Author Topic: Founding Fathers on Democracy. (Read 1060 times)

Dago · « **Reply #30 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:05:32 PM »

Quote

I noticed you only posted their negative comments about democracy.

Which is a recent invention that has nothing to do with and totally opposes the principles this state was founded on.

I dont think 490BC is "recent". In Athens in 490BC the Greeks installed the first Democratic government. Not sure how old something has to be for you to consider it "old". This state was founded as a democratic Republic. Not a pure democracy.

Quote

You didnt bother mentioning the USA is a Republic

Why bother? It is often labeled as a "republic" but it is not - and has not been for a long time.

Actually, it is a Republic, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. Since a Republic government is one where you have a political system in which the citizens elect people to represent them, I think the USA is a good example of a Republic. But, feel free to spread your BS ideas to the contrary, it still is a free country.

Quote

only want to discuss negatives. That's normal rational human action.

It is not the ONLY human action, and a scroll of this board will find threads started that are humorous, are informative, and seeking answers. Yours are exclusively negative, and always trying to cast negative shadows upon my country (notice I don't say "our country". I feel its a shame some of the little lambs who also frequent this board are too afraid to speak up.

Quote

Why do you think I would care to share my enjoyment of life with you?

Most people who have joy in thier lives wish to share the joy, they enjoy talking about the things that give them pleasure, it is certainly more uplifting to write about or read about positive things than always dwelling on the negatives. Since your posts are always in the negative, its not a leap to assume you are a miserable person without joy. You can try now to post of all the wonderful things about your life, but it would be too late, your story has already unfolded. If you must be prompted to discuss good things, you are unfortunate.

BTW, I dont hate you, I just tire of you. I celebrate that in our country, even the miserable who have fled terrible places and still fail to find joy here are at least able to enjoy the freedoms that do exist here. Nobody has knocked at your door because of your comments, and I doubt you lay awake in bed worrrying that someone will. Why dont you celebrate that, start a thread about that once?

dago

miko2d · « **Reply #31 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:18:32 PM »

Dago: Most people who have joy in thier lives wish to share the joy

I am not sure about that. Many people are content to experience joy without boasting about it. Many do not need external confirmation to validate their feelings. There are extraverts and introverts and people in between.

Anyway, the question was not whether I should "share my enjoyment of life" but "share my enjoyment of life with you". I see no pressing reason to.

Actually, it is a Republic, as much as you would like to pretend otherwise. Since a Republic government is one where you have a political system in which the citizens elect people to represent them

You can play with words all you want. I've heard it all living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The problem is not whether democracy is direct or representative, that's just a minor technicality.
Whether you directly vote for higher taxes or for a representative who votes for higher taxes - there is not an iota of difference. As long as you can vote to steal other people's property or believe that stealing people's property should be a subject to majority vote - direct or otherwise, it does not matter what you label yourself.

at least able to enjoy the freedoms that do exist here

Despite people like you trying to change that.

Nobody has knocked at your door

No, not on mine. They knocked on plenty of other doors and took away or killed people who did not threaten or harm anyone.

because of your comments, and I doubt you lay awake in bed worrrying that someone will.

They do not worry much about what I say - their brainwashing propaganda machine is too good for my words to have much effect.
As long as I do not resist fleecing, they do not care what I say.

miko

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #32 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:28:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
You can play with words all you want. I've heard it all living in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.... it does not matter what you label yourself.
miko

I believe you came awfully close to contradicting yourself in the same breath.

It does not matter what you label yourself, but it does matter what you are. The USSR was not a representative democracy, as choice for the electorate was limited by a monopolist party.

The USA is a representative democracy as choice is not limited. (at least not by government mandate)

The USA is a representative democracy and therefore a republic, hence the name of the song, 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'

A republic is a limited repersentative democracy based on the rule of law, and hence a constitution.

Dago · « **Reply #33 on:** December 31, 2003, 03:47:39 PM »

Be careful Holden, you risk Mikos favorite response if you make sense:

"you do not know anything about democracy"

or

"you do not know anything about Republic".

He uses that dodge often.

dago

miko2d · « **Reply #34 on:** December 31, 2003, 04:14:12 PM »

Holden McGroin: The USA is a representative democracy and therefore a republic, hence the name of the song, 'The Battle Hymn of the Republic'

If you wish to call it that - sure.
But when USA was founded as a republic, it was in no way representative and probably not a democracy, so indirect or representative democracy cannot be a definition of a republic.
Italian mercnaht republics were not democracies. Hong Kong is not a democracy but is a republic. Republic is quite a nebulous term.

A republic is a limited repersentative democracy based on the rule of law, and hence a constitution.

That's a much better definition. And the main points here is "limited" and "rule of law". Add "the powers of government are exercised on behalf of the people" and you are set.
As long as the government is limited, there is Rule of Law and liberty and republic. Does not even have to be representative or democracy - those are just details of how the government is formed.

A limited government operating under the Rule of Law only administers/enforces the law - but not creates it. Government is under the law, not above the law.

That is cleary not the case in most western and other democratic countries. We are representative democracies but there is no limited government, no rule of law.
The democracy makes it more likely for the government to grow than, say, monarchy or oligarchy, because the people are much likely to resist the expansion of powers when there is theoretical equal opportunity to enter teh government.

The government creates new laws insessantly and is charged to impose Constutution on itself - which is silly. There is much confusion now between Law and legislation but for the FF the distinction was quite clear.

