Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Friday, April 25. 2014

How democracy is overrated

Interview with the smart columnist David Harsanyi, a good American rebel.


He's entirely right: the US is a constitutional republic, not a democracy. He's is also right that democracy needs to be close to home or it loses its valence.






Posted by The News Junkie in Politics at 11:53 | Comments (22) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Gee whiz, don't fall into the "give more power to local government" trap. Compare your local zoning and land development regulations to what they were 20 years ago.

All levels of government have too much power, and none can be trusted with even more. Not that that stops them from arrogating more power to themselves.
#1 forest on 2014-04-25 12:23 (Reply)
Yea, when it comes to land grabbing federal agencies are pikers.
#1.1 BillH on 2014-04-25 12:49 (Reply)
I'll grant that a constitutional republic is among the better alternatives, but its as much of a fraud as democracy. And I'm speaking as someone who has done well under our system and wouldn't live anywhere else.
#2 Frigate on 2014-04-25 12:23 (Reply)
Local government can be a farce, but one can escape to better circumstances. My office is located in a land of the crazies, rather to my advantage, but I reside in a blessedly different county next door. It is not so easy to avoid the federal government.
#3 gwb on 2014-04-25 13:01 (Reply)
The word "democracy" being used to describe our country is something that happens far too often and needs to stop. Our founding fathers purposefully did not form a democratic government, rather a constitutional republic, for a reason. There is an enormous difference between the two forms of gov. The founding fathers actually believed that a democracy was evil and would eventually lead to tyranny.
If you hear someone describing our country as a democracy, please consider bringing it to their attention that we are not and maybe the reasons why we are not.
#4 Muels on 2014-04-25 14:39 (Reply)
Why is this branding as a "constitutional republic" so important to you?
#4.1 Frigate on 2014-04-25 15:18 (Reply)
It's not so much the "constitutional republic" part that is important to me, it IS, in fact, the type of government that we have. What is important to me is that we do not start referring to our nation as a democracy, which we aren't. I've done some research (not extensively, I'm no expert) on the founding fathers and it is apparent that they did not want a democracy. The problem with a democracy is that if 51% of the people believe that murder is OK, then it will be made legal, which would infringe on our God given right of life. Or, if 51% of the people believe in enslaving a group of people, then it can become law by a simple vote. That does not sound like freedom. Our Constitution reaffirms our rights that are God given and the government should help protect those rights.......... Now I feel like I'm rambling, sorry.
Anyways, too much for a post on a discussion board. I would encourage anyone to research for themselves why a republic is more beneficial to freedom than a democracy.
http://www.theamericanview.com/
#4.1.1 Mueller on 2014-04-25 15:37 (Reply)
You've accepted the form of the debate and you're limited to arguing only the conclusions.

where form = whether democracy or constitutional republic is the Bestest and where the conclusions are limited to Hurray Democracy! or You Go, Republic!

I can accept that democracy sucks because my vote really should count more than some flyover state dude's, but why aren't you asking the question of whether a constitutional republic sucks just as hard as a democracy?

Are you worried that five people on the USSC made your political voice even muter than it was before Citizens United? There's your constitution at work.

Or that you never had a ghost of a chance to influence the writers of the federal rules that will implement OsamaCare? (those would be the insurance companies and others who don't actually vote but buy votes instead). All totally constitutional under the we-the-people thing.

Or that my client can buy a piece of a congressman's soul ear with a campaign contribution from the Peoples Republic of China Co. Ltd. and that his chief of staff will return my phone call months before he returns yours? All constitutional!

You ought be worried. If someone's telling you to dislike something in favor of something else, you should wonder why you shouldn't dislike them both, and then ask who's benefiting from this misdirection? Hint: its not you.
#4.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-04-25 17:03 (Reply)
"You've accepted the form of the debate and you're limited to arguing only the conclusions." Isn't that what we were talking about? Sheesh. If I new I had more choices then maybe I would have engaged more. My original point was that we must make sure not to start calling the US a democracy, because it would lead down an evil path.

Yes, it does suck that I did not get to influence the people who gave us Obamacare, but then again, Obamacare is unconstitutional. Our government has been in violation of the constitution for a number of things for a number of years now. An example: Teddy Roosevelt had made it a mission to take over huge tracks of land to make national parks to ensure the natural beauty would be around for generations to come. Do I appreciate that he did this? Sure. But was it constitutional? No.
How does the government keep getting away with these violations? Because the majority (I'd guess 99.9%) of the population does not know and understand the constitution. And now we have a Supreme Court that doesn't understand that it's sole reason for existence is to keep the executive and legislative branches of government in line.
Quick list of things that are unconstitutional that we may take for granted:
National Parks
Farm Subsidies
Petro subsidies
Public Schools
Welfare
Federal Grants of any kind
Common Core
Obamacare
Medicaid
Medicare
Income tax
Social Security
So you have limited yourself in debating only about democracy and our current "constitutional republic". Actually, there was a third, the constitutional republic that was meant for this country.
Lastly, you asked "You ought be worried. If someone's telling you to dislike something in favor of something else, you should wonder why you shouldn't dislike them both..." I always assume that I can "dislike both", but when I do I make sure I am prepared to have an alternative if I do not like what is presented to me. I do not have an alternative so I am stuck debating between these two.
#4.1.1.1.1 Mueller on 2014-04-27 16:42 (Reply)
My point is that it doesn't matter what you call it -- republic, democracy, duchy. The only things that matter are what the structure is and that it will do what it does regardless of what you name it, and how you've been trained to argue over trivial BS like names. And you do have options, you're just not prepared to accept the consequences.

Re your list of unconstitutional things. This is how the system has trained us to think: like a good servant of the Rule of Law, I respond by telling you that you can say or believe almost anything in this country, but ipse dixit assertions about what's constitutional or not where the USSC has weighed in are meaningless. This is not protestant-style religion, you can't make it up as you go along. The court has an opinion and you have an opinion. Yours doesn't count for much anything. On the other hand, the system lets you vent on the internets by complaining about what's legal and what isn't, and you get a big measure of satisfaction from that (on other forums, you'd participate in a lively debate with someone explaining why the 16th amendment to the constitution is not constitutional). This is a good thing, because the thought of picking up a rifle will never occur to you. So, in a real sense, we're both happy, and so is the status quo. Unless you want to explore options that I know you're not ready for.

re: constitutional republic you think was meant for the country. Holy Shi'ite! What about the constitutional republic I think was meant for the country? I don't want you deciding what's best, I'm sure you don't want me making that decision.

re: alternatives. You've provided a list of a dozen major things that you believe are unconstitutional, yet in spite of what you say, your actions are that you accept egregious departures from what you think is right and holy. So don't pretend that there are alternatives you'd engage in, you're happy enough where you are.

hint: make up a list of things that Americans do when they reject the status quo. Start in 1776.
#4.1.1.1.1.1 Frigate on 2014-04-28 12:00 (Reply)
Geez, simmer down. All I originally wanted to do was make people aware of the difference between a democracy and a constitutional republic. And your going off on "what's a word mean?" Words do have meanings. Period.
I'm not following you line of reasoning, probably because I feel you are trolling trying to engage in a debate that only you know what we're debating. Because right now, I don't know what we are debating.
I say "there's a difference between a democracy and a republic"
You say "You're so naïve to think you don't have any more choices besides those two"
WTF!
Again, my only point was that we are a constitutional republic and not a democracy.
#4.1.1.1.1.1.1 Mueller on 2014-05-02 10:32 (Reply)
It’s extremely important as this goes hand in hand with a brainwashing in our country that will lead to tyranny. I’m very concerned that the brainwashing is already so complete that most have no clue our government was NOT formed as a democracy. Just think of the Pledge of Allegiance “…. And to the Republic, for which it stands”. Benjamin Franklin compared the difference in the two as in a democracy, when two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for dinner, the lamb loses and becomes lunch. (also referred to as ‘mob rule’). In a Republic, we’re governed by the Law of the Land, (Constitution) so based on the law, the lamb does not become lunch, because it’s against the law.

Here's what John Adams had to say about democracy.

“I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.” John Adams, letter to John Taylor (15 April 1814).
#4.1.2 Alice Smith on 2014-04-26 03:17 (Reply)
You haven't defined "democracy" except that it appears to be something you don't like.
#4.1.2.1 Frigate on 2014-04-28 12:05 (Reply)
Not that long ago I read an article regarding this topic by my favorite Constitutional writer, Neal Ross. I think you might appreciate reading it. Hope I post this web link, correctly.
In case I don't, the title of the article is: "Ross: May Your Chains Set Lightly Upon You" It will come right up if you do a google search. Here's the web link:


http://www.federalobserver.com/2014/03/19/ross-may-your-chains-set-lightly-upon-you/
#4.2 Alice Smith on 2014-04-26 03:38 (Reply)
Our founding fathers felt they needed to develop a government which was self-limiting, even if it was a better developed model than those that came before it, because all governments evolve into massive frauds.
They recognized this.

