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.
Wrong. We are a democracy with a constitution, just like most others. There are many republics, among them
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Republic of the Congo neither having anything tyo do with democracy or justice.
Wrong again. Communism calls for dictatorship of the working class over all other classes.
No. We are not a democracy. A democracy is based on a majority rule. We are not. The rights of minorities are valid and have a chance, assuming elected representatives stand by their ideals; ideally, they would stand by some views of the minority and majority, based on the principle of a republic. I have no idea why you brought up Korea or the Congo.
No it doesn't. I've read the Communist Manifesto and have studied Karl Marx. Marx may be looked at as a political theorist, but his real profession is in literature. Rather or not you agree with what's written in the Communist Manifesto, only an idiot would say that his writing isn't poetic and enticing. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat (the working class) is described as a democracy. It is not a literal dictatorship. It's based on representatives and it not meant to be a single party system. It is however meant to control the means of production, which makes it similar to fascism in that it is primarily an economic system; or more accurately, a socio-economic system. But it is not a literal dictatorship. The concept of a single ruler came about when Lenin modified the Communist Manifesto to make the system possible in Russia.
Since when? The US constitution, all amendments, all state constitutions and all laws enacted by congress are voted in BY MAJORITY. We are a majority rule and we are a democracy.
Dictatorship is rule of the minority, being it the working class, the blue bloods, the military etc.
Democracy is the rule of majority. There are no 'democratic dictatorships'. Are these concepts to difficult to grasp?
Laws are voted by congress, which is only made up of 500 people. That is not a majority. While it's true that in order to allow a law, the majority of members have to win out, but that does not make the US a democracy.
It also does good to note that democracy sort of has two definitions. It appears you are confusing them. There's democracy in a specific sense that literally means a government of the people in which what the majority of all people want is what happens. That's not what the US, and for good reason. There's the other 'democracy' which is just a general term for a system in which the people have voting power. A republic falls under the broad term democracy, but is ideologically different form the specific form of government that is democracy. A republic places value in the views of ALL individuals, including the minority where as a democracy has clear preference to the majority. This is why we have a congress that does our law making for us. They have a responsibility to consider the rights of all people, not just the many.
A dictatorship is not the rule of the minority. A dictatorship is a form of government that is controlled by a dictator, a dictator being a single individual with absolute power. This person can be of the majority party, as is the case for Nazi Germany, or the minority party, which is how Lenin rose to power.
Once more I say, Karl Marx was a student of literature before he was a political scientist. He writes flamboyantly to appeal to the senses. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a literal dictatorship since the proletariat is not a single person. It simply means take preference to the working man. Karl Marx is known (or should be; rather people intentionally leave that out is a separate issue) for supporting democratic forms of government. He would not have wanted a communist state run by only one person, as was the case of the USSR.
The majority maybe wrong in some cases but its the stability of the country that suffers if not and we know confidence plays a huge role in everything including the economy. The founding father saw this even by states when giving states so much powers not specifically given by them to federal government. Often its this growing role of Federal government that brings more and more conflict as regions and states differ so much; IMO.
The States gave powers to the Federal government, not the other way around.
It has been the practice of the Feds to try & take more for itself.
It isn't that Democracy is getting it wrong. It is that Democracy is built on a false premise.
The first fallacy of Democracy, is the notion that the 51% should be able to force obedience from the other 49%.
The counterargument is that the Constitution supposedly protects the 49% from "arbitrary rule" by the 51%. The problem with that argument, is that it simply isn't true. If anyone knows anything about the Constitution, they'll realize that the current interpretation is nothing like its original intent. Many even herald this disregard of the Constitution as a good thing. They call it the "Living document theory".
In this day, the Living document theory is never used to limit the Federal government. It is used for one of two reasons. To limit the power of the individual states and force them to comply with national norms. Or is it used to justify the actions of the Federal government itself.
Even in those rare occasions that the Supreme Court strikes down Federal laws and/or restricts Federal actions. It almost always displeases the people to such an extent, their first goal is simply to replace the justices on the current court with someone else, and then re-try the case. The reason is that no one, regardless of what they claim, actually likes our Constitution. They only like it to the extent that they believe it gives them what they want. The second it doesn't, they either want it changed, or want it ignored.
