# The evils of democracy



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

I've been listening to politicians for years say things like "This great democracy" and words like that.  Blake and I had an interesting discussion a while back in the chatbox about the difference between democracy vs republic and why it's a terrible thing for the mob to get it's way (even if they are right).

This is what we were talking about.  A mob started protesting this and got the rule changed and the sticker stayed up.

Point 1: Our founding fathers did not execute a pleiaban revolution.  50-100 guys got together, knew what they were doing, decided what was best, and sold it to us.

Point 2: They knew that democracy was a terrible thing.  They also knew that Republics devolve into Democracies and Democracies devolve into Despotisms.  Here are a few lines from Fed #10:



> In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government.





> If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens.





> From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.


The above quote is why I say that mob rule is a bad thing, even if the mob is right.  



> A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.





> In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.





> The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.





> Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.





> In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.


Now, as he's saying, as the mob gets bigger, the democracy gets weaker.  As the republic gets larger, it get's stronger.  A strong, central, republican government (not the same as the political party) will be healthy and fair.  

You seemed stunned at my suggestion that if we could find an immortal man, we should put him into the helm of president for the rest of time.  Why is that not an awful and anti-libertarian thing to say?  Again, because a strong, consistent, large, republic is better than a small republic.

The longer you make the terms for political officers, the better.  They are subject to less influence from the people (and nowadays, lobbyists), and can rule more fairly.  

A large republic can maintain better control over factions.  Political parties exist to get their officials elected, not to serve the people.  

From this article you'll read that the fall of the Roman Republic started 150 years before the Plebeian Tribunals handed power over to a despot.  What happened over 180 years ago in the United States?  A plebeian revolution.  

Andrew Jackson, as president, started the tradition that the president would be the leader of a political party, and would use that power to encourage and pass legislation.  You can see that today, Obama is using this power religiously and fanatically to get his health care bill passed.  Now you have Obama openly declaring how wonderful and great this awesome democracy is of ours, and you have people hailing mob rule as a great way to get things done.

In 1913, the Senate was changed to something that it was never meant to be... politicians elected directly by popular vote.  Luckily, our president is not voted in this way (even though for all intents and purposes, they typically are).

This scares me.  It scares me deeply.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 17, 2009)

Not sure where to start with this.  This whole thread scares me deeply.

The point you made about Andrew Jackson starting this "leading the party" system is spot on.  When politicians start forming their own groups, with their own control/money agendas, they stop having the people's best interests in mind.  This is exactly what we have now.  Nobody gives a damn about you, me, or anybody else who doesn't contribute signifigantly to their campaign funds.  Politicians have become more concerned with defeating the "other party" than they are about fairly governing.  

When was the last time we we had two good, strong candidates to vote on?  When was the last time we were voting for someone we liked, as opposed to voting for the lesser of two evils?  The continued production of "party-first" candidates creates apathy in voters, which means the majority of the voters just don't care.  I fall into this category when there isn't a third party on the ticket.  One is just as bad as the other.  Both parties will take our money and advance their particular special interests, and either way, we don't win.  We have gotten away from the whole "for the people, by the people" mentality that we used to boast.  We are now "for the corporation, by the corporation."  Scary thing here, is that the "corporation" is increasingly from another country, namely China.

This whole picture reminds me of those futuristic movies where corporations are the government, with their own mercenary armies, and all that nonsense.  KBR basically runs Operation Iraqi Freedom, with their mercenary Blackwater (among others) army.  If it can happen over there, it can happen here.  Hell, those guys are better trained than most of our military units, and have better equipment to boot.  How far off is that "futuristic movie" scenario?

With all this in mind, I'm all for the mob rule coming into play and bringing the pendulum back the way of the people.  Anyway, these are just the thoughts of little Libertarian me.


----------



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

Well, those last 2 paragraphs. 

1st one: those companies have always existed.  The first that comes to mind is the East India Tea Company.  Talk about abuses of power and standing armies... their protection was enough to rival most countries' in those days.

People fail to realize that these mercenaries themselves are citizens of the United States, most with strong patriotic ties to the military.  They will crumble from the inside like they always have if shit goes down.

2 - Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.  It can't be a mob movement to bring it back, it has to be educated, and yes, aristocratic folks that bring it back.  At this point, I'm all for abusing the system that is laid out today to bring back liberty and restore the republic.  Loopholes would work wonders for this... they are all over the place, and this is exactly why the founding fathers put them into place.

The "silent majority" that people always try to wake up and get going is useless.  Most of the time, I find these people are ignorant, complacent, and will take whatever you give them.  The silent majority has existed since forever.  They'll go on doing what they have always gone on doing and efforts there are useless, imo.

It is my opinion then, that we need to take advantage of that just like these would-be despots have.


----------



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

As a clarification, I'm MUCH more worried about the US Army than Xe (Blackwater).


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 17, 2009)

Agreed about the silent majority being ignorant.  Apathy breeds ignorance.  Like I said, I fall into this category quite often.  They will always be silent, because, "Who cares?  One is just as bad as the other."

Where are we going to get the "education" to bring this thing back?  The partisan media?  Any group out there who reports strictly the truth does not have the money or resources to compete with the mainstream.  Anyone not in the mainstream media gets labeled as whack-job conspiracy theorist just by questioning or disagreeing with a party.

The demise of the East India Tea Company coincided with the demise of the British Empire.  You are talking about these giant corporations being loyal to the military, not so sure about that.  Most of them (the security companies anyway) are made up of mostly former military people, who make a lot more money doing what they are doing than they could in the military.  They aren't fighting for nationalism, they are fighting for money, plain and simple.  They don't have to follow the same rules that military does, and this is all finally coming back to bite them.  I know several guys who work for these companies, and it isn't for patriotic reasons at all.


----------



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

My point being, do you think you could get those guys to shoot Americans?  I think most of them would be seriously hesitant... and I imagine that if the American Empire were to crumble, so would Xe.

Where do we get the education?  It's already out there, there are plenty of people that are educated enough and know needs to be done, they are just going about it the wrong way, imo.

Don't try and change the system or even bother with a populist movement like the Ron Paul republicans are trying (that obviously failed).  The loopholes are already there, let's use them!

I'm tired of being on the wrong side of this fight.  We need to turn it around so that the factions are fighting for populous support while we manipulate the rules to our advantage.

Let them have the silent majority.  Let's go start up court cases that demand the enforcement of ancient laws already in place.  Start up constitutional battles against anything and everything.  The rules are on our side for this.  They've had 200 years to play their cards, but the libertarians and federalists hold the original deck.

The most powerful tool and final say that we have on things is the power of due process.  The final say on any rule/law is the trial by a jury of peers.  If 12 people decide that something is wrong, then that's the final say.   No politician, judge, or president can overturn that.  You can't tell me that was set up to promote democracy.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 17, 2009)

JTM said:


> My point being, do you think you could get those guys to shoot Americans?  I think most of them would be seriously hesitant...



Seriously hesitant doesn't mean "won't do it."  When you have those guys over there shooting the people they are shooting for very little reason, if any, I don't see it as a stretch to shoot "American public enemies" on our own soil.  

Other than that, I think we are pretty much in agreement on most of this stuff.  I have no problems righting the ship by using loopholes, and other methods if that ilk.  I'll just keep voting for Ron Paul's failed populist movement in the process.


----------



## JTM (Nov 17, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Seriously hesitant doesn't mean "won't do it."  When you have those guys over there shooting the people they are shooting for very little reason, if any, I don't see it as a stretch to shoot "American public enemies" on our own soil.
> 
> Other than that, I think we are pretty much in agreement on most of this stuff.  I have to problems righting the ship by using loopholes, and other methods if that ilk.  I'll just keep voting for Ron Paul's failed populist movement in the process.



interesting.  this should be tested.


----------



## Sirius (Nov 17, 2009)

JTM said:


> It can't be a mob movement to bring it back, it has to be educated, and yes, aristocratic folks that bring it back.  At this point, I'm all for abusing the system that is laid out today to bring back liberty and restore the republic.


So you're advocating a Sulla or Julius Caesar to restore the republik? Who would compose your new aristocracy? The monied powers that be or someone new?



JTM said:


> If 12 people decide that something is wrong, then that's the final say.   No politician, judge, or president can overturn that.



Yes, the president can. Scotter Libby isn't in prison because  President George Bush commuted his sentence.


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> So you're advocating a Sulla or Julius Caesar to restore the republik? Who would compose your new aristocracy? The monied powers that be or someone new?



no, not at all.  Sulla/Caesar would be the opposite of what my goal is.  Caesar was the death of the republic, not the birth of it.  

It's amazing, it was the Plebeian Tribunals that gave power to Caesar, not the aristocratic Senate.  They knew better.

The key to this whole thing is that in a republic... and this is verrrrrry important.... the people that make the laws have to be subjected to them.  AKA, everyone obeys the posted speed limits, etc.  Otherwise you have people posting laws that target specific groups.  That's stealing/looting/favoritism/despotism.



> Yes, the president can. Scotter Libby isn't in prison because  President George Bush commuted his sentence.


ah, okay.  i said "if 12 people decide something is wrong" as in they acquit someone... declare the law wrong and that person innocent... essentially a jury of 12 declares the law unconstitutional.


----------



## Sirius (Nov 18, 2009)

I agree mob rule is bad. So what do you think the TEA baggers are?


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> I agree mob rule is bad. So what do you think the TEA baggers are?



I like what they are going for, but if you talk to them, they are mostly ignorant fools.  don't think i'm one sided on this.  the obama-ites were just as annoying.  i talked to a few folks (literally) begging for their "Obama-checks."  that's absurd.

sure, a mob has it's uses... it's a good indication that the current social contract isn't working, but in terms of actually making legislation and making decisions, they don't need to be a part of that.


----------



## Sirius (Nov 18, 2009)

JTM said:


> I like what they are going for, but if you talk to them, they are mostly ignorant fools.  don't think i'm one sided on this.  the obama-ites were just as annoying.  i talked to a few folks (literally) begging for their "Obama-checks."  that's absurd.
> 
> sure, a mob has it's uses... it's a good indication that the current social contract isn't working, but in terms of actually making legislation and making decisions, they don't need to be a part of that.



Yup, there are fools, idiots, and morons on both sides. The idiots liberals upset me more than the moron conservatives. 

It's interesting you bring this up since I'm working on a paper about increasing voter turnout. 

Do you think decisions by politicians would be made in a more rational manner if they weren't surrounded by the daily media second guessing every step? It seems like we forgot civility in the age of TV.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> Do you think decisions by politicians would be made in a more rational manner if they weren't surrounded by the daily media second guessing every step? It seems like we forgot civility in the age of TV.



No, the media is gonna spin it however they want depending on which party they advocate.  Like I said a long time ago, we have no big neutral media outlets anymore.  That's why I get mine from Al Jazeera.


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> Yup, there are fools, idiots, and morons on both sides. The idiots liberals upset me more than the moron conservatives.
> 
> It's interesting you bring this up since I'm working on a paper about increasing voter turnout.
> 
> Do you think decisions by politicians would be made in a more rational manner if they weren't surrounded by the daily media second guessing every step? It seems like we forgot civility in the age of TV.





TCShelton said:


> No, the media is gonna spin it however they want depending on which party they advocate.  Like I said a long time ago, we have no big neutral media outlets anymore.  That's why I get mine from Al Jazeera.



a robust media is important for the survival of a republic... i'm not entirely convinced that this domination of non-neutral media is a recent occurrence, though.  you always have to pick what you believe...

on that note, Al Jazeera is a great station for the most part.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

JTM said:


> i'm not entirely convinced that this domination of non-neutral media is a recent occurrence, though.



Depends on your definition of "recent."  I think it primarily goes back 20-30 years, and with the creation of CNN, and other news-only networks.  Back in the day (before my time) news was more local, whereas today, news is more focussed on nation and world wide coverage.  With today's internet and other means of more efficient communication, the situation with politically biased media is more prevalent, simply because it more efficient and advanced than it was ten, twenty, or thirty or more years ago.  How many "news" shows do we have, both on TV and radio, where the sole focus of the show is one-sided political propaganda?  Voters no longer identify with their own beliefs, or the beliefs of their candidates.  They identify with what the guy who they like the best says on the radio or idiot box.  When we have all of these pretty haired, slick tongued bumbling turd-puppets up there blasting so-and-so for being in this party, or blindly praising the decisions of this politician because of what party he is in, we have advanced (or regressed) well beyond where we where years back.  Hell, look at the presidential debates from the last election.  Didn't exactly look like fair mediating, or fair media coverage to me.


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

some of the best propaganda (and most blatant) that I've seen is 20's era stuff.  that, and the war bonds commercials from the 40s.  don't forget the "broadsides" from the revolutionary war.  it's always been around.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

I understand that it has always been around, no debating that.  My stance is that it is more prevalent and influencing now than it was then.

My bottom line here is that I want to see facts being reported, not facts twisted around opinions.  I want reporters to be hungry for the truth, not a way to twist it.


----------



## owls84 (Nov 18, 2009)

Welcome to Spin Alley.


----------



## JTM (Nov 18, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> I understand that it has always been around, no debating that.  My stance is that it is more prevalent and influencing now than it was then.
> 
> My bottom line here is that I want to see facts being reported, not facts twisted around opinions.  I want reporters to be hungry for the truth, not a way to twist it.



and i'm saying that it's always been the way it is now.

at least we can get al Jazeera.  before all they had was 1 propaganda pamphlet nailed to the wall in a bar.


----------



## Sirius (Nov 18, 2009)

Tom you make an excellent point about CNN and whatnot. Would Medicare have passed if there was CNN at the time? Or Social Security? How would have Truman been treated for desegregating the military?


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

JTM said:


> and i'm saying that it's always been the way it is now.



So you are saying that the internet, cable/satellite TV, etc, have always existed, and have been blaring political agendas at us 24 hours a day since the beginning of our government?  Facts are not on your side here. lol

Newspapers used to have an editorial section where opinions went.  Now opinions are front page stuff.

Back in the day, farmer Joe down in the valley probably didn't get the New York Times, or any of those other big-time papers.  Now, farmer Joe just has to turn on his TV and there it is.  What I've been saying (over and over) is that with technology advancing, centralized political media plays a bigger role than it did back in those days, and to say otherwise is madness.. !  It is an inevitability..!


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 18, 2009)

Sirius said:


> Would Medicare have passed if there was CNN at the time? Or Social Security? How would have Truman been treated for desegregating the military?



Depends of what side of the issue CNN would have been on, and what it's ratings were at the time.


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> So you are saying that the internet, cable/satellite TV, etc, have always existed, and have been blaring political agendas at us 24 hours a day since the beginning of our government?  Facts are not on your side here. lol
> 
> Newspapers used to have an editorial section where opinions went.  Now opinions are front page stuff.
> 
> Back in the day, farmer Joe down in the valley probably didn't get the New York Times, or any of those other big-time papers.  Now, farmer Joe just has to turn on his TV and there it is.  What I've been saying (over and over) is that with technology advancing, centralized political media plays a bigger role than it did back in those days, and to say otherwise is madness.. !  It is an inevitability..!



do i really have to go dig up an 1850's era farmer's almanac to find civil war propaganda for you?  it was much more absurd and blatant back then, too.

sure, nowadays we are exposed to news much more often.  but in terms of percentage of that news that is what we're talking about?  the same.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

JTM said:


> sure, nowadays we are exposed to news much more often.



...And more exposure means more influence.


----------



## owls84 (Nov 19, 2009)

I don't really have a whole lot to add to this other than, media views are way more present today than a Farmer's Almanac. It is impossible to go a day without getting a onesided view of how someone feels on this heathcare bill (or any other bill or view). It is on the radio when you get in your car, on the internet when you go to a homepage. I have it on my intranet homepage at work to make my company look good. It goes on and on. Was there propaganda back then yes but you can't tell me it influenced people like it does today.


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> ...And more exposure means more influence.



what if your only exposure is the propaganda pamphlet?  sure, it may be less exposure as a whole, but if it's the only access to news you have, you're more likely to 

the internet brings with it more exposure, but it also brings more diverse exposure, where you can find differing opinions, etc.

check this out.  if this is the only access to information about California at the time, wouldn't you move out there?







talk about getting off-topic though.  Democracy is bad, mmm-kay?


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

JTM said:


> what if your only exposure is the propaganda pamphlet?  sure, it may be less exposure as a whole, but if it's the only access to news you have, you're more likely to



Yeah, assuming you actually made it into town everyday to look at the newest "nailed up pamphlet," assuming you were literate and could read the pamphlet, assuming even that a new propaganda pamphlet was printed every day.

I'd be willing to bet that a greater portion of the population in those times was illiterate, compared to the percentage of the country's population today who doesn't own a TV or radio.  

Big deal.  Propaganda has always been around, but we are talking about the media's influence on partisan politics.


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

and you said it was a recent development.  i don't think it is.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

Then we'll just disagree on that.


----------



## JTM (Nov 19, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Then we'll just disagree on that.


that's no fun.


----------



## TCShelton (Nov 19, 2009)

Neither is beating a dead horse.


----------

