Democracy doesn't imply mob rule. Most democracies have a constitution which cannot be easily changed, even if a majority wants to. Furthermore, socialism does not necessarily imply total government, although it can, of course. The maker of the video argues that democracies descend into anarchy relativily quickly, yet Europe has many stable democracies. In any case the current US system is probably closer to oligarchy than democracy or a republic, because there is a 2-party system and as a result there isn't much to choose; the two parties have very similar socio-economic policies and differ of opinion only on some moral issues.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraDemocracy is widely regarded to be a disaster. I recall an excellent quote: "The endings of democracies are as violent as their lives are short." When someone asked Ben Franklin 'what kind of government he had given us', he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." The great fear of democracies is rooted in their heavy populist influence. The American Electoral College was designed to protect the American people from themselves. Whether it's succeeded or not, that was the intent. The point is that good government requires a political class that acts in the best interests, if not always the will, of the people it represents.
Democracy doesn't imply mob rule. Most democracies have a constitution which cannot be easily changed, even if a majority wants to. Furthermore, socialism does not necessarily imply total government, although it can, of course. The maker of the video argues that democracies descend into anarchy relativily quickly, yet Europe has many stable democracies. ies have very similar socio-economic policies and differ of opinion only on some moral issues.
And Europe doesn't really have any democracies. They too are democratic republics.
Originally posted by sasquatch672You're right...and may I add that had the politicians acted in the best interest of the American people, we wouldn't have Blagoyavich syndrome, Spritzer-itis, and political corrupness in general.
Democracy is widely regarded to be a disaster. I recall an excellent quote: "The endings of democracies are as violent as their lives are short." When someone asked Ben Franklin 'what kind of government he had given us', he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." The great fear of democracies is rooted in their heavy populist influence. The Ame ...[text shortened]...
And Europe doesn't really have any democracies. They too are democratic republics.
Originally posted by sasquatch672Well, shifting the accepted definition of democracy to suit your needs is not really an argument for anything.
Democracy is widely regarded to be a disaster. I recall an excellent quote: "The endings of democracies are as violent as their lives are short." When someone asked Ben Franklin 'what kind of government he had given us', he replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." The great fear of democracies is rooted in their heavy populist influence. The Ame ...[text shortened]...
And Europe doesn't really have any democracies. They too are democratic republics.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think you start or jump in to conversations without having all the information you need. The accepted definition of a democracy is a government of direct rule by the people. People themselves make decisions of all degrees of import by voting on them directly. A republic is one in which people elect leaders to make decisions for them. The United States is not a democracy, there are no democracies in Europe...do me a favor and recite the Pledge of Allegiance and tell me what kind of government its author thought we had. By calling the United States a democracy, you're being intellectually lazy and the difference is germane to the conversation.
Well, shifting the accepted definition of democracy to suit your needs is not really an argument for anything.
Originally posted by FMFyes. there would be property rights.
Would the so-called "capitalist" aspect of this republic of yours be constitutionally immunized from its own democratic process?
''the right to control and benefit from property and the right to transfer property by voluntary means. These rights offer people the possibility of autonomy and self-determination according to theirs personal values and goals.''
Originally posted by generalissimoAnd you think what you describe is exclusive to "capitalism"?
''the right to control and benefit from property and the right to transfer property by voluntary means. These rights offer people the possibility of autonomy and self-determination according to theirs personal values and goals.''
Originally posted by sasquatch672There is no direct rule of the people anywhere.
I think you start or jump in to conversations without having all the information you need. The accepted definition of a democracy is a government of direct rule by the people. People themselves make decisions of all degrees of import by voting on them directly. A republic is one in which people elect leaders to make decisions for them. The United St ...[text shortened]... democracy, you're being intellectually lazy and the difference is germane to the conversation.
Also, what's this obsession Americans have with the Founding Fathers and what they would've wanted? I'm sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted you to abolish slavery.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraYou are incorrect; the majority of the FF did favor the abolition of slavery. And virtually all felt that slavery would be abolished in the future.
There is no direct rule of the people anywhere.
Also, what's this obsession Americans have with the Founding Fathers and what they would've wanted? I'm sure the Founding Fathers wouldn't have wanted you to abolish slavery.
Consider the Northwest Ordinance passed in 1787:
Art. 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said territory
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/ordinance/text.html
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut you have clear property rights of various forms and traditions in almost every type of political system seen around the world today and it would be nonsensically vague to call them all "capitalist", surely? And there is no country in the world that offers a 100% guarantee that the state won't confiscate property, notably the U.S.A. I have a sneaky feeling that many of the rather broken record it's black-or-white cheerleeders for so-called "capitalism" on this forum don't actually have a clear real-world idea of what it is. There's certainly abundant evidence that most of our resident "capitalists" cannot differentiate between "capitalism" and "corporatism".
It's basically what capitalism is all about. The right to own property, and the guarantee that the state won't confiscate it, and will help you protect it against others.