We Are Not a Democracy! We Do NOT Want to Spread Democracy!

reply to post by Danbones

I'm glad you mentioned this. I have read the Iroquois constitution. In some places, our founders took articles almost verbatim from it. It is a good representation of the American constitutional republic. Or rather, vice versa.

Klassified
I understand Stu better now, and he understands me better. It doesn't mean we agree on everything, but we are at least closer to understanding one another's perspective. I consider that a plus for everyone involved.

Indeed. I at least understand what you guys mean when you say Republic/Democracy in the Classical sense and in that, I cannot disagree. However, as with most things, the definitions of words change over time, so when people shout from the rooftops that the US is not a Democracy, or that the US is spreading Direct Democracy, you can see how confusion abounds, especially on the latter because that term is being woefully misused here.

Very few nations on this planet practice Direct Democracy - the Swiss being one of the few - and it is more the domain of local/town hall Government, yet it is being bandied around in this thread as something the US is apparently spreading it around the world, when they are not.

Phage
reply to post by eManym

 

Indeed. And it works from generation to generation.
Is that a good thing?

As long as we don't have some tart swimming in a lake flinging swords at would be kings.

Line 2.

lol
i was invited to Britan by a close friend whom has an accent so thick I have to give him a pen and paper sometimes
I'd love to go but i can't speak the language

You'ld think here were its all typeface we could get past that
but it is harder then it looks

so thats why this smiley

Monty Python the Holy Grail:

King Arthur: I am your king.
Peasant Woman: Well, I didn't vote for you.
King Arthur: You don't vote for kings.
Peasant Woman: Well, how'd you become king, then?
King Arthur: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. That is why I am your king.
Dennis the Peasant: Listen. Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Arthur: Be quiet!
Dennis the Peasant: You can't expect to wield supreme power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!

nuff said.

reply to post by Klassified

Funny that one person says that Americans arrive at the conclusion in the OP because the old definitions don't apply and here you are saying that you get to it by using the old definitions.

Guess every side is covered.

reply to post by daskakik

I think it's important to reiterate something Stu mentioned earlier. Degrees to which a country is one or the other. Or both.

From my perspective, anytime you take a group of people, and place all government on their shoulders through a voting process, you will inevitably end up with a majority rule, where individual rights are trumped by the majority's will. This is what many American's refer to as pure democracy. Everything gets voted on, not just representatives.

By the same token, any time the many are governed by the few with no means of redress through representation, you end up with an oligarchy at best, and a totalitarian regime at worst.

As far as I know there are no pure democracies on earth. There are however, pure republics. We are all familiar with them. Neither form of governance works in the long run by itself. But then again, no form of government has shown itself to be foolproof. America was a great idea, but as is always the case, the system becomes corrupted, and everybody loses except those at the very top of the pryamid. They lose too, they just don't realize it.

So in effect, America is only a democracy to the extent of the voting power the people have. Which is limited by the constitution to prevent the majority from usurping the minority's rights, and vice versa. We are a Solonic republic to the extent that we are a nation of constitutional law. A law our representatives are supposed to follow, just as the people do.

Klassified
I think it's important to reiterate something Stu mentioned earlier. Degrees to which a country is one or the other. Or both.

From my perspective, anytime you take a group of people, and place all government on their shoulders through a voting process, you will inevitably end up with a majority rule, where individual rights are trumped by the majority's will. This is what many American's refer to as pure democracy. Everything gets voted on, not just representatives.

I think we can all agree on that but, at what point is the democracy as it exists in, and is being spread by, the US defined as pure democracy.

As far as I know there are no pure democracies on earth. There are however, pure republics.

So what do you think the OP is talking about?

reply to post by daskakik

That's a good question.

I think those who claim to spread "democracy", really want to convert the world to the same governing principles as the United States. Our system has been usurped by those administrating this country, and since it has worked out so well for them, they would love to see every country in this world under the same form of government that has allowed them to thrive. If they can accomplish this, they are on their way to a one world, totalitarian regime that has a fake face of democracy on it. But it will only be a democracy to the extent of the illusion of choice paraded before the people.

onequestion is referring to the same form of democracy I was talking about above. One that is taken to extremes, and becomes majority rule. He's also talking about people not understanding what they're promoting, and that most Americans lack even a rudimentary understanding of the governing principles of this nation. And I agree with the crux of the OP.

We are not a democracy. To say we are a democracy gives a false impression, and completely ignores that we are first and foremost, a republic.

IMHO, of course.

reply to post by onequestion

Between a democracy and a republic I would say both are equally as bad at what they presume to accomplish as the other. But there are worse options. Such as our current one, whatever its called, some sort of convoluted fascist corporacy with shades of oligarchy's strewn therein. All governments were created to protect the right of the few over the many, and so any and all form of governments will always follow along those lines. The truth is Plato was right in his assessment that democracy leads into tyranny. But was wrong when he assessed that there is something which doesn't.

All forms of government eventually lead to different and peculiar forms of tyranny. Societies and everything there in including governments and theologies on government go through stages, they have a birth, and birth pains, they have there ages bronze, silver, culminating in a golden age, and they have there fall, leading eventually to there end in the case of most governing and social outputs the thing known as tyranny, and that to has its different flavors. And then the process is repeated from beginning to end as the ages pass. The process of rise and fall is what is sustainable and adaptable, not any one form of society or governing or ideal nor any of the ism's or any other thing out there. It would be silly to think otherwise.

Klassified
I think those who claim to spread "democracy", really want to convert the world to the same governing principles as the United States. Our system has been usurped by those administrating this country, and since it has worked out so well for them, they would love to see every country in this world under the same form of government that has allowed them to thrive. If they can accomplish this, they are on their way to a one world, totalitarian regime that has a fake face of democracy on it. But it will only be a democracy to the extent of the illusion of choice paraded before the people.

So you are no longer a republic?

onequestion is referring to the same form of democracy I was talking about above. One that is taken to extremes, and becomes majority rule. He's also talking about people not understanding what they're promoting, and that most Americans lack even a rudimentary understanding of the governing principles of this nation. And I agree with the crux of the OP.

But you just said that that type of democracy doesn't exist. Nobody has it and even if some personally promote it, no country is spreading it or implementing it.

We are not a democracy. To say we are a democracy gives a false impression, and completely ignores that we are first and foremost, a republic.

IMHO, of course.

Is a fake face democracy better or worse than fake face republic?

We live in neither a democracy nor a republic. We live in a dollaracracy.

billmoyers.com...

reply to post by onequestion


Yes, I agree entirely. I remember Condoleezza Rice's mind numbing mantra "freedom and democracy". There is no democracy anymore (if there ever has been). All modern countries are now tyrannies - it is just some tyrannies are more subtle than others. What the Arabs and the rest of them are really being offered is surrender to the great satan of the west.

reply to post by daskakik

So you are no longer a republic?

Note the quotations around the word democracy. Yes, we are a republic, but the word democracy gets tossed around so much in reference to us, that everyone thinks it's so.

But you just said that that type of democracy doesn't exist. Nobody has it and even if some personally promote it, no country is spreading it or implementing it.

It doesn't, fortunately. No one is spreading it, but they are sure trying to spread their brand of it.

Is a fake face democracy better or worse than fake face republic?

Lol! I think we both know the answer to that. Neither.

reply to post by wdkirk


Love, love, love this part in the movie.

I once had a history teacher who said a democracy does not work for every country. Some need socialism, some communism, some even need dictators. The older I get I couldn't agree more with that statement.

reply to post by Klassified

You claim that your system has been usurped. Wouldn't this mean that it is no longer a republic?

I understand that it is supposed to be a republic but isn't the real crux of the OP that it no longer is? Would it make it all better if they stopped using the word democracy but continued to govern in the same fashion.

As the OP stated way back that would be BS and semantics. Isn't it?

onequestion
reply to post by AfterInfinity

 

A direct democracy is a majority rule system rather then a system based on protecting individual rights.

We want power in the individual and civil liberty NOT the majority rule.

A Democracy, by todays standards, is no different to a New World Order. They both sound great on paper, but when ego, corruption and agenda's are the driving force, then they can both stay on paper. Most political systems would work if they were run by people with good, honest intentions. But this is the complete opposite to what we have today.

Majority rule = 51% ruling the other 49%.

Klassified
reply to post by daskakik

 

That's a good question.

I think those who claim to spread "democracy", really want to convert the world to the same governing principles as the United States. Our system has been usurped by those administrating this country, and since it has worked out so well for them, they would love to see every country in this world under the same form of government that has allowed them to thrive. If they can accomplish this, they are on their way to a one world, totalitarian regime that has a fake face of democracy on it. But it will only be a democracy to the extent of the illusion of choice paraded before the people.

onequestion is referring to the same form of democracy I was talking about above. One that is taken to extremes, and becomes majority rule. He's also talking about people not understanding what they're promoting, and that most Americans lack even a rudimentary understanding of the governing principles of this nation. And I agree with the crux of the OP.

We are not a democracy. To say we are a democracy gives a false impression, and completely ignores that we are first and foremost, a republic.

IMHO, of course.

Interesting though i think Chinas model of capitalism and communism would be much easier for the NWO. Think they dont have to play games at all they just tell everyone how its going to work. Seems using democracy just complicates it and adds a lot of steps to me.

Watcher777
reply to post by wdkirk

 

Love, love, love this part in the movie.

I once had a history teacher who said a democracy does not work for every country. Some need socialism, some communism, some even need dictators. The older I get I couldn't agree more with that statement.

This is very true a people's culture will dictate what form of government they use.

I think we need more democracy myself.