We, unfortunately, have allowed the fraud to continue to be perpetrated upon us.

Meanwhile, government has continued to grow and throw off the limitations set upon it.

The Judicial Branch was supposed to enforce the limits - yet has recently shifted to a role which is more supporting of the growth.

I am no anarchist, but the limitations of democracy, or democratic republics, is easy to see.

Do you have the right to tell me how to live? No.
Do you have that right if 10 of your friends gang up with you? No.
Do you have that right if 50.1% of the population (or even a plurality, in some cases) agree with you? No.

Yet, in the first two cases, we call it "bullying" and there are advertisements and calls to stop this behavior.

In the third, we call it democracy and we accept the outcome as 'justified'.

Churchill was right, though. It's the worst form of government except for all the others.
#5 Bulldog on 2014-04-25 15:34 (Reply)
I like your point. Even if 99.9% of the population thinks they have to right to tell you how to live, they don't. Even if you are the lone person in a nation with millions, you still have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
#5.1 Mueller on 2014-04-25 15:40 (Reply)
QUOTE:
Do you have the right to tell me how to live? No.
Do you have that right if 10 of your friends gang up with you? No.
Do you have that right if 50.1% of the population (or even a plurality, in some cases) agree with you? No.


Interesting. In the alternate universe I come from, simple majorities in congress, state legislatures, zoning districts, boards of directors, homeowners associations and private clubs do a pretty thorough job in telling me how to live my life.
#5.2 Frigate on 2014-04-26 01:40 (Reply)
Yeah. How are you liking that?

I took a class in Democracy over 30 years ago. My professor, a ridiculously Liberal (now likely Progressive) guy, made this point to us as one of the largest flaws of democracy and government, in general.

He pushed it aside with the obtuse argument of "the social contract". I asked him when I got to sign that contract. He laughed and ignored me.
#5.2.1 Bulldog on 2014-04-27 10:39 (Reply)
My advice is to join, buy or pay off the decision makers.
#5.2.1.1 Frigate on 2014-04-27 15:30 (Reply)
When you educate kids to become wolves, we wonder why things are getting bloodier and stupid(er)?
We have only a minority that remembers the founding principles, but even then, the shining city on the hill, was only an ideal.
We have never lived up to that ideal.
Why?
The Statue of Nebuchadnezzar. The Head of Gold, walking on the two legs of ideology, with the people divided like iron and clay, mind vs emotions.
The ideologies are the rich men's devices, split off from The Way of God, the individual that supports The Family.
They are designed to divide you, to keep you arguing amongst yourselves, while ignoring their thefts and rule over you.
We have a competitive society, where money is competed over, and we brag about it, because we have lost our way.
The American Dream, the desire for wealth, the envy, the greed, these are the fruits of America's system. We are taught that our highest ideal, is to become rich. Materialism has become our true God, mystery and superstition are the tools, and immorality is the fruit.
The only way out, when it becomes The Beast system. Is to kill the Head of Gold. The new Revelation is the Knowledge, or Proof of God, that conquers all, born from the powers hidden in the rocks.

So let it be written, so let it be done.
#6 Piper Michael (Link) on 2014-04-26 12:13 (Reply)
Exactly when was this "golden age"? How many hours did it last?
#6.1 Frigate on 2014-04-26 12:48 (Reply)
This is the meme of the aristocrat Montesquieu, who it's no surprise did not care much for democracy. It's all horseshit, though.

In Oregon we have both direct democracy (the Initiative) and the usual legislative crap. The laws that come from the former almost always are more supportive of Liberty than the latter; and what's more, there is a lot less of it.

The "constitutional republic" is also BS. Guys you are just regurgitating propaganda. Think of the notion of representation. The guy you send to the legislature is representing, you, right? How about your gun-hating neighbor across the street? How about the fascist next door. Supposedly he represents all. "Represent" means to act as a proxy. Are you starting to detect the bullshit here? As to constitutions, try reading some Spooner. "Constitutional republic" is just as much a fraud as democracy is.
#7 PJ on 2014-04-28 16:04 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.