The Constitution long ceased to be a legal document limiting the government and its only significance now is to provide soundbites and moral rallying points for public opinion to be used in democratic political campaigns.

The clauses that are not prominent in public opinion or do not enjoy wide support are ignored - as it a clause of the Constitution was supposed to be currently popular in order to be effective.

miko

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #35 on:** December 31, 2003, 04:45:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by miko2d
The Constitution long ceased to be a legal document limiting the government and its only significance now is to provide soundbites and moral rallying points for public opinion to be used in democratic political campaigns.
miko

Ever heard of the organization which is the bane of many conservatives?

There exists something called the American Civil Liberties Union. It is an organization which uses constitutional principles, most notably the Bill of Rights, to argue (and win) against the tendency of a government to stray from the rule of law, embodied in the constitution.

They have argued sucessfully a myriad of constitutional issues, especially in limiting speech, search an seisure issues, Miranda warnings, the right to peacably assemble, (read Skokie, Ill) etc.

The Constitution is alive and well and is performing its main function of limiting the government's power.

lord dolf vader · « **Reply #36 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:33:01 PM »

err well was until the "patriot" act.

with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #37 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:37:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
err well was until the "patriot" act.

with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.

Love the BBS!

One guy is convinced we are becoming like the leftist communist soviet union.

And another is certain of our impending doom as a right wing facist nazi police state...

I think America will be just fine...

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #38 on:** December 31, 2003, 05:46:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lord dolf vader
err well was until the "patriot" act.

with a conservative court we are on our way to fascism.

Thank God for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

(pun intended)

midnight Target · « **Reply #39 on:** December 31, 2003, 06:11:31 PM »

Quote

Republic is quite a nebulous term.

Yet miko knows what is and what is not a republic...

Its......... Nebulous Man

Faster than a Ripsnort reply!
Able to define words in a single sentence!
More powerful than Lindon Larouche on steriods!

wrag · « **Reply #40 on:** December 31, 2003, 07:41:36 PM »

Hmmm

I think Miko is trying to say that what we started with is no longer what we have.

As to NAZI or communist BOTH are forms of socialism. One is to the left the other to the right.

Both had secret police etc...

I find the meaning of much of what the founders wanted has been destroyed with such actions as the Patriot Act, and the underhanded way they got the Patriot Act II passed.

Sure maybe it won't be abused. I'm not betting on that with the recent happenings in some area's of our country. It has already been abused.

Much of the rule of law has been side stepped and the ACLU is even worried.

Certain Treaties have been made on the sly and we are now begining to see the results.

Dago · « **Reply #41 on:** December 31, 2003, 09:09:48 PM »

Quote

I think Miko is trying to say that what we started with is no longer what we have.

Amazing thought that. The nation has gone from a few thousand to what, maybe 275 million people, from 13 colonies to 50 states?
Of course what we started out with isn't what we have now. It would be rather amazing if it was the same, and it would be a very unfortunate thing.

Our nation has been eloving, as all nations do, our being a young nation in relative terms, we were bound to grow and change, with that change being dramatic at times. Yet, our nation still holds as much as possible to the basic tenets, concepts and given rights of the Constitution as possible, at least as defined by the Supreme Court.

What has become very clear in these discussions is that Miko has decided he, and only he, is the authority of definition, he can scoff at the definitions given to words, terms and concepts, in conflict and defiance with the best and brightest in the world. Show him an accepted definition, he will say its wrong. If you make a point, he will tell you that you don't know anything about the issue.

His arrogance and attempts to obfuscate have been reason to render his opinions mute.

dago

Kieran · « **Reply #42 on:** December 31, 2003, 10:55:05 PM »

The role of the Nazgul in Tolkien literature is to suck the hope out of man. By their very presence men begin to quail. By the sounds of their voices men's blood freezes.

weaselsan · « **Reply #43 on:** January 01, 2004, 09:34:33 AM »

Democracy is three wolves and one sheep voteing on what to have for lunch.

wrag · « **Reply #44 on:** January 01, 2004, 10:01:52 AM »

I think some of us need to experience more things...

Like fear, will they come to my house tonight, have I said too much? not enough? Will they take me away?

Ever have some one shooting at you with the intention of killing you? Ever shoot back?

Fear....

Has anyone reading this thread ever had to deal with really strong fear or Terror?

I confess that getting a really strong fear "treatment" changes one for the rest of their life.

Some things become far more important then they were and some things become far less important then they were.

I can see Miko's point. I find myself tending to agree with portions of what he says.

Yes Miko may have strong opinions. Perhaps that is because of where he used to live. And perhaps because of what he used to see.

I've seen people looking at most everyone with stark fear in their eyes. A very large number of people and many of those had no way to defend themselves. Villages and towns. Fear lots of fear and under the fear anger that verged on rage and allot of resentment was present as well.

I don't want that here in my country.

"None who have always been free can understand the terrible
fascinating power of the hope of freedom to those who are not
free."
Pearl S. Buck (1892-1973)
American novelist

"The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free
to do then in what we are free not to do." Eric Hoffer
American philosopher.

"I think that the sacredness of human life is a purely
municipal ideal of no validity outside the jurisdiction. I
believe that force, mitigated as far as may be by good
manners, is the ultimate ratio, and between two groups of men
that want to make inconsistent kinds of world I see no remedy
except force . . . It seems to me that every society rests on
the death of men."
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935)
American jurist

"Idealism increases in direct proportion to one's distance
from the problem."
John Galsworthy (1867-1933)
English novelist, dramatist