The Founding Fathers would vehemently disagree with that. They hated democracy. As some woman asked Ben Franklin, upon exiting the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia (paraphrased): "What kind of government do we have, Sir?" Franklin replied: " A republic, if you can keep it." At any rate, that's interesting and all, but not really significant IMO. You can argue endlessly about the technical differences between democracy, social democracies, fascism, socialism, national socialism, yadda yadda yadda til yer blue in the face. To me the labels don't mean anything anymore. I just want the government to leave me alone. A democratic tyranny? No thanks! A republic like "The People's Republic of China?" Ha, no thanks. Fuck 'em all. All governments care about is confiscating wealth and accumulating and consolidating power. wtf thread am I on ?
They would? They established a democratic republic, and that Franklin quote in no way implies he opposed a republic. He obviously didn't think it would last because he had little faith in people. He could see it becoming what it has become. I would like to see more evidence that the founding fathers didn't want a democratic republic, and evidence revealing what type of government they actually wanted or originally sought to create.
I dont mean to pick on you deliberately, but why do people keep bringing up the founding fathers? aka slave owners who wanted to be 'free'. All we have to go on in terms of who they were personally are a bunch of pieces of paper, how can anyone claim anything about these men? who they were individually? Theyve help build this country while enslaving one race and exterminating another, what the fuck is so special about them? I think they were for the most part (except maybe Samuel Adams) arrogant ignorant full of shit. Oh yeah a lot of em like franklin happen to be freemasons, yai.
They didn't want a democracy. (once you start mixing these terms all together like "democratic republic" they become meaningless, IMO. I've never found any clear, concise, universally-accepted definitions of them.) Franklin said that they had "a republic." That seems pretty clear. Who or what makes you think he opposed that? Actually it doesn't imply anything either way, or so it seems. I remember reading quotes years ago from them, commenting on democracy as not being good nor wanted. As I recall, they made many references to the Greek Empire.
Eh I try not to pick apart the words. The democracy thing has just become a catch all term for a government decided through voting. Technically yes the government the Constitution set up was not a democracy but a Constitutional Republic, I've also heard it referred to as a Representative Republic and a Federal Republic. People nowadays just use as catch all slang for all of that. The average voter probably couldn't even define a Republic.
Of course we can. Look up the YRV initiative. It aims to do exactly that and remove money from politics. http://www.yourrightsvolunteer.org/ Although, I highly doubt this system will EVER gain enough monetary/political support to be successful and our current system is so broken that it can't be fixed. This would be a great voting system in hindsight, but it is too late to successfully implement. However, a vote is still a vote. The problem with voting is that it doesn't assert any real influence or power over those that collect and count the votes - it is simply asking for permission. If we had the power to change these things ourselves, we would simply change them with no vote necessary. The act of voting is empowering those at the top through collective begging. Sure, the collective may get what they want as a simple majority, but this is to the detriment of those that participated and could not form a majority. Voting does not satisfy the individual but the collective. Collectivism is certainly a problem, as still seeks to empower a few to control many. Seeking leaders and gurus and messiahs is the nature of the collective as they see themselves as unfit to be their own individual rulers. Collective movements are created in the same consciousness as collective problems - a group of people seeking to better their lives by exerting their wishes and demands over others by mob rule. The collective mentality is also incredibly dangerous as it can be easily manipulated, especially when dissenters are feared, ridiculed, and shunned. http://youtu.be/9wxbuLG9apM http://youtu.be/l86C_MAJ0ng http://youtu.be/YGtc_93BRPs
They were not a monolithic group, that's for sure. Some thought the idea of slavery was wrong. And I don't give a shit about any of them (I don't like anybody that works for government) but I guess I was thinking how far off track government has gotten since its founding. We have devolved into a democracy. Rule by majority, right or wrong. And I don't see any way of rectifying it. It's just the natural progression of government IMO. They accumulate and consolidate power until the system starts feeding on itself, and eventually collapses. All civilizations go through that cycle eventually, it seems to me. But all I know is it's cold out again.
Yup, I've heard all those descriptions of the USG also. IMO, the definitions change depending on the political bias of the writer.
Lighten up...can a guy never engage in a little hyperbole? You obviously don't control the system...or do yu, Mr. Rothschild? Edit: I want to thank everyone for chiming in. A lot of insightful info shared. Special shout to, Fizzly. I'm still laughing at you 'disciplining' Yuri!
