I've been listening to politicians for years say things like "This great democracy" and words like that. Blake and I had an interesting discussion a while back in the chatbox about the difference between democracy vs republic and why it's a terrible thing for the mob to get it's way (even if they are right).
This is what we were talking about. A mob started protesting this and got the rule changed and the sticker stayed up.
Point 1: Our founding fathers did not execute a pleiaban revolution. 50-100 guys got together, knew what they were doing, decided what was best, and sold it to us.
Point 2: They knew that democracy was a terrible thing. They also knew that Republics devolve into Democracies and Democracies devolve into Despotisms. Here are a few lines from Fed #10:
You seemed stunned at my suggestion that if we could find an immortal man, we should put him into the helm of president for the rest of time. Why is that not an awful and anti-libertarian thing to say? Again, because a strong, consistent, large, republic is better than a small republic.
The longer you make the terms for political officers, the better. They are subject to less influence from the people (and nowadays, lobbyists), and can rule more fairly.
A large republic can maintain better control over factions. Political parties exist to get their officials elected, not to serve the people.
From this article you'll read that the fall of the Roman Republic started 150 years before the Plebeian Tribunals handed power over to a despot. What happened over 180 years ago in the United States? A plebeian revolution.
Andrew Jackson, as president, started the tradition that the president would be the leader of a political party, and would use that power to encourage and pass legislation. You can see that today, Obama is using this power religiously and fanatically to get his health care bill passed. Now you have Obama openly declaring how wonderful and great this awesome democracy is of ours, and you have people hailing mob rule as a great way to get things done.
In 1913, the Senate was changed to something that it was never meant to be... politicians elected directly by popular vote. Luckily, our president is not voted in this way (even though for all intents and purposes, they typically are).
This scares me. It scares me deeply.
This is what we were talking about. A mob started protesting this and got the rule changed and the sticker stayed up.
Point 1: Our founding fathers did not execute a pleiaban revolution. 50-100 guys got together, knew what they were doing, decided what was best, and sold it to us.
Point 2: They knew that democracy was a terrible thing. They also knew that Republics devolve into Democracies and Democracies devolve into Despotisms. Here are a few lines from Fed #10:
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.
The above quote is why I say that mob rule is a bad thing, even if the mob is right.From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.
The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
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.
Now, as he's saying, as the mob gets bigger, the democracy gets weaker. As the republic gets larger, it get's stronger. A strong, central, republican government (not the same as the political party) will be healthy and fair.In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
You seemed stunned at my suggestion that if we could find an immortal man, we should put him into the helm of president for the rest of time. Why is that not an awful and anti-libertarian thing to say? Again, because a strong, consistent, large, republic is better than a small republic.
The longer you make the terms for political officers, the better. They are subject to less influence from the people (and nowadays, lobbyists), and can rule more fairly.
A large republic can maintain better control over factions. Political parties exist to get their officials elected, not to serve the people.
From this article you'll read that the fall of the Roman Republic started 150 years before the Plebeian Tribunals handed power over to a despot. What happened over 180 years ago in the United States? A plebeian revolution.
Andrew Jackson, as president, started the tradition that the president would be the leader of a political party, and would use that power to encourage and pass legislation. You can see that today, Obama is using this power religiously and fanatically to get his health care bill passed. Now you have Obama openly declaring how wonderful and great this awesome democracy is of ours, and you have people hailing mob rule as a great way to get things done.
In 1913, the Senate was changed to something that it was never meant to be... politicians elected directly by popular vote. Luckily, our president is not voted in this way (even though for all intents and purposes, they typically are).
This scares me. It scares me deeply.
Last edited: