The Sins
13-09-2007, 01:14
The United States isn't a democracy. No one ever called it a democracy until the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, and it somehow stuck ever since. Look at the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States, or any early document in our country passed by congress. Nowhere can the word "democracy" be found, just try it.
Why is this you ask? Because the founding fathers were afraid of it. Democracy is the concept of one man-one vote, majority rules and the minority is subsidized to make room for the interests of others. The majority is by no means always right, and the decisions made by the majority do not always make everyone happy. A society is faced with a problem and several proposals for a solution, the one that gets a majority of votes is accepted completely rather than compromising and adjusting in order to protect the minority of peoples whose proposal was not chosen.
To get around this problem while still looking for a way to create a system of government dedicated to representing the people, a republic was set up in its place. The people still vote to have their voices heard, but the system is set up differently in order to insure the rights of the minority population.
A House of Representatives was set up to represent the interests of the people living in a representatives district, and the number of representatives per state was based on the population. This way the government could recognize the interests of the general population. And a Senate was set up to represent the interests of the state legislature. Inside of these states were Houses and Senates to serve the same purpose, by that way, through voting for in-state legislatures the people could have their view represented indirectly in the Senate as well. Politicians can't get voted into office unless they represent the sole interests of their people, so they are inclined to do their job properly lest they be booted out of office to make room for a new official.
Indirectly, the people control the government. That is the theory. Of course the system hinges on the responsibility of the people to stay informed and understand who their legislatures are and how they are representing them. Today, however, that responsibilty has taken a low priority amongst many citizens who fail to even understand that politics has very much to do with how they run their daily lives. I don't however forsake my faith in this system just because people seem a bit dumber than they used to be. I tend to be optimistic towards America's ability to adapt to change and avoid any indication of central meltdown. After 231 years of using the same consistent democratic republic (the democratic part refers only to the people's ability to vote, the U.S. is still not a democracy, remember?) there is no real sign that the government is falling apart.
And I think with that last statement I will get about a dozen responses from communists who suggest otherwise. Marx thought that a revolution would occur in France or Great Britain, but it never occurred to him that it would actually take place in Russia instead, not until later in his life anyway. Oh, and the Soviet Union was the worlds first official socialist state not a real communism, and guess what? It doesn't work, falling apart less than eighty years after its birth, huh? Some superpower. The standard of living in Russia during the Cold War was vastly inferior to that of Western Europe and the U.S. because of the lack of a private sector and competition to manufacture goods. They could build a tank, but the number-one cause of fires in Moscow during the eighties was exploding televisions for God's sake.
So what? It's a common mistake but it's not a big deal. It doesn't change anything and if so many people use the phrase, educated people even, what does it matter?
I can't say for sure, but it doesn't feel right. I may be wrong, but the word implies that we should be more trusting of the government's judgement of what's right. To me it implies that man was created equal, not the equal oppertunity to succeed as is intended, but to be made equal with everyone else in society. The protection of this hollow word seems like justification to do anything.
"We kill for democracy," "We fight for democracy," "We are doing this to spread democracy".
Democracy equals equality which equal harmony which equals equality which equals freedom. That is the connection made and the blind patriotism that arises can be construed to encourage the dumber masses to believe or do anything. It is easier to convince a group of people of anything than it is to convince an individual, the majority can be steered any direction by a flashy, charismatic leader, but a solitary person tends to be more discerning. Why do you think socialists encourage unity? Because it's easier to control people that way.
The U.S. is meant to be a group of individuals with differing opinions, not a unified group with one. Dissent is the tree that bears the fruit of progress. How can you think differently from another if you're taught that such a mindset of individualism is bad?
Being better than someone hurts the other's self-esteem and is therefore evil, not belonging to a popular crowd makes you a nerd and a social outcast. To become apart of this group you must be as they are. The world in which I lived in as a child did all it could to teach me this lesson, spouting the word "democracy" all the way. You may not think that childhood experiences can reflect social interactions in the adult world, but isn't that where people learn to interact? The school, the neighborhood, all you ever feel as a kid whose ever been ignored or picked on is "why can't I be like everyone else?" This concept of conformity vs. hell can stay with a person throughout their lives.
To me, this paranoid scene diplays the meaning of democracy. The United Sates is no democracy, at least I hope it's not.
It is a country of individual determination and it has worked magnificently.
