"United States' claims at being a democracy seriously threatened"

[Valsuelm]

Call Roosevelt a Nazi again and I will gesticulate wildly at your ignorance. 

 

No one called Roosevelt a Nazi....

[Valsuelm]

 

*blinks* Wow that article is retarded. First of all, we are not a democracy, we are a republic with a democratic format of choosing various government representatives. Secondly, most of the actual policy making at this point because of the massive expansion in government power with the threats to SCOTUS over the commerce clause during that jackbooted thug FDR's presidency is in the hands of pretty unconstrained 'executive branch' government departments.

Neither the executive nor the judicial branches of the government are policy-makers. If you remember from civics in 7th grade that is the purview of the bicameral legislative branch. That would be the senators and the representatives. Neither the scotus nor the president make legislation, regardless of the commerce law. Anyone can present a law including the president, but the legislative branch has to actually vote it in. The scotus, being a part of the judicial branch only determines if a law is being upheld correctly or not. The scotus specifically, can determine what a law really means or if it is constitutional.

 

 

Well.. that's how it is *supposed* to be. That's not what we currently have, or have had now for the last couple generations. Congress by and large has abdicated most of it's power to the executive at this point, just as they abdicated most of their power of the coin to the privately controlled Federal Reserve Bank. The alphabet soup agency/departments that are run mostly by the executive make and decree regulations that are essentially law all the time. In many instances this is done by unelected folks.

 

There is a great deal of what the Federal government now is and does that is black and white unconstitutional. Ravenshrike pointed out one of the major reasons why the Federal government gets away with much of what it does.... get a few corrupt SCOTUS judicials and strong arm the others under your belt as FDR did in the 30s/40s to make up constitutional law, pretend that a duck is fact a cow, and pretend that some ducks don't exist when they're right in front of your eyes and we get what we have now.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Valsuelm

[Gromnir]

Democracy is incompatible with financial oligarchy?

 

Who'd have thunk it?

 

*insert eye-roll here*

 

is not that Democracy is incompatible with financial oligarchy, 'cause you know, there ain't no such ubiquitous and monstrous example in the United States. the "problem" is that Democracy is not compatible with Liberty.  

 

"citizens of the U.S. "do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise..."

 

am not sure how reputable scholars get away with such fallacious nonsense. Democracy is antagonistic towards "freedom of speech and association"... to point out just one glaring inaccuracy. free speech protections insure that unpopular speech will not be limited regardless o' whim o' the majority.  the majority, Democracy, is fickle and stupid. the majority can look at nutters in florida burning the koran or nazis in skokie illinois marching down mainstreet and be shocked an appalled. the thing is, the majority were shocked an appalled by civil rights speakers, vietnam war protesters and proponents o' gay and lesbian rights too.  the Bill of Rights is NOT a tool of Democracy, it is a shield against Democracy. the founding fathers were very much aware o' the potential tyranny of the majority.  furthermore, more than specific Constitutional protections, our government is designed to be inefficient and internally adversarial. the goal were to be making a government that would be fighting itself most o' the time.  these protections weren't believed necessary to protect the majority so much as to protect Liberty, 'cause frequently Democracy is anathema to Liberty. 

 

now, we get that some folks, particularly first year college students and european socialists, is thinking it is foolish to give same/similar weight to a rich guy's liberty rights to spend his money how he will and and average joe who wants to protest unfair voting practices. to a certain degree, the Supreme Court agrees. strictly commercial speech and endeavors gots less Constitutional gravitas than fundamental rights. nevertheless, we here in the United States take Liberty very serious. many Liberty rights is functionally off-limits to the whim o' Democracy. even seemingly insignificant Liberties gets protected by the process. 

 

regardless, it is that Democracy is incompatible with Liberty that leads to the "problems" identified in the paper.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps please note that Gromnir never suggested that all Liberty rights does/should get special protections. quite the contrary.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Gromnir

[JadedWolf]

Gromnir, I am not quite sure if I am understanding the gist of what you're trying to say correctly here, but are you implying that there can't be true free speech in a democracy because "the mob" would dictate that any contrary opinion should be silenced?

 

And if that is indeed what you're saying, isn't that exactly what the separation of powers is for? A working judicial branch should prevent what you say is the "whim of the majority" to influence constitutional rights.

 

As a non-United-Statian, I've always found it a bit puzzling though how over there the members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president. That doesn't seem desirable to me if the aim is to have an independent judicial branch.

Edited April 19, 2014 by JadedWolf

[Gromnir]

Gromnir, I am not quite sure if I am understanding the gist of what you're trying to say correctly here, but are you implying that there can't be true free speech in a democracy because "the mob" would dictate that any contrary opinion should be silenced?

 

And if that is indeed what you're saying, isn't that exactly what the separation of powers is for? A working judicial branch should prevent what you say is the "whim of the majority" to influence constitutional rights.

 

As a non-United-Statian, I've always found it a bit puzzling though how over there the members of the Supreme Court are nominated by the president. That doesn't seem desirable to me if the aim is to have an independent judicial branch.

am saying what we said. Democracy is adversarial towards notions o free speech and other liberties. the First Amendment free speech protections ensures that no simple majority decision by the people will infringe 'pon your fundamental Liberty rights. furthermore, a Judiciary (Supreme Court numbers has fluctuated between 6 and 10 over the years) that can stymie the will of the people is also not particularly democratic, is it? this is why we noted that the organization o' our government is an intended limitation on Democracy. the whim of the majority IS Democracy, and the founding fathers recognized that Individuals needed protection from the Democratic process. 

 

this is an axiomatic but difficult concept for many to grasp. many folks is taught to thinks that an inherent quality of Democracy is Liberty. the truth is that Democracy protects the Liberties of the current majority, nothing more. whatever enduring liberty protections you enjoy is due to the fact that the government of these United States is organized, in part, to combat the tyranny of the majority. 

