force of its authority — that is, by making certain doctrines officially infamous. But in part it must resort to force, i.e., to law. One of the main purposes of laws in a democratic society is to put burdens upon intelligence and reduce it to impotence. Ostensibly, their aim is to penalize anti-social acts; actually their aim is to penalize heretical opinions. At least ninety-five Americans out of every 100 believe that this process is honest and even laudable; it is practically impossible to convince them that there is anything evil in it. In other words, they cannot grasp the concept of liberty. Always they condition it with the doctrine that the state, i.e., the majority, has a sort of right of eminent domain in acts, and even in ideas — that it is perfectly free, whenever it is so disposed, to forbid a man to say what he honestly believes. Whenever his notions show signs of becoming "dangerous," ie, of being heard and attended to, it exercises that prerogative. And the overwhelming majority of citizens believe in supporting it in the outrage. Including especially the Liberals, who pretend — and often quite honestly believe — that they are hot for liberty. They never really are. Deep down in their hearts they know, as good democrats, that liberty would be fatal to democracy — that a government based upon shifting and irrational opinion must keep it within bounds or run a constant risk of disaster. They themselves, as a practical matter, advocate only certain narrow kinds of liberty — liberty, that is, for the persons they happen to favor. The rights of other persons do not seem to interest them. If a law were passed tomorrow taking away the property of a large group of presumably well-to-do persons — say, bondholders of the railroads — without compensation and without even colorable reason, they would not oppose it; they would be in favor of it. The liberty to have and hold property is not one they recognize. They believe only in the liberty to envy, hate and loot the man who has it.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
This is why the founding fathers did not make a democracy. If we must have government, then a representative republic is the least evil.
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
This is why the founding fathers did not make a democracy. If we must have government, then a representative republic is the least evil.
Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance. – H.L. Mencken
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply majoritarianism, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this. – Ron Paul
Originally posted by kro32
reply to post by METACOMET
It's all over the Federalist Papers however which was the thinking behind the framing of the Constitution.
So it's a huge part of it.
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.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people, with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions, by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.
For it cannot be believed, that any form of representative government could have succeeded within the narrow limits occupied by the democracies of Greece.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
If we don't have democracy how do we elect our representatives?
Democracy is indispensable to Socialism. – V.I. Lenin
Democracy is the road to Socialism. – Karl Marx
Originally posted by METACOMET
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
If we don't have democracy how do we elect our representatives?
Through elections. How else? An election process is common in most political constructs.
Definition of DEMOCRACY:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It seems that both Karl and Lenin knew that the masses could be manipulated into pushing for Socialist policies.
Perhaps our Founding Fathers also knew of this power,
hence the pure democracy is tempered by the representative form they adopted, that is a balance between the masses and an elected group who would ostensibly be well educated.
Too bad we have such nincompoops and Socialists elected of late.
Of course the Socialists figured out they'd have to get their people elected. How did they do that? Offer goodies to the disaffected.
Originally posted by links234
Originally posted by METACOMET
Originally posted by links234
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
If we don't have democracy how do we elect our representatives?
Through elections. How else? An election process is common in most political constructs.
Would you call our elections a democratic process?
Definition of DEMOCRACY:
a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
One of my pet peeves is how the word “Democracy†has crept to the forefront when referring to the form of government this country is suppose to represent when the actual form of government of the United States is a Constitutional Republic.
A pure Democracy is nothing more than “mob rule†with no provisions for the rights of the individual. The Founding Fathers saw this as one of the worst forms of government and in their wisdom provided a framework to secure the rights of the individual, ie., a Constitution and a Bill of Rights with separation of powers subject to Judicial Review which is the “Rule of Law†we live under.
A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens. In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is checked by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power. The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power, makes the state constitutional.
Unlike a pure democracy, in a constitutional republic, citizens are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law.Constitutional Republics are a deliberate attempt to hold in check the threat of mobocracy thereby protecting dissenting individuals from the tyranny of the majority by placing checks on the power of the majority of the population.
Originally posted by links234
Would you call our elections a democratic process?
I'd like to see some facts or figures on how this has come into play in national politics.
Could one argue that is the reason they considered black people only 3/5 of a person? They knew they would vote themselves out of slavery, if they were allowed to vote at all.
Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by links234
Could one argue that is the reason they considered black people only 3/5 of a person? They knew they would vote themselves out of slavery, if they were allowed to vote at all.
Typical leftist argument suggesting that our Founding Fathers did not do the best that they could and were somehow at fault. The issue here is not that slavery was not instantly eliminated, but that the Constitution gave the legislative body the ability to eliminate it. The Constitution did not fail as you and others of siimilar short-sightedness suggest.