Many will argue that America isn't a Democracy, so this discussion is moot. The problem is that, the United States is increasingly becoming the equivalent of a direct-democracy. I know many people will claim that America is a "Representative Democracy" and not a direct-democracy. Most even claim to favor representative democracy as being far better than direct democracy. But what is Representative Democracy?
The idea behind representative democracy, and really having a constitution itself, is to admit openly that the people are too ignorant to make decisions for themselves. In effect, the role of a "Representative" would be similar to asking your doctor his opinion on the treatment of your disease. You assume the doctor is more capable of making decisions for you because of his education and experience. Therefore, you grant him a sort of power over your life, based on the belief that he will basically do what is best.
The problem of course, is that Americans don't really want a Representative. Americans don't really want to appoint someone smarter than them and trust that they will always make the right decisions. What Americans actually want, is a representative who will simply do as they tell them to do. In effect, Americans want Representative democracy to simply be a proxy for direct democracy.
So if we recognize that in America, there is functionally no Constitution. If we recognize that there isn't a true Representative Democracy, thereby leaving America with a quasi-direct democracy. And if we also remember that most people think direct democracy is a terrible idea. And that almost everyone especially hates the idea that 51% should rule over 49%. Then how have we gotten to where we are? And what can be done about it?
The question can be answered by merely following the logic behind the question, "What is the ideological basis for Democracy?".
That answer is actually fairly simple, and I think everyone can agree with it. The basis for democracy, was equality.
The idea was that no man is better than any other man. Therefore no man has a right to rule another. The question then becomes, if one man is no better than anyone else, and therefore has no right to rule others. Then why would it make sense that multiple men in the form a majority, should then have an almost unlimited right to rule the lives of others?
As Lysander Spooner explained nearly 150 years ago on the fallacy of both Democracy and government....
"It is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.
He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.
In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
That is the reality of Democracy. But no one really wants to hear it. They just want what they want, and they'll ignore or excuse anything that questions their "right" to have what they want.
Democracy is a joke, its only inherent virtue is that it appears legitimate in the eyes of the ignorant masses.
The States gave powers to the Federal government, not the other way around.
It has been the practice of the Feds to try & take more for itself.
Damn right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tonyafd
Lets look at Communism. North Korea....
Um, North Korea isn't Communist. As a point of fact, no Communist State has ever existed.
North Korea is a unitary State, as opposed to a confederation or federation. It is not republic, but it is a quasi-monarchy, since succession is hereditary. It is totalitarian, rather than democratic. It uses Socialist Property Theory, instead of Capitalist or Communist. And it employs Command Market Economics (just like your healthcare system), instead of the Free Market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
The US is not a democracy. It's a republic.
Monarchy is the opposite of republic.
The US is democratic. There are varying forms of democracy. The US uses representative democracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
In a democracy, the majority is the winner, no matter what.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incommunicado
Since when? The US constitution, all amendments, all state constitutions and all laws enacted by congress are voted in BY MAJORITY. We are a majority rule and we are a democracy.
"Majority" comes in different flavors.
You need more than 50% to over-ride a presidential veto. You need 66+% -- a 2/3rds majority.
You need more than 50% to amend the Constitution, specifically 75% -- 3/4ths majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incommunicado
Wrong again. Communism calls for dictatorship of the working class over all other classes.
When was Lenin ever a member of the Working Class? He was from a wealthy Jewish family.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incommunicado
I don't think you understand: during a war you sacrifice/send to certain death/watch being decimated the entire battalions to save your divisions.
That's either a very poor commander or extraordinary circumstances.
Quote:
Originally Posted by incommunicado
Hypothetically: ff you were on a hijacked plane carrying a neutron bomb to Los Angeles you would get shot down by our own military to save lives of millions of residents of that city. That's not really a choice even.
How do you figure that?
In the first place, only four States on Earth can design and deploy an enhanced radiation weapon such as a neutron bomb: Russia, the US, the UK -- but only because the US has given the UK the necessary technical data and specifications, and Israel, -- but only because Israel stole the technical data and specifications through espionage.
Second, the only State currently having neutron ERWs in its arsenal is Russia.
Third, it's impossible to build a neutron ERW greater than 20 kilotons.
Fourth, the largest yield for the US was the Lance ERW at 10 kilotons. The Russians have both a gravity bomb and a missile warhead believed to be in the 10-12 kiloton range (and the Soviets I spoke with during Druzba '86 corroborated that).
Fifth, if you have the Russian 12-kiloton missile warhead on the hijacked aircraft, you'll never defeat the PAL system so nothing will happen.
Sixth, if you have the Russian 12-kiloton gravity bomb on the hijacked aircraft, you'll have to find some way to eject the bomb over the target, or the bomb won't sense a change in barometric pressure or air temperature and never arm itself, and that doesn't matter unless you can match acceleration due to gravity.
Seventh, the blast damage from a 10-12 kiloton neutron ERW is equivalent to about 10-12 one-thousand pound bombs. Or 5-6 two-thousand pound bombs. Or about 4 three-thousand pound bombs. Yeah, that's right...the operand here is "Enhanced Radiation Weapon."
Finally, the neutron ERW was never intended to be used in urban areas, in spite of the massive propaganda and disinformation campaign. It was intended to be used against massed armor units.
For those who don't understand, you might want to take a closer look Aluminum and its isotopes.
In the first place, only four States on Earth can design and deploy an enhanced radiation weapon such as a neutron bomb: Russia, the US, the UK -- but only because the US has given the UK the necessary technical data and specifications, and Israel, -- but only because Israel stole the technical data and specifications through espionage.
Second, the only State currently having neutron ERWs in its arsenal is Russia.
Third, it's impossible to build a neutron ERW greater than 20 kilotons.
Fourth, the largest yield for the US was the Lance ERW at 10 kilotons. The Russians have both a gravity bomb and a missile warhead believed to be in the 10-12 kiloton range (and the Soviets I spoke with during Druzba '86 corroborated that).
Fifth, if you have the Russian 12-kiloton missile warhead on the hijacked aircraft, you'll never defeat the PAL system so nothing will happen.
Sixth, if you have the Russian 12-kiloton gravity bomb on the hijacked aircraft, you'll have to find some way to eject the bomb over the target, or the bomb won't sense a change in barometric pressure or air temperature and never arm itself, and that doesn't matter unless you can match acceleration due to gravity.
Seventh, the blast damage from a 10-12 kiloton neutron ERW is equivalent to about 10-12 one-thousand pound bombs. Or 5-6 two-thousand pound bombs. Or about 4 three-thousand pound bombs. Yeah, that's right...the operand here is "Enhanced Radiation Weapon."
Finally, the neutron ERW was never intended to be used in urban areas, in spite of the massive propaganda and disinformation campaign. It was intended to be used against massed armor units.
For those who don't understand, you might want to take a closer look Aluminum and its isotopes.
Atomically...
Mircea
Nothing in that entire post changes the fact that if you
Quote:
Hypothetically: ff you were on a hijacked plane carrying a neutron bomb to Los Angeles you would get shot down by our own military to save lives of millions of residents of that city. That's not really a choice even.
You will be shot down. How can you type so much irrelevant information and never once address the post you are responding too?
In Democracy people have to abide by the choice made by the majority. What if the majority is wrong?
In education for instance it is not rare to see 75 % of students failing a competitive college entrance exam.
If universities and colleges have to abide by democratic rules,then the dumbest who got the wrong answers on an Exam would be right and the standards would go down.
When it comes social issues,it is the same thing because many people do not even think that much before casting their ballots. The majority can easily get it wrong and vote for a jackass who in return would Fk up the country.
Which is exactly why the USA is not a pure democracy.
I think all collectivism gets it wrong. "Individual rights don't matter as much as 'the common good' or 'society as a whole' etc."
I don't want to violently control my neighbor, and I don't want them to violently control me. Sound like the Golden Rule...but in democracy, the majority gets to impose it's will on the minority.
Liberals are all for "minorities" until the "minorities" resist their plans, and then they want the guns drawn and ready to kill to get their way.
Liberals are all for "minorities" until the "minorities" resist their plans, and then they want the guns drawn and ready to kill to get their way.
Wait...so now the Liberals are the ones with all the guns? Uh huh.
Or do you mean the law and order Republicans who have the whole "War on drugs" thing, that used to be the "war on alcohol" thing?
I think you are a bit confused.
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.