"The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who're destroying the world.
I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
I recognize no obligations toward men exept one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society"
-From the character Howard Roark in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
Why is this you ask? Because the founding fathers were afraid of it. Democracy is the concept of one man-one vote, majority rules and the minority is subsidized to make room for the interests of others. The majority is by no means always right, and the decisions made by the majority do not always make everyone happy. A society is faced with a problem and several proposals for a solution, the one that gets a majority of votes is accepted completely rather than compromising and adjusting in order to protect the minority of peoples whose proposal was not chosen.
To get around this problem while still looking for a way to create a system of government dedicated to representing the people, a republic was set up in its place. The people still vote to have their voices heard, but the system is set up differently in order to insure the rights of the minority population.
A House of Representatives was set up to represent the interests of the people living in a representatives district, and the number of representatives per state was based on the population. This way the government could recognize the interests of the general population. And a Senate was set up to represent the interests of the state legislature. Inside of these states were Houses and Senates to serve the same purpose, by that way, through voting for in-state legislatures the people could have their view represented indirectly in the Senate as well. Politicians can't get voted into office unless they represent the sole interests of their people, so they are inclined to do their job properly lest they be booted out of office to make room for a new official.
Indirectly, the people control the government. That is the theory. Of course the system hinges on the responsibility of the people to stay informed and understand who their legislatures are and how they are representing them. Today, however, that responsibilty has taken a low priority amongst many citizens who fail to even understand that politics has very much to do with how they run their daily lives. I don't however forsake my faith in this system just because people seem a bit dumber than they used to be. I tend to be optimistic towards America's ability to adapt to change and avoid any indication of central meltdown. After 231 years of using the same consistent democratic republic (the democratic part refers only to the people's ability to vote, the U.S. is still not a democracy, remember?) there is no real sign that the government is falling apart.
And I think with that last statement I will get about a dozen responses from communists who suggest otherwise. Marx thought that a revolution would occur in France or Great Britain, but it never occurred to him that it would actually take place in Russia instead, not until later in his life anyway. Oh, and the Soviet Union was the worlds first official socialist state not a real communism, and guess what? It doesn't work, falling apart less than eighty years after its birth, huh? Some superpower. The standard of living in Russia during the Cold War was vastly inferior to that of Western Europe and the U.S. because of the lack of a private sector and competition to manufacture goods. They could build a tank, but the number-one cause of fires in Moscow during the eighties was exploding televisions for God's sake.
So what? It's a common mistake but it's not a big deal. It doesn't change anything and if so many people use the phrase, educated people even, what does it matter?
I can't say for sure, but it doesn't feel right. I may be wrong, but the word implies that we should be more trusting of the government's judgement of what's right. To me it implies that man was created equal, not the equal oppertunity to succeed as is intended, but to be made equal with everyone else in society. The protection of this hollow word seems like justification to do anything.
"We kill for democracy," "We fight for democracy," "We are doing this to spread democracy".
Democracy equals equality which equal harmony which equals equality which equals freedom. That is the connection made and the blind patriotism that arises can be construed to encourage the dumber masses to believe or do anything. It is easier to convince a group of people of anything than it is to convince an individual, the majority can be steered any direction by a flashy, charismatic leader, but a solitary person tends to be more discerning. Why do you think socialists encourage unity? Because it's easier to control people that way.
The U.S. is meant to be a group of individuals with differing opinions, not a unified group with one. Dissent is the tree that bears the fruit of progress. How can you think differently from another if you're taught that such a mindset of individualism is bad?
Being better than someone hurts the other's self-esteem and is therefore evil, not belonging to a popular crowd makes you a nerd and a social outcast. To become apart of this group you must be as they are. The world in which I lived in as a child did all it could to teach me this lesson, spouting the word "democracy" all the way. You may not think that childhood experiences can reflect social interactions in the adult world, but isn't that where people learn to interact? The school, the neighborhood, all you ever feel as a kid whose ever been ignored or picked on is "why can't I be like everyone else?" This concept of conformity vs. hell can stay with a person throughout their lives.
To me, this paranoid scene diplays the meaning of democracy. The United Sates is no democracy, at least I hope it's not.
It is a country of individual determination and it has worked magnificently.
"The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.
I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man's creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who're destroying the world.
I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.
I recognize no obligations toward men exept one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society"
-From the character Howard Roark in The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand