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.
This is really gets to the key point. I roughly agree with everything in the OP, but I think democracy is still our best option. I would, however, be extremely interested in hearing arguments for some alternatives. I'd also be interested in plausible ways to improve on the American system of a Constitutional representative democracy with executive/judicial checks and balances. It's easy to complain about flaws, but such complaints are almost useless without alternatives or improvements to suggest.
It's easy to tear down a house - a random hurricane can do that. The hard part - and the only part that really matters - is whether or not you have the mental and material resources to build one that is as good or better.
There's too much money in the system and politics, but alas, those aren't going away anytime soon.
As to the OP's quote, our founding fathers had the same sentiments... according to a documentary, the founding fathers almost wish the British won. Citizens of larger cities were out on the street drunk, having sex, debauchery.... these people were not ready for democracy.
Oh, and this would be easy to fix.
1) Minimum voting age = 30.
2) No one who doesn't pay taxes gets to vote.
Sales taxes, for one, are paid directly by everyone.
So... everyone pays taxes, even illegal immigrants. Are you suggesting illegal immigrants be allowed to vote, or did you not think think this through?\\
Ok, say you're only talking about income taxes... so only people who work get to vote. What about the retirees who have structured their retirement funds to avoid paying taxes... are you saying they no longer get to vote? FWIW these types were included in Romney's gaffe about the 45%.
No, the concept of "paying to vote" violates pretty much every thing this country currently stands for. Yes, I know that originally only white-male-land owners were allowed to vote, but hopefully you won't make a call to return to those days. While not explicitly enumerated in the constitution, the Right to Vote is indirectly referenced multiple times.
Wars have always been fought for rich man's profit and have remained a poor man's fight.
The governing aristocracy, heredity or wealth, have avoided the uncertainty of combat for hundreds of years with very few exceptions.
Back to original question. We are a representative republic because the elites that wrote our Founding documents neither trusted or respected the common citizen. Given the educational levels at the time this was not a bad idea. Limiting the vote to land owning (wealthy), White (not slave), Church members (minimal socialization), males (not flighty females) was a way of the "natural rulers" to maintain control. It still works even though voting restrictions have been mostly removed.
We are still a republic to limit real control to the wealthy elites.
This is the absolute truth. It seems almost a truism that those the furthest on the fringe almost always think that their radical beliefs are commonly held by everybody else, and they're always shocked and angry when the candidates that embody their ideas gets rejected. This is probably best epitomized by the numerous Ron Paul supporters who just cannot understand why the entire country didn't embrace his candidacy for POTUS.
Somebody repped me for the post above and left this unsigned comment:
Quote:
the gist of your point is a valid concern, but some Nazi policies were sensible & I doubt most smart Germans would have supported mass killings and invading Russia
I'd like to respond that I personally can't think of any Nazi policies that were "sensible" in that they didn't involve harming groups that the Nazis scapegoated or just plain hated, militarism, jingoism, racism, etc. Hitler and the Nazis gave Germany a short-lived period of prosperity and glory built on the butchery of millions of people who weren't "good enough" for their Third Reich.
As for the German people somehow being "duped" into supporting mass killing and invading the USSR, that's like saying that most southern whites between 1865 and 1970 didn't support Jim Crow. The truth is that most Germans approved of Hitler or turned blind eyes to his crimes because it benefited them to do so. When the US Army rolled through western Germany in early 1945, they liberated one of the death camps. The people in the near by town claimed that they were ignorant of what was taking place there despite the fact the stench of the place could be smelled miles away. General Eisenhower put the townspeople to work as grave diggers so that they'd see first hand what resulted from their deliberate blindness.
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.
Nice