 

as for appointing of Justices, that process is also meant to be adversarial.  independent judiciary? independent from whom? the President appoints with the consent of the Senate. and once confirmed, a Justice sits for life (or until retirement.) is not surprising how many Justices act against the prognostications of Senators and Presidents once they become members of The Court.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps perhaps an Extreme simplification is required to clarify

 

Democracy: government of, by and for the people.

 

Liberty: the ability to do as one chooses, in spite of the government.

Edited April 19, 2014 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, religious, cultural, ethnic and racial equality, justice, liberty and fraternity. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was coined from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history, democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.

 

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by one person, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution.

 

Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of all eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy or democratic republic. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions."  - Wikipedia

Edited April 19, 2014 by Elerond

[Gromnir]

to elerond

 

1) anybody who cites wikipedia as a source deserves to be kicked in the head with a steel-toed boot.

 

really

 

2) your post doesn't seem to have a point

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[ShadySands]

Why the Wikipedia hate? Sorry for the off topic but it's not the first time I've seen someone get pissy about it on this (non-academic video game) forum

 

Genuinely curious

[JadedWolf]

I feel that we are simply debating about a difference in definition of the word democracy here.

 

In practice, every country that I would call a democracy has checks in place to protect liberties which are deemed essential to a healthy society. If your definition of democracy is a system where the government is chosen by a majority and after that it is able to do exactly what this majority dictates, even if it is to the detriment of liberties which are fundamental to society, then I struggle to think of a single country where such a democracy exists. I would say that these checks are an essential part of a well functioning democracy.

 

Democracy, which you refer to as rule-by-mob, simply means a government consists of elected representatives of the people.

 

Let's just take the wikipedia definition:

 

"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."

 

I see nothing in here that isn't the case for the U.S., but the part the authors of the report have a problem with is the "equally" part.

 

Edit : Heh, didn't see the earlier posts. Well, I guess I've got a kick in the head with a steel-toed boot coming. Amusing, the constitution of my country doesn't guarantee the liberty to kick other people in the head when they disagree with you. Must be a missed opportunity.

 

How about a dictionary definition?

 

"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"

 

That's from Merriam Webster, I hope it is okay - or do people who take their definition of words from dictionaries also deserve random corporal punishment?

Edited April 19, 2014 by JadedWolf

[Elerond]

to elerond

 

1) anybody who cites wikipedia as a source deserves to be kicked in the head with a steel-toed boot.

 

really

 

2) your post doesn't seem to have a point

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

1. Wikipedia is OK source, when it comes to definition of generic well known terms.

 

2. People seem to have confusion what democracy means, so I posted general definition from one source that everybody here have access.

[Gromnir]

is many reasons. first, do you know how wiki entries is created? takes very little effort to create an intentionally fraudulent wiki entry. is even less surprising when an accidental incorrect wiki entry appears. to trust any wiki entry is naive bordering on moronic. second, is the most half-arsed and lazy scholarship possible. you don't read any primary or even secondary sources. some unknown author presents you with... snippets (?) either pulled out o' the air or their arse, or with no thought to context. is a breeding ground for plagiarism. is sloppy, unsophisticated. is cliff's notes o' cliff's notes. and while it has been a Long time since Gromnir were teaching, such nonsense is getting an automatic fail if we discovered one is using wiki as a source.

 

and to jade, your definition should not change anything. am suspecting that the almost inevitable indoctrination o' folks raised in Democratic nations is creating a near insurmountable block.  as we said earlier, is axiomatic, but difficult for people to grasp that Democracy is adversarial to Liberty. perhaps we shoulda' put "tyranny of the majority" in quotes, but it is such oft used that we found no need. if you cannot understand how a Democracy necessarily places limits on citizens and their liberty rights, am thinking we is at a place Gromnir will have much difficulty in helping you move forward.  am recognizing that we needs must explains what is "law" and "liberty" and "democracy."  this is perhaps getting too... rudimentary.

 

perhaps you is confused 'cause you think we is suggesting that Democracy is specially adversarial or antagonistic... more so than say theocracy. we never made such a claim. 

 

again, maybe 'cause it would help if you got basics from toqueville, john stuart mill, john adams, james madison or nietzsche, perhaps it would be better to search "tyranny of the majority."  but this shouldn't be a new concept. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited April 19, 2014 by Gromnir

[Elerond]

Why the Wikipedia hate?

 

It isn't reliable enough in general level so that it could be used as source for scientific papers, as most of it's articles can be edited by anybody and more often than not validity of sources that people post in articles aren't checked, which can and have lead in circle references, where Wikipedia article references article that references Wikipedia article. And its article writers have often bad habit to forget to give credit for original writers and studies.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Democracy and rule of law are really two sides of the same coin. You can't have genuine one without genuine the other.

[JadedWolf]

is many reasons. first, do you know how wiki entries is created? takes very little effort to create an intentionally fraudulent wiki entry. is even less surprising when an accidental incorrect wiki entry appears. to trust any wiki entry is naive bordering on moronic. second, is the most half-arsed and lazy scholarship possible. you don't read any primary or even secondary sources. some unknown author presents you with... snippets (?) either pulled out o' the air or their arse, or with no thought to context. is a breeding ground for plagiarism. is sloppy, unsophisticated. is cliff's notes o' cliff's notes. and while it has been a Long time since Gromnir were teaching, such nonsense is getting an automatic fail if we discovered one is using wiki as a source.

 

and to jade, your definition should not change anything. am suspecting that the almost inevitable indoctrination o' folks raised in Democratic nations is creating a near insurmountable block.  as we said earlier, is axiomatic, but difficult for