NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about democracy.


Democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all, and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel.


My opinion is...that you would as soon scrub the blackamore white as to change the principle of a profest Democrat, and that he will leave nothing unattempted to overturn the Government of this Country.


I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.


Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.


I seize the opportunity to tell him that I am opposed to the democracy from regard to liberty.


I am an aristocrat: I love liberty, I hate equality.

The US isn't a democracy. Its a repersentive Democracy, there's a difference.

And besides whats your point.

And besides whats your point.

What he said. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13248105&postcount=4)

We are a REBUPLIC not a democracy.

Edit: Sorry a democratic republic.

Well, I can only asume since the OP left things unfinished that he feels we by rights ought to be some sort of dictatorship. Whether he feels that should be a Fascist, Stalinist, or Theocratic dictatorship, I couldn't say as he seems unwilling for whatever reason to inform us -- possibly because us filthy unwashed commoners might not be able to understand his deep thought. :rolleyes:

Man, you really love your strawmen, don't you?

Now, do you have anything intelligent to add?

Edit: Sorry a democratic republic.

No, a representative republic.

The US isn't a democracy. Its a repersentive Democracy, there's a difference.

And besides whats your point.

Well, I can only asume since the OP left things unfinished that he feels we by rights ought to be some sort of dictatorship. Whether he feels that should be a Fascist, Stalinist, or Theocratic dictatorship, I couldn't say as he seems unwilling for whatever reason to inform us -- possibly because us filthy unwashed commoners might not be able to understand his deep thought. :rolleyes:

Gay adoption FTW!

I agree. There is no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

No, the U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

Yet, apparently pointing that out makes you a "fascist," a "Stalinist," or a "theocrat."

clearly what America needs is more fathers then Gay adoption FTW!

No, the U.S. isn't a democracy. It's a republic.

We are a REBUPLIC not a democracy.

Edit: Sorry a democratic republic.

Nahh, just a republic. federal republic. Real democracy i.e. popular reforandum doesn't exist in the U.S. on a large scale.

And what does it matter if we aren't a democracy according to your rather short quotes? No nation since Athens has been a true democracy. Democracy is just a term used because of all its positive connotations.

Only when you don't bloody well bother to explain yourself.

My sig explains it all.

Let's look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about democracy.
The people you quoted were all Federalists (except for Madison and Randolph) who were alive in the late 18th and early 19th century. They also said that there were only thirteen states because, well, there were. But things change, and just as the US has increased in size, so has its political system changed.
According to my dictionary, a democracy is, "a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives." That's what the US is.

Yet, apparently pointing that out makes you a "fascist," a "Stalinist," or a "theocrat."

Only when you don't bloody well bother to explain yourself.

Isn't there different degrees of republic, just as there are different degrees of monarchy? The Venetian Republic was ruled by a Doge, even though they ruled as a monarch, it still wasn't properly royalty.

Admittedly I don't understand the whole two party system of the USA.

As an American, I agree that the United States has ceased to be a true democratic nation (yes, I know we're a democratic republic). A government that is truly held accountable to the will of the people requires an informed citizenry. Most Americans are hard-pressed to name their representatives in Congress, or the different branches of the government, let alone express extensive knowledge about various issues. Public opinion is easily bought by sound bites, as well as misleading information spread by propaganda funnels like Fox News or talk radio. Those in power have a blank check to do virtually whatever they please as long as they wrap their decisions in rhetoric ("It's for national security", "It'll save you money", etc.) The United States is a democracy in name only, and is quickly transforming into a dictatorial police state.

*snickers* Democracy, Pshaw... haha but seriously... democracy is letting your next door neighbour control your life rather than letting the majority decide on something... its like letting the chihuahua boss around the Rottweiler farm... :rolleyes:

A republic isn't necessarily democratic. I think a lot of Americans have to learn that.

No nation since Athens has been a true democracy. Democracy is just a term used because of all its positive connotations.
Obviously this will depend on your take on what a ‘true’ democracy actually is, but I wouldn’t put Athens forward as one.

True, every citizen took an active role in the city’s, and all councillors, judges, generals, etc., were accountable and elected or randomly appointed, but when ‘citizen’ applies only to free-born male Greeks, it’s hardly rule by the people, it's rule by a selected group of the people.

At least by modern standards, Hellenic Athens seems more like an oligarchy, albeit a wide-ranging oligarchy.

