No Joe Biden. We are not a “democracy”, which is a vile form of government

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

I have no problem. I’m not the one who disagrees with modern political science.

Modern political science has no authority to change the Constitution.

[Samm]

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Why do you shun established documents?

I don’t. Why do you shun modern political science? Why do you deny the existence of representative democracy?

I don’t shun it. But I am aware of its limitations, whereas you seem to think it is omnipotent.

Representative Democracy is a contradiction in terms.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

I have no problem. I’m not the one who disagrees with modern political science.

Modern political science has no authority to change the Constitution.

It doesn’t change the Constitution. It’s already in there. Republics are, for the most part, representative democracies.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@Samm

Why do you shun established documents?

I don’t. Why do you shun modern political science? Why do you deny the existence of representative democracy?

I don’t shun it. But I am aware of its limitations, whereas you seem to think it is omnipotent.

I dare say its you who thinks is omnipotent as you seem to think it has the power to change the meaning of the US Constitution. It doesn’t.

Representative Democracy is a contradiction in terms.

If you prefer you can call its by its alternative name which is indirect democracy.

It’s not even all the “modern” of political science. There were people around during the time of the founding who also used “democracy” to simply mean the rule by the people, be it direct or via representatives:

Even among his contemporaries, Madison’s refusal to apply the term democracy to representative governments, even those based on broad electorates, was aberrant. In November 1787, only two months after the convention had adjourned, James Wilson, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, proposed a new classification. “[T]he three species of governments,” he wrote, “are the monarchical, aristocratical and democratical. In a monarchy, the supreme power is vested in a single person; in an aristocracy…by a body not formed upon the principle of representation, but enjoying their station by descent, or election among themselves, or in right of some personal or territorial qualifications; and lastly, in a democracy, it is inherent in a people, and is exercised by themselves or their representatives.” Applying this understanding of democracy to the newly adopted constitution, Wilson asserted that “in its principles,…it is purely democratical: varying indeed in its form in order to admit all the advantages, and to exclude all the disadvantages which are incidental to the known and established constitutions of government. But when we take an extensive and accurate view of the streams of power that appear through this great and comprehensive plan…we shall be able to trace them to one great and noble source, THE PEOPLE.” At the Virginia ratifying convention some months later, John Marshall, the future chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, declared that the “Constitution provided for ‘a well regulated democracy’ where no king, or president, could undermine representative government.” The political party that he helped to organize and lead in cooperation with Thomas Jefferson, principal author of the Declaration of Independence and future third president of the United States, was named the Democratic-Republican Party; the party adopted its present name, the Democratic Party, in 1844.

Following his visit to the United States in 1831–32, the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville asserted in no uncertain terms that the country he had observed was a democracy—indeed, the world’s first representative democracy, where the fundamental principle of government was “the sovereignty of the people.” Tocqueville’s estimation of the American system of government reached a wide audience in Europe and beyond through his monumental four-volume study Democracy in America (1835–40).

Democracy - Representation, Equality, Participation

[Samm]

Thanks …

“…the term representative democracy is self-contradictory.”

Just as I said.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Thanks …

“…the term representative democracy is self-contradictory.”

Just as I said.

Full quote for the popcorn eaters:

It is thus easy to see why direct democracies are sometimes thought to approach ideal democracy much more closely than representative systems ever could, and why the most ardent advocates of direct democracy have sometimes insisted, as Rousseau did in The Social Contract, that the term representative democracy is self-contradictory. Yet, views like these have failed to win many converts.

I’m surprised you made bedfellows with an ardent advocate of direct democracy.

[Samm]

Majority rules, right? No matter how wrong they are.

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

Majority rules, right? No matter how wrong they are.

Time too. Here’s the definition from Webster’s in 1892:
Democracy (de-mok’ra-sy), n. Government by the people, or by representatives chosen by the people ; a republic ; the principles of one of the American political parties. — Dem’0-crat (dgm’6-krat), n.

In 1830 it was:
DEMOCRACY, n. [Gr. ^ypoK^aria.] Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation

What do you think changed?

[Samm]

The idiotification of the majority?

[johnwk2]

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

@Samm

This seems to be incredibly important to you. Why?

It’s not, its just fun to argue on the internet.

Well, you finally confirm you are not here for a productive discussion. Instead, you are here to argue and make fun which amounts to being an intentional nuisance.

I am here to have a productive discussion and argue. Like democracy and republic they aren’t exclusive things. You clearly aren’t since you don’t try to discuss anything, you just repeat yourself.

Pot meet kettle. Repeating the same misinformed opinion over and over is not productive by any stretch of imagination. If you want to be productive, just stop.

You are absolutely correct about “misinformed opinion”. Perhaps the time has come to not feed a troll!

JWK

“From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.” ___ fallenturtle

[fallenturtle]

@Samm

The idiotification of the majority?

Seriously?

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

@Samm

@fallenturtle

@johnwk2

@fallenturtle

@Samm

This seems to be incredibly important to you. Why?

It’s not, its just fun to argue on the internet.

Well, you finally confirm you are not here for a productive discussion. Instead, you are here to argue and make fun which amounts to being an intentional nuisance.

I am here to have a productive discussion and argue. Like democracy and republic they aren’t exclusive things. You clearly aren’t since you don’t try to discuss anything, you just repeat yourself.

Pot meet kettle. Repeating the same misinformed opinion over and over is not productive by any stretch of imagination. If you want to be productive, just stop.

You are absolutely correct about “misinformed opinion”. Perhaps the time has come to not feed a troll!

JWK

“From each according to their ability to pay, to each who needs help living a decent life.” ___ fallenturtle

Arguing the OP is not trolling.

Your random desire to quote me from an unrelated post from two years ago is borderline trolling.

[David_Cannady]

The ideology of the Founding Fathers is no longer represented in America. In the 20th Century a lot of European immigrants came over and brought Conservatism with them. They began gaining political power and started making laws against all sorts of things. In Europe, the government is a combination of a ruling class and “The Church”. A lot of the freedoms Americans took for granted were deemed to be immoral and perilous to society. They banned alcohol, but it had to be reversed. After that, however, it became easier to prohibit behaviors deemed to be tawdry and undesirable. Every one of those laws added power to the government and took power from individuals. Conservatism could be distilled down to this simple statement, “you can’t just let people do whatever they want to”. Yet, that’s exactly what freedom actually is. All of those laws have weakened the Constitution and made the government more powerful. We will never take our country back until we return the power of the individual back to citizens.

[fallenturtle]

@David_Cannady

The ideology of the Founding Fathers is no longer represented in America. In the 20th Century a lot of European immigrants came over and brought Conservatism with them. They began gaining political power and started making laws against all sorts of things. In Europe, the government is a combination of a ruling class and “The Church”. A lot of the freedoms Americans took for granted were deemed to be immoral and perilous to society. They banned alcohol, but it had to be reversed. After that, however, it became easier to prohibit behaviors deemed to be tawdry and undesirable. Every one of those laws added power to the government and took power from individuals. Conservatism could be distilled down to this simple statement, “you can’t just let people do whatever they want to”. Yet, that’s exactly what freedom actually is. All of those laws have weakened the Constitution and made the government more powerful. We will never take our country back until we return the power of the individual back to citizens.

Welcome to the forums, David.

I’m not sure that’s an accurate representation of conservationism as much as its puritanism. Conservatism is more about maintaining the status quo or returning to an earlier status quo that undoes wrongs they feel progressives have made. There’s a lot of overlap between that and puritanism as both hang out on the right side of the political spectrum. I think if the Conservatives could actually dropped the religious right and their social issues and focus on small government/lower taxes they would actually do better in elections.

Regarding alcohol prohibition, it should be fairly pointed out that a large force behind it was also suffragettes, so in its time I think it might have actually been a more progressive then conservative movement.

[johnwk2]

I’m now sure what you post has to do with abiding by the rule of law, our Constitution, being the supreme law of the land within its defined and limited grants of power.

[fallenturtle]

@johnwk2

I’m now sure what you post has to do with abiding by the rule of law, our Constitution, being the supreme law of the land within its defined and limited grants of power.

Isn’t the ideology of the founding fathers what tethers you to an antiquated definition of “democracy”?

[David_Cannady]

In my opinion, Conservatism is a utopian ideology under which any problem, large or small, can be solved by making it a crime. This has led to a more powerful government, degrading the Bill of Rights with no positive benefits from it.

For instance, we’ve been fighting a war on drugs for 52 years and there has only been growth in the quantities and varieties of illegal drugs in our country. I’m not “pro-drugs”, but I can see when something isn’t working. The reason so many are dying from drugs adulterated with Fentanyl is because there is no list of ingredients on the little bags of white powder and no mechanism to enforce purity or dosage standards. The same thing happened under alcohol prohibition and with similar results. Violent drug gangs keep the murder rates high in the cities, giving Democrats ammunition to demand gun control. Powerful drug cartels make millions of dollars and have, effectively, taken control of their countries of origin. Criminals don’t check the age of their customers. In fact, they target those under 18 because they’re too young to be undercover officers. For practically any problem we are having, freedom is the better answer.

[David_Cannady]

The rule of law only works, in America, with the consent of the governed. Being a “majority” doesn’t confer any authority, unless you believe we are a democracy. Passing laws against the behavior of others, when there is no clear crime being perpetrated against a person or property, is an expression of contempt for those against whom the law is passed. Our unalienable rights to life, liberty and tge pursuit of happiness are not up for a vote, if we are to continue to be a constitutional republic.

[WuWei]

Republic is not about how you choose your ruling class. It’s about where the sovereignty was layed.

[johnwk2]

You have a very active imagination and pretentious opinion concerning what you call “Conservatism”.