alexqr1 Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 This is my shortest video so far and that is one of the reasons I like it. Hope you guys do too.
st434u Posted March 21, 2014 Posted March 21, 2014 Down and down the rabbit hole we go... You may find this post I made some time ago interesting: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/32990-democracy-an-improvement-over-what-came-before/
alexqr1 Posted March 22, 2014 Author Posted March 22, 2014 That is very interesting, it makes a lot of sense. The incentives are there for democratically elected leaders to plunder and gain power at the expense of future generations. That incentive is not present, or at least not as relevant, in a monarchy. As always, it is all about the incentives.
lee1138 Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Democracy has always been recognized as Tyranny of the Majority. The Founders warned against it many times and they took steps in the Constitution to prevent the natural progression of the "democratic process" from destroying the system they set up. Of course there were also those that warned that there was no way to avoid the destruction of the system. ANY centralization of power seeks to gain more central power. So, all in all, the video is right.. except for one thing. The United States is not a Democracy. It never was and was never intended to be.
st434u Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 Actually the United States of America is a republican democracy, also called a democratic republic. They're the same thing. It was set up as a democracy, even if the "Founding Fathers" claimed that it wouldn't become one. The US Constitution is just a piece of paper, but even if The State followed it to the letter, you would still end up with something quite like what you have now. Consider this analysis of the Constitution, which shows how many of the "restrictions to government power" are only interpretative at best, and more likely fictional to begin with (note: I don't like the guy who wrote it, who has since become a socialist, but this analysis is still very good and illuminating): http://fringeelements.tumblr.com/post/411147276/the-united-states-constitution
dsayers Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 many of the "restrictions to government power" are only interpretative at best, and more likely fictional to begin with I wouldn't say likely. I would say it's a certainty. The US Constitution claims to give people powers that people don't have to give. It's like me telling you that you can fly and then imagining that I could limit how, where, and when you can fly. The fact that it's all made up preempts us from being able to limit that fantasy in others.
cab21 Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 the constitution started out counting slaves as 3/5's of a citizen for voting purposes. republic or democracy, it's not some document that has great checks and balances. some of the checks and balances have since been amended to make it more of a democracy as well.
lee1138 Posted March 25, 2014 Posted March 25, 2014 The Constitution certainly didn't stop those in office from doing what they wanted, circumventing the restrictions placed on them. Within a year after the ratification of the constitution...
alexqr1 Posted March 25, 2014 Author Posted March 25, 2014 There is no such thing as a republic or a democratic republic. Sure, there's titles but in reality, there is no such thing.
Daniel Unplugged Posted March 27, 2014 Posted March 27, 2014 This is my shortest video so far and that is one of the reasons I like it. Hope you guys do too.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKiWpiqz_DQ&list=UUICLhy-IVD58jGRsb8leiiwIf can make a suggestion, you titled this thread "democracy is wrong". I think the word immoral would be better to use than the word wrong. "Wrong" has a double meaning, people may assume you mean inaccurate. Just a thought.
alexqr1 Posted March 27, 2014 Author Posted March 27, 2014 If can make a suggestion, you titled this thread "democracy is wrong". I think the word immoral would be better to use than the word wrong. "Wrong" has a double meaning, people may assume you mean inaccurate. Just a thought.Thanks Daniel, I think you're right. I've made the change. I really appreciate the feedback.
Recommended Posts