Most boring Mythbusters episode.
Ever.

The U.S. is officially a "Representative Democracy", but any "Representative Democracy" practically speaking is just an "Ochlocracy". An Ochlocracy according to the best of my understanding is just an organized form of mob rule. The people decide what shall be done and if the politicians don't comply to the wishes of the masses, they feal the people's wrath.

Practically speaking the form of government in the U.S. is "Authoritarianism" because we started of as "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but then somewhere down the line the people we elected decided we were idiots and completely inept at ruling ourselves and that responsibility should be left to an elite group which now rules with a (more or less) iron fist and if you don't like it, tough.

The U.S. has also had a slight form of a "Krytocracy". To the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no checks or balances on the Supreme Court or it's judges. The president appoints them but once they're in place, they're untouchable unless assassinated.

OOC: Once my mother called our senator to tell him what she thought on one particular bill. You know what he told her? "I don't care what you think, I'm the one in the office, I'm going to do it my way. Don't like it? Tough luck lady."

By the way, all the info on what the fore-fathers said is interesting. Apparently they thought democracy was a joke and that we were screwed from the get go. But, what was the point of this thread exactlly? Did you just want to post the quotes you found or was there a question or a scenario to discuss or what? What's the point of this thread?

The US isn't a democracy. Its a repersentive Democracy, there's a difference.

And besides whats your point.

They claimed to be a democracy, and a nation with democracy.

I think its Norway or Sweden who has Direct Democracy.

First, I'd like to point out that the founding fathers are not gods, and while their opinions may be respected by some, there words are not the absolute truth of the universe. Likewise, America shouldn't feel bound to their ideas.

Second, democracy isn't fundamentally a good thing. It can go either way. I don't value the opinion of every person in this country. I'm an individualist, and as long as you don't tread on me, I will accept who you are and what you do. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

Third, the right to vote has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. How are you free when someone is telling you you're allowed to vote. They're telling you what to do to change your government, that's not freedom.

I'm done ranting.

I think its Norway or Sweden who has Direct Democracy.

You think wrong. Both Norway and Sweden are representative, parliamentary democracies with a constitutionally monarchical system of government.

The U.S. has also had a slight form of a "Krytocracy". To the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no checks or balances on the Supreme Court or it's judges. The president appoints them but once they're in place, they're untouchable unless assassinated.


Which is why I'm here...Who do you want off the Court?

Practically speaking the form of government in the U.S. is "Authoritarianism" because we started of as "of the people, by the people, and for the people" but then somewhere down the line the people we elected decided we were idiots and completely inept at ruling ourselves and that responsibility should be left to an elite group which now rules with a (more or less) iron fist and if you don't like it, tough.

which is why we need to elect a lazy president (and senate)who will destroy most of our government so that it's less work for them!
Or we could just elect a Libertarian president.

The U.S. has also had a slight form of a "Krytocracy". To the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no checks or balances on the Supreme Court or it's judges. The president appoints them but once they're in place, they're untouchable unless assassinated.

The Supreme Court is incapable of proposing new laws, only striking down old ones or creating new common law in situations where they are called upon to make a decision. Furthermore they have to do so with constitutional justification which does give them some scope but prevents them from ruling based solely on personal preference - not that I'm saying personal preference is absent from supreme court ruling, just limited. Both could be consider checks and balances against the supreme court ruling as a krytocracy.

And all of that proves... what?

What relevance does it have for today, when suffrage is expanded far beyond what it was in the day of the Founding Fathers, when the national government is more directly accountable to the people through elections, and when the term "democracy" is used quite differently from how it was in the late eighteenth century?

The U.S. has also had a slight form of a "Krytocracy". To the best of my knowledge, there are absolutely no checks or balances on the Supreme Court or it's judges. The president appoints them but once they're in place, they're untouchable unless assassinated.

Your knowledge is flawed. Members of the Supreme Court can be removed, and have been on numerous occasions.

Did someone just get through their first semester of a poli sci class or something?

I tend to side with the "Free Socialist Allies". America views the "Founding Fathers" as nearly god-like for the same reason Russia and China view Lennon as nearly god-like. America thinks it's betraying it's origins and abandoning it's God given purpose if it strays from the every percieved thought and whim of the people who started it.

I'm very happy to hear the Supreme Court isn't as screwed as I've come to see it as. My question though is, why then has the supreme court been making so many rulings in the last how-many years that look like nothing more than personal opinion versus pure and solid interpretation?

First, I'd like to point out that the founding fathers are not gods, and while their opinions may be respected by some, there words are not the absolute truth of the universe. Likewise, America shouldn't feel bound to their ideas.

I never said otherwise. Only that the idea that the Foundinf Fathers "supported democracy" has no basis whatsoever in reality.

Second, democracy isn't fundamentally a good thing. It can go either way. I don't value the opinion of every person in this country. I'm an individualist, and as long as you don't tread on me, I will accept who you are and what you do. Tyranny by majority is still tyranny.

Agreed.

Third, the right to vote has absolutely nothing to do with freedom. How are you free when someone is telling you you're allowed to vote. They're telling you what to do to change your government, that's not freedom.

Agreed.

I'm done ranting.

Me, too.

Did someone just get through their first semester of a poli sci class or something?

Exactly.

I thought people got past their "America is not a democracy" phase in high school. But I guess the OP could be a late bloomer.

I invite anyone who thinks the OP makes a profound point to read The Federalist Papers (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fedpapers.html). I especially recommend Federalist #10, #39, and #51.

I thought people got past their "America is not a democracy" phase in high school. But I guess the OP could be a late bloomer.

No, they didn't get past that "phase." If they did, you would not constantly hear idiots harping that the U.S. is a "democracy."

No, they didn't get past that "phase." If they did, you would not constantly hear idiots harping that the U.S. is a "democracy."

What is your definition of democracy?

What is your definition of democracy?

The closest thing to one would be Switzerland. But even Switzerland doesn't qualify. It has a constitution, checks and balances, elected officials (rather than direct rule by the people), etc. All anathema to democracy.

No, they didn't get past that "phase." If they did, you would not constantly hear idiots harping that the U.S. is a "democracy."

The fact that they did is precisely why you hear "idiots" insisting that the US is a democracy.

All anathema to democracy.

You're equivocating. When people talk about democracy today, they do not mean "unrestricted direct majority rule."

The fact that they did is precisely why you hear "idiots" insisting that the US is a democracy.

Why the quotation marks?

You're equivocating. When people talk about democracy today, they do not mean "unrestricted direct majority rule."

Exactly. They confuse democracy with representative government.

The closest thing to one would be Switzerland. But even Switzerland doesn't qualify. It has a constitution, checks and balances, elected officials (rather than direct rule by the people), etc. All anathema to democracy.

So a democracy requires voting for everything, like in ancient Athens? That's direct democracy, and while a type is not the only one.

US = de facto two-party corporate propaganda state

So a democracy requires voting for everything, like in ancient Athens? That's direct democracy, and while a type is not the only one.

It's the only real kind. Representative government is no more "democratic" than modern U.S. liberalism is "liberal."

Why the quotation marks?

Because they're right, at least formally: we have elections with universal suffrage, and ultimately all government posts are either the results of direct election or of appointment by directly elected figures.

Whether or not the United States is a democracy substantively--whether the people actually rule--is a different question entirely, but it was not one you've addressed. At all.

Because they're right, at least formally: we have elections with universal suffrage, and ultimately all government posts are either the results of direct election or of appointment by directly elected figures.

Representative government. Not democracy.

Whether or not the United States is a democracy substantively--whether the people actually rule--is a different question entirely, but it was not one you've addressed. At all.

I did.

For those who ask, examples of real democracies would probably include: the First French Republic; Paris Commune; and parts of Spain under anarchist control during the Spanish Civil War.

They confuse democracy with representative government.

No, they don't. You confuse democracy as such with a particularly narrow subset of democracy--one that in a certain sense may not be worthy of being called "democracy" at all.

Representative government. Not democracy.

I believe the term you're looking for here is "Representative DEMOCRACY". Last I checked that was the official term for Americas system of government.

No, they don't.

Yes, they do, by calling a country founded by outspoken anti-democrats a "democracy," when they repeatedly insisted that it was a representative republic.

Representative government. Not democracy.

Representative democracy. You can have representative government that is not democratic--if you only open suffrage to a limited few, for instance. But if you have elections with universal suffrage, and they determine the composition of the government, it is representative democracy--again, at least formally.

I did.

Where?

Exactly. They confuse democracy with representative government.

We are aware that "representative government" and "democracy" are not necessarily incompatible concepts, yes?

The attempt to make them mutually exclusive concepts can only work if we assign to "democracy" an extremist definition that represents, at best, the fringe of democratic theory. Trying to represent the entire body of democratic theory according to only the extremist fringe is intellectually dishonest (which makes one look rather silly).

Really, claiming that x is a "republic" and therefore not a "democracy" is something akin to claiming that a square isn't a rectangle because a square has sides of equal length. The problem with your argument is that the definition of "rectangle" has nothing to do with the length of the sides...

Yes, they do, by calling a country founded by outspoken anti-democrats a "democracy,"

That has nothing to do with anything. The US of today isn't the US of two centuries ago. Political terminology today isn't the same as political terminology two centuries ago either.

If you are honest, you must acknowledge that virtually every serious modern advocate of democracy does not believe in unrestrained direct majority rule... in the context of which your definition is little more than an absurd straw man.

The USA is a Polyarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy

The USA is a Polyarchy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyarchy

My wiki-fu is greater than yours.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

Here also we find the USA listed.

IM, just exactly what are you saying? That the US is not now nor ever has been democratic (however flawed the system might be), or are you saying that it shouldn't be democratic? Or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass?

Yet, apparently pointing that out makes you a "fascist," a "Stalinist," or a "theocrat."

Of course; you're either a democrat or an evil Islamunazi, because we all know that punching a hole in a piece of paper annually automatically guarantees freedom.

Of course; you're either a democrat or an evil Islamunazi, because we all know that punching a hole in a piece of paper annually automatically guarantees freedom.

Which is why technology will be our downfall.

I don't think Franklin was fond of democracy either. I think it was he who said democracy is like two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch, liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. Free-market anarchy is realy the way to go. So long as I've got my ED-209 around nothing can possibly go wrong.

Yes, they do, by calling a country founded by outspoken anti-democrats a "democracy," when they repeatedly insisted that it was a representative republic.

No. They don't. The Founders spoke out about a lot of things, some with more wisdom than others. What the Founders were referring to as democracy and constrasting with a Republic, has evolved over the years as citizenship extended to women, minorities, and non-land-holders.

At the same time the language has evolved. Democracy, according to the Oxford English Dictionary means:

1. Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.

b. A state or community in which the government is vested in the people as a whole.

c. fig.

2. That class of the people which has no hereditary or special rank or privilege; the common people (in reference to their political power).

3. Democratism. rare.

4. U.S. politics. a. The principles of the Democratic party; b. The members of the Democratic party collectively.

So now the evolution of the word democracy and the evolution of the US government have dovetailed to where it is reasonable to refer to the U.S. as a democracry. That isn't the most accurate term. But it is accurate.

That has nothing to do with anything. The US of today isn't the US of two centuries ago. Political terminology today isn't the same as political terminology two centuries ago either.

If you are honest, you must acknowledge that virtually every serious modern advocate of democracy does not believe in unrestrained direct majority rule... in the context of which your definition is little more than an absurd straw man.

of course, he's in good company, as the author of federalist 10 made the same equivocating move. if you look, madison starts off talking about "pure democracy" as a particular and distinct sort of thing, but ends up contrasting "democracy" with "a republic". so clearly the distinction had already been made even then, otherwise there is no reason to start off talking about pure anything.

This doesn't shock me at all. In fact, the notion that we're having a debate about what the American founding fathers said about democracy is quite surprising to me because (I'm making an assumption here - bear with me, those of you that have said this) the American founding fathers thought that the average layperson would have no concept of politics.

Which, given the circumstances in America nowadays, is fairly accurate. The common, run-of-the-mill American is not politically savvy. And the founding fathers knew this. They were opposed to a true democracy because they were afraid of a) a government run on the whole by Joe Blows, and b) a government run by the majority consensus of the populus. Given that federalism in America has survived for more than 200 years, I'd say that the founding fathers were wise to say what they said.

By the by, let's just suppose the words of the founding fathers were, in essence, against founding a democracy. Why, then, would the first words of the Constitution state "We the People?"

No. They don't. The Founders spoke out about a lot of things, some with more wisdom than others. What the Founders were referring to as democracy and constrasting with a Republic, has evolved over the years as citizenship extended to women, minorities, and non-land-holders.

So now the evolution of the word democracy and the evolution of the US government have dovetailed to where it is reasonable to refer to the U.S. as a democracry. That isn't the most accurate term. But it is accurate.

Indeed. We're much closer to being a democracy now that we've become more inclusive about who gets to vote.

Now if only we could figure a way to make sure that corporations and lobbyists don't buy out our elected officials, we'd be taking another good step towards a government that is genuinely representative in practice rather than in name.

This doesn't shock me at all. In fact, the notion that we're having a debate about what the American founding fathers said about democracy is quite surprising to me because (I'm making an assumption here - bear with me, those of you that have said this) the American founding fathers thought that the average layperson would have no concept of politics.

Which, given the circumstances in America nowadays, is fairly accurate. The common, run-of-the-mill American is not politically savvy. And the founding fathers knew this. They were opposed to a true democracy because they were afraid of a) a government run on the whole by Joe Blows, and b) a government run by the majority consensus of the populus. Given that federalism in America has survived for more than 200 years, I'd say that the founding fathers were wise to say what they said.

By the by, let's just suppose the words of the founding fathers were, in essence, against founding a democracy. Why, then, would the first words of the Constitution state "We the People?"

They were afraid of democracy because it would take power away from them: the wealthy landowning elite. And the common people didn't particularly care for the privileges of the wealthy landowners, and would have likely expropriated their land had they the power to do so.

But they're just poor, half-starving, peasant ignoramuses. Who cares about them. They can just hang, cuz the wealthy landowners obviously know what's best for them. :rolleyes:

They were afraid of democracy because it would take power away from them: the wealthy landowning elite. And the common people didn't particularly care for the privileges of the wealthy landowners, and would have likely expropriated their land had they the power to do so.

But they're just poor, half-starving, peasant ignoramuses. Who cares about them. They can just hang, cuz the wealthy landowners obviously know what's best for them. :rolleyes:

And the black man. Shoo-ey. I'm sure the majority of the white folk sure know what's best for them.

Which is why it took Lincoln and a group of other politicians and presidents to push for desegregation and the advancement of minorities. Because the common man knows best. Because the common man wanted desegregation.

Or why it took until the early 20th century for women's suffrage. Because the common man wanted it. Not because politicians gave it the wheels to put it into action.

And the black man. Shoo-ey. I'm sure the majority of the white folk sure know what's best for them.

Which is why it took Lincoln and a group of other politicians and presidents to push for desegregation and the advancement of minorities. Because the common man knows best. Because the common man wanted desegregation.

Or why it took until the early 20th century for women's suffrage. Because the common man wanted it. Not because politicians gave it the wheels to put it into action.

So democracy is inherently bad because, as a system intrinsically opposed to hierarchy, it won't work well when the participants have been conditioned over millenia to be blind cogs in all forms of hierarchy: social classes, racial bigotry, sexual oppression, economic exploitation, religious dogmas etc. The people are ignorant because they have been made to be ignorant.

As John Milton lamented, "they who have put out the people's eyes now reproach them of their blindness."

In every single social crime you listed, it was the power elites who created and supported the existence of the crime, and it was primarily mass-based movements that forced an end to the discrimination.

Then explain why we're debating abortion instead of acting on the majority opinion. Abortion isn't a problem brought up by teh ebil higher class. Why, then, don't we just support the majority's opinion?

Or the "Under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance. We are obviously not a monotheistic nation, given that we have freedom of religion and are obligated to keep religion and government seperated. Yet, the vast majority of Americans don't want to see "Under God" eliminated. Should we just act upon the opinion of the majority then?

Or, how about the Iraq war? The idea of it was fairly mixed with the populus. Should we then have taken a majority vote?

Or, let's just suppose (and I'm putting this in another paragraph because this is far beyond what I usually suppose, but I'll make the point anyway) that we do find some kind of evidence, whatever it may be, that Iraq had WMDs in Iraq. Given that our majority hates the fact we are in another country, we would pull out IF we took an honest poll of Americans. Given the scenario, the majority would be wrong. Hence, the Founding Fathers disliked democracy because they believed that the layperson was ignorant of politics, both domestic and international.

Then explain why we're debating abortion instead of acting on the majority opinion. Abortion isn't a problem brought up by teh ebil higher class. Why, then, don't we just support the majority's opinion?

Or the "Under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance. We are obviously not a monotheistic nation, given that we have freedom of religion and are obligated to keep religion and government seperated. Yet, the vast majority of Americans don't want to see "Under God" eliminated. Should we just act upon the opinion of the majority then?

Or, how about the Iraq war? The idea of it was fairly mixed with the populus. Should we then have taken a majority vote?

Or, let's just suppose (and I'm putting this in another paragraph because this is far beyond what I usually suppose, but I'll make the point anyway) that we do find some kind of evidence, whatever it may be, that Iraq had WMDs in Iraq. Given that our majority hates the fact we are in another country, we would pull out IF we took an honest poll of Americans. Given the scenario, the majority would be wrong. Hence, the Founding Fathers disliked democracy because they believed that the layperson was ignorant of politics, both domestic and international.

You're blaming the victim. Like I said before, the layperson is ignorant and dogmatic because he/she has been made to be so. People can only make decisions as good as the information they are provided, and they are not getting all the information.

No, I'm not blaming the victim. I am blaming the ignorant. People are only ignorant when they accept their ignorance. People who decide to rely only on the information that they are provided and accept without thinking that there is no better information to be provided are ignorant. People who are not ignorant accept that no information is infallible, that scientific studies are not theories, and that a hypothesis does not dictate the results of an experiment.

It is ignorant to say that, because we are ignorant, that we are inherently ignorant. A circular reasoning fallacy. It is not ignorant to say that, even though we are ignorant, there may be an alternative to ignorance.

Then explain why we're debating abortion instead of acting on the majority opinion. Abortion isn't a problem brought up by teh ebil higher class. Why, then, don't we just support the majority's opinion?

Or the "Under God" clause of the Pledge of Allegiance. We are obviously not a monotheistic nation, given that we have freedom of religion and are obligated to keep religion and government seperated. Yet, the vast majority of Americans don't want to see "Under God" eliminated. Should we just act upon the opinion of the majority then?

Or, how about the Iraq war? The idea of it was fairly mixed with the populus. Should we then have taken a majority vote?

Or, let's just suppose (and I'm putting this in another paragraph because this is far beyond what I usually suppose, but I'll make the point anyway) that we do find some kind of evidence, whatever it may be, that Iraq had WMDs in Iraq. Given that our majority hates the fact we are in another country, we would pull out IF we took an honest poll of Americans. Given the scenario, the majority would be wrong. Hence, the Founding Fathers disliked democracy because they believed that the layperson was ignorant of politics, both domestic and international.

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The Founders had some qualms about democracy while at the same time believing in democratic principles.

The Founders did not have a disdain for the layman.

The Founders believed, however, in the Constitution as a means of taking some issues out of the fray of majority whim.

No, I'm not blaming the victim. I am blaming the ignorant. People are only ignorant when they accept their ignorance. People who decide to rely only on the information that they are provided and accept without thinking that there is no better information to be provided are ignorant. People who are not ignorant accept that no information is infallible, that scientific studies are not theories, and that a hypothesis does not dictate the results of an experiment.

It is ignorant to say that, because we are ignorant, that we are inherently ignorant. A circular reasoning fallacy. It is not ignorant to say that, even though we are ignorant, there may be an alternative to ignorance.

Oh savior of the ignorant masses, how would you break the cycle of ignorance? If the people do not have access to the full truth, then how the hell are they supposed to break the cycle of ignorance?

Oh savior of the ignorant masses, how would you break the cycle of ignorance? If the people do not have access to the full truth, then how the hell are they supposed to break the cycle of ignorance?

How, exactly, do people not have access to the full truth? Is it because it is simply not available to them or because Fox News or NBC News or wherever they get their news from isn't giving the information out?

Please tell me how you would think that the average American would not have access to the full truth. I honestly want to know why you think that the full truth simply isn't out there in an age where information is readily available at our fingertips.

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The Founders had some qualms about democracy while at the same time believing in democratic principles.

The Founders did not have a disdain for the layman.

The Founders believed, however, in the Constitution as a means of taking some issues out of the fray of majority whim.

If you don't, that's quite alright. It's been one long argument that has distracted me from researching Korea for an English final project and dinner, and has been cut in two by a dead laptop battery.

My argument, essentially, has been your last sentence - that the Founding Fathers (which I should capitalize from now on) believed that the ordinary layperson was and is ignorant of politics, domestic and abroad (not out of contempt but of observation), and thus wanted to keep power out of the masses. Those things I listed were observations where using the power of the masses would be a bad idea.

Mostly. The Iraq war thing was a wild supposition that's been made for years now and hasn't been proven. That was a case where the popular opinion would have been correct; yet, we know something now that we did not previously know, and can only say "Hindsight is 20/20." That, or making that supposition I made is silly.

Let's look at what the Founding Fathers had to say about democracy.
Wow, you quote them as if the the opinions of the Founding Fathers were significant or even good, as if they mean anything. I for one don't need to quote the opinions of a bunch of racist landowning reactionary elitists for my view to somehow have 'credence', why is it that you think quoting them makes you're own views which is similar to theres good? The Founding Fathers built a state built on nihilistic liberalism, cynicism and distrust of everything, a position which will eventually break down all social bonds in humanity. They created a culture which values nothing but profit and hatred of your fellow countrymen. In fact you quoting them makes you're opinion all the worse. As a great man once said, 'when we hang the capitalists they will sell us the rope we use'.

snip
So, you don't think America has changed since the late seventeenth century?

So, you don't think America has changed since the late seventeenth century?
You're right it's changed.

It's not a Republic or a Democracy anymore.
With all the special interest pandering and lobbyists it's more of an Oligarchy.

You're right it's changed.

It's not a Republic or a Democracy anymore.
With all the special interest pandering and lobbyists it's more of an Oligarchy.

So it was a democracy back when only white men could vote?

So it was a democracy back when only white men could vote? No it was a republic back when representives would actually argue with each other, instead of looking at the largest briber and doing whatever he says.

(I'm more talking about the wanton corruption instead of who gets to vote, I mean it doesn't seem to matter who we vote for these days *Glares at "Democratic" Congress*)

The US isn't a democracy. Its a repersentive Democracy, there's a difference.


No. The USA aren't a democracy, they're a republic (more precisely, a federation of republics).

So it was a democracy back when only white men could vote?
Yes, and it's still a democracy. It has gradually become more democratic, but as long as people are voting you can call it a democracy.

I honestly don't understand the point you are trying to make.

The Founders had some qualms about democracy while at the same time believing in democratic principles.

The Founders did not have a disdain for the layman.

The Founders believed, however, in the Constitution as a means of taking some issues out of the fray of majority whim.
There were some pretty elitist Framers. Hamilton, for example. And while the United States was the most democratic nation at the time of its founding, the Constitution says nothing about who can vote, and many states continued limiting voting to wealthy land owners. Mass democracy occurred around the mid-19th century, the "Jacksonian Era."
But what the Framers personally believed doesn't matter much anyway. The made a huge impact on American government, but they're dead and the country goes on without them.

How, exactly, do people not have access to the full truth? Is it because it is simply not available to them or because Fox News or NBC News or wherever they get their news from isn't giving the information out?

Please tell me how you would think that the average American would not have access to the full truth. I honestly want to know why you think that the full truth simply isn't out there in an age where information is readily available at our fingertips.

In a nation full of computer illiterates, it doesn't matter how available computers make information if you don't know how to use the technology properly. Years of religious and social conditioning don't help either.

I'm not saying that individuals are blameless in this, but you are suggesting we solve a collective problem on an individual basis: that never works.

I am still waiting to know how exactly quoting the 'Founding Fathers' makes you're point better? If anything it makes it worse.

The US never has been and never will be a democracy. It is a republic. The founding fathers understood the dangers of democracy which including leaders pandering to feeble minded people to get votes putting into place stupid policies.

The US never has been and never will be a democracy. It is a republic. The founding fathers understood the dangers of democracy which including leaders pandering to feeble minded people to get votes putting into place stupid policies.

Ah, the old weak, ignored masses argument. Well they must be inferior, they're poor. And if they're inferior, there must be something different about them. Perhaps they are of a different genetic stock. Ah yes, that's it. We, the upper class snobs are of a different race than the masses. Since they're racially inferior, it doesn't matter how much they suffer, how much we oppress them, or use them to fight our wars. We can even outright genocide them.

Tell me where on this train of thought you intend to stop Soviestan, and why you don't follow it to its logical conclusion. Your bigotry must stop.