The evils of democracy

Discussion in 'The Refreshment Lounge' started by JTM, Nov 17, 2009.

  1. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    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:

    The above quote is why I say that mob rule is a bad thing, even if the mob is right.

    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.

    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: Nov 17, 2009
  2. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    Not sure where to start with this. This whole thread scares me deeply.

    The point you made about Andrew Jackson starting this "leading the party" system is spot on. When politicians start forming their own groups, with their own control/money agendas, they stop having the people's best interests in mind. This is exactly what we have now. Nobody gives a damn about you, me, or anybody else who doesn't contribute signifigantly to their campaign funds. Politicians have become more concerned with defeating the "other party" than they are about fairly governing.

    When was the last time we we had two good, strong candidates to vote on? When was the last time we were voting for someone we liked, as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils? The continued production of "party-first" candidates creates apathy in voters, which means the majority of the voters just don't care. I fall into this category when there isn't a third party on the ticket. One is just as bad as the other. Both parties will take our money and advance their particular special interests, and either way, we don't win. We have gotten away from the whole "for the people, by the people" mentality that we used to boast. We are now "for the corporation, by the corporation." Scary thing here, is that the "corporation" is increasingly from another country, namely China.

    This whole picture reminds me of those futuristic movies where corporations are the government, with their own mercenary armies, and all that nonsense. KBR basically runs Operation Iraqi Freedom, with their mercenary Blackwater (among others) army. If it can happen over there, it can happen here. Hell, those guys are better trained than most of our military units, and have better equipment to boot. How far off is that "futuristic movie" scenario?

    With all this in mind, I'm all for the mob rule coming into play and bringing the pendulum back the way of the people. Anyway, these are just the thoughts of little Libertarian me.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  3. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    Well, those last 2 paragraphs.

    1st one: those companies have always existed. The first that comes to mind is the East India Tea Company. Talk about abuses of power and standing armies... their protection was enough to rival most countries' in those days.

    People fail to realize that these mercenaries themselves are citizens of the United States, most with strong patriotic ties to the military. They will crumble from the inside like they always have if shit goes down.

    2 - Nooooooooooooooooooooooo. It can't be a mob movement to bring it back, it has to be educated, and yes, aristocratic folks that bring it back. At this point, I'm all for abusing the system that is laid out today to bring back liberty and restore the republic. Loopholes would work wonders for this... they are all over the place, and this is exactly why the founding fathers put them into place.

    The "silent majority" that people always try to wake up and get going is useless. Most of the time, I find these people are ignorant, complacent, and will take whatever you give them. The silent majority has existed since forever. They'll go on doing what they have always gone on doing and efforts there are useless, imo.

    It is my opinion then, that we need to take advantage of that just like these would-be despots have.
     
  4. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    As a clarification, I'm MUCH more worried about the US Army than Xe (Blackwater).
     
  5. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    Agreed about the silent majority being ignorant. Apathy breeds ignorance. Like I said, I fall into this category quite often. They will always be silent, because, "Who cares? One is just as bad as the other."

    Where are we going to get the "education" to bring this thing back? The partisan media? Any group out there who reports strictly the truth does not have the money or resources to compete with the mainstream. Anyone not in the mainstream media gets labeled as whack-job conspiracy theorist just by questioning or disagreeing with a party.

    The demise of the East India Tea Company coincided with the demise of the British Empire. You are talking about these giant corporations being loyal to the military, not so sure about that. Most of them (the security companies anyway) are made up of mostly former military people, who make a lot more money doing what they are doing than they could in the military. They aren't fighting for nationalism, they are fighting for money, plain and simple. They don't have to follow the same rules that military does, and this is all finally coming back to bite them. I know several guys who work for these companies, and it isn't for patriotic reasons at all.
     
  6. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    My point being, do you think you could get those guys to shoot Americans? I think most of them would be seriously hesitant... and I imagine that if the American Empire were to crumble, so would Xe.

    Where do we get the education? It's already out there, there are plenty of people that are educated enough and know needs to be done, they are just going about it the wrong way, imo.

    Don't try and change the system or even bother with a populist movement like the Ron Paul republicans are trying (that obviously failed). The loopholes are already there, let's use them!

    I'm tired of being on the wrong side of this fight. We need to turn it around so that the factions are fighting for populous support while we manipulate the rules to our advantage.

    Let them have the silent majority. Let's go start up court cases that demand the enforcement of ancient laws already in place. Start up constitutional battles against anything and everything. The rules are on our side for this. They've had 200 years to play their cards, but the libertarians and federalists hold the original deck.

    The most powerful tool and final say that we have on things is the power of due process. The final say on any rule/law is the trial by a jury of peers. If 12 people decide that something is wrong, then that's the final say. No politician, judge, or president can overturn that. You can't tell me that was set up to promote democracy.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  7. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    Seriously hesitant doesn't mean "won't do it." When you have those guys over there shooting the people they are shooting for very little reason, if any, I don't see it as a stretch to shoot "American public enemies" on our own soil.

    Other than that, I think we are pretty much in agreement on most of this stuff. I have no problems righting the ship by using loopholes, and other methods if that ilk. I'll just keep voting for Ron Paul's failed populist movement in the process.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2009
  8. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    interesting. this should be tested.
     
  9. Sirius

    Sirius Registered User

    580
    8
    0
    So you're advocating a Sulla or Julius Caesar to restore the republik? Who would compose your new aristocracy? The monied powers that be or someone new?

    Yes, the president can. Scotter Libby isn't in prison because President George Bush commuted his sentence.
     
  10. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    no, not at all. Sulla/Caesar would be the opposite of what my goal is. Caesar was the death of the republic, not the birth of it.

    It's amazing, it was the Plebeian Tribunals that gave power to Caesar, not the aristocratic Senate. They knew better.

    The key to this whole thing is that in a republic... and this is verrrrrry important.... the people that make the laws have to be subjected to them. AKA, everyone obeys the posted speed limits, etc. Otherwise you have people posting laws that target specific groups. That's stealing/looting/favoritism/despotism.

    ah, okay. i said "if 12 people decide something is wrong" as in they acquit someone... declare the law wrong and that person innocent... essentially a jury of 12 declares the law unconstitutional.
     
  11. Sirius

    Sirius Registered User

    580
    8
    0
    I agree mob rule is bad. So what do you think the TEA baggers are?
     
  12. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    I like what they are going for, but if you talk to them, they are mostly ignorant fools. don't think i'm one sided on this. the obama-ites were just as annoying. i talked to a few folks (literally) begging for their "Obama-checks." that's absurd.

    sure, a mob has it's uses... it's a good indication that the current social contract isn't working, but in terms of actually making legislation and making decisions, they don't need to be a part of that.
     
  13. Sirius

    Sirius Registered User

    580
    8
    0
    Yup, there are fools, idiots, and morons on both sides. The idiots liberals upset me more than the moron conservatives.

    It's interesting you bring this up since I'm working on a paper about increasing voter turnout.

    Do you think decisions by politicians would be made in a more rational manner if they weren't surrounded by the daily media second guessing every step? It seems like we forgot civility in the age of TV.
     
  14. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    No, the media is gonna spin it however they want depending on which party they advocate. Like I said a long time ago, we have no big neutral media outlets anymore. That's why I get mine from Al Jazeera.
     
  15. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    a robust media is important for the survival of a republic... i'm not entirely convinced that this domination of non-neutral media is a recent occurrence, though. you always have to pick what you believe...

    on that note, Al Jazeera is a great station for the most part.
     
  16. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    Depends on your definition of "recent." I think it primarily goes back 20-30 years, and with the creation of CNN, and other news-only networks. Back in the day (before my time) news was more local, whereas today, news is more focussed on nation and world wide coverage. With today's internet and other means of more efficient communication, the situation with politically biased media is more prevalent, simply because it more efficient and advanced than it was ten, twenty, or thirty or more years ago. How many "news" shows do we have, both on TV and radio, where the sole focus of the show is one-sided political propaganda? Voters no longer identify with their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their candidates. They identify with what the guy who they like the best says on the radio or idiot box. When we have all of these pretty haired, slick tongued bumbling turd-puppets up there blasting so-and-so for being in this party, or blindly praising the decisions of this politician because of what party he is in, we have advanced (or regressed) well beyond where we where years back. Hell, look at the presidential debates from the last election. Didn't exactly look like fair mediating, or fair media coverage to me.
     
  17. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    some of the best propaganda (and most blatant) that I've seen is 20's era stuff. that, and the war bonds commercials from the 40s. don't forget the "broadsides" from the revolutionary war. it's always been around.
     
  18. TCShelton

    TCShelton Founding Member Premium Member

    1,037
    8
    38
    I understand that it has always been around, no debating that. My stance is that it is more prevalent and influencing now than it was then.

    My bottom line here is that I want to see facts being reported, not facts twisted around opinions. I want reporters to be hungry for the truth, not a way to twist it.
     
  19. owls84

    owls84 Moderator Premium Member

    1,653
    9
    38
    Welcome to Spin Alley.
     
  20. JTM

    JTM "Just in case" Premium Member

    2,353
    25
    38
    and i'm saying that it's always been the way it is now.

    at least we can get al Jazeera. before all they had was 1 propaganda pamphlet nailed to the wall in a bar.
     

Share My Freemasonry