RippedMonk, I can agree that 'we' may not be ready to put the guns and threats into the fire, but more and more individual people are doing just that. To say definitively that 'we' aren't ready seems a disservice to me. Humans adapt quickly...if there are fewer opportunities to benefit from violence people usually seek peaceful opportunities out of necessity. Fizzly, I can definately see a fracture, that could lead to new states forming. The fracture is the absence of the "rule of law" like Prof. Blackwell described. In the past it could be argued that the "rule of law" just needed some tinkering, but now it's clear the "rule of law" is meaningless because enforcement must be selective or else everyone is a criminal. It will be interesting to see 1. if 'the states' are successful in their escape from Big Brother. 2. what the new 'landscape' will look like. It is kind of amazing how, within a couple decades, I was told how powerful and righteous "America" was to it being widely accepted as a corrupt and uncaring (to put it nicely) entity.
I'd still like to see evidence for this. If they didn't want a republic, then why set it up as such. I am a history professor and even though US history isn't my area of expertise, I've never heard that our founding fathers didn't want a republic. And I use the term democratic republic because unfortunately there are a vast number of blades on this forum that don't know a republic is a form of democracy. When the most googled topic for the week is Justin Beiber, we aren't ready to overthrow our government and start over or disband all government together. A quick view of history throughout the world will show you that when governments are overthrown by people not prepared and united, it often leads to greater tyranny down the road. I don't know about you but I don't want to replace the thug system we have for an even more dangerous one. I still stand by my opinion that we aren't ready yet, especially for a stateless society.
They DID want a republic (which is what they set up, as Franklin said) they DID NOT want a democracy which is what we've devolved into. What is it about this that you're not getting?
A republic is a form of democracy. Nobody on this thread was ever referring to a fully true democracy. When Yuri said get rid of democracy on the last page he was obviously referring to getting rid of our republic. When I responded to him concerning it, I too was referring to our republic. I'm not exactly sure how you got the impression that any of us were talking about a pure democracy, which has never existed.
[quote name="Rotties4Ever" post="19406038" timestamp="1390690420"]Watch how they wont let you, all for your safety, because you cant think for your self, its obvious. You want to move where there are less laws but more freedoms and its not safe, so they wont let you. Gotta love that statist mentality.[/quote] exactly those walls to keep the Mexicans out are more than likely to keep fleeing Americans inbat mobile
As I said elsewhere, these definitions change like the wind, depending on who is doing the defining. That's why I no longer pay any attention to them -- any government can become tyrannical.
Yuri may have been talking a pure democracy when he brought it up, but it wouldn't make sense because he was referring to our "system" which is not a pure democracy. He could have only been referring to our constitutional republic/representative democracy. And I wanted to know what he planned on replacing it with. Anything of great power and influence can become tyrannical.....governments (all forms), religions, extremely large corporations, etc..
It's that fucking Yuri's fault? Where the fuck is he? I really don't want to open another can of worms, but of those entities you mentioned, government is the only one that can make up the rules by which EVERYONE (not just voluntary members) must abide, and is also the only one that can (legally) use violence against those who disobey.
Yes, that's true, yet those rules are usually dictated by religion and corporations that are so deeply entrenched in the governments that you can barely tell the difference between them.
Free market "government" is wjat youd have in an anarchy. We could play a semantics game if we want. But the reality is this. Where there is demand, there is supply. There will be demand for cops to protect people. There will be a demand for military to protect borders. The difference is taxes really. Thays the main difference between statism and anarchy. Because lets face it. Even without a "government"; there will still be people who want to force views on.others. and collectivism will be just as strong with or without a government. At least give individuals the rite to opt out. Sent from my LG-E739 using Grasscity Forum mobile app
This line of thinking is exactly the problem. Trying to band human beings together as a collective whole. That just divides people more. It breeds an "us vs them" mentality and makes people polarized just like the republicrats are trying to do to us now. People are individuals and want different things and that should be respected as long as their choices do not negatively affect others. the outcome is exactly the opposite of what the definition of the words seem to mean. Collectivism drives people apart and breeds wars and violence. individualism brings people together for the common understanding that no one can dictate their ideals and opinions on another regardless of how many others might agree. With a user name like Marx though I don't expect you to grasp the concept of freedom just yet. Think about it and decide if it is actually moral to use force on any individual for their own good or for the good of the whole.