Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Technically iran is a theocracy. Russia, for right or wrong, has been described as a thugocracy.
Theocracy (Iran) or Oligarchy (Russia) or Plutocracy (USA) and the idea of a "republic" aren't mutually exclusive. It is who and what influences the formation of the republic is the only difference.
Democracy won't fix the country because politicians will never tell "The People" that they are the problem.
Yes, "We The People" are the problem. And we don't want to hear it from anyone, left or right.
If democracy can't fix it, then, what's left?
Soft tyranny. The founders already predicted this would happen from the start. They said the United States required a virtuous citizenry to function and we haven't had a virtuous citizenry in decades.
Soft tyranny. The founders already predicted this would happen from the start. They said the United States required a virtuous citizenry to function and we haven't had a virtuous citizenry in decades.
The founders didn't predict it. They practiced it. They weren't self-defeaters. They knew that, given freedoms, their rights and abilities would be in jeopardy.
"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government?
In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."
- James Madison
Well, I would say, they succeeded? Support and protections of a ruling class was key.
The problem with totalitarianism is that there are no checks and balance. A dictatorship can start out all good and dandy and then end up spiraling downward with no way to stop it.
Granted, some dictatorships were actually decent (Juan Person and Marshall Tito come to mind) but for the most part, it's a bad idea...
...now, a hybrid system would be a good idea. That was, the people have A voice, but are not THE voice. Singapore is a good example, with a republic in place but decisions ultimately being made by a consensus of elites who KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT and not by people, left and right, who are afraid of facts.
A good start would be overturning the Seventeenth Amendment, thereby having US Senators appointed to their post by state legislature, while at the same time keeping the congress elected by the populace. That way, we have one branch of federal legislature that is NOT beholden to the sways of the unwashed masses and one that acts as a voice of the populace.
One thing I could never get about democracy is this: a professor of economics gets the same amount of votes as a cud chewing roadkill collector from East Sisterhumper, Alabama. With "one person, one vote", despite the fact that, frankly, some people deserve more votes than others, is a recipe for disaster.
"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America . Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
This quote came from the Czech Republic . Someone over there has it figured out.
We were never meant to be a democracy.
We are a republic. Very important distinction.
A democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With "one person, one vote", despite the fact that, frankly, some people deserve more votes than others, is a recipe for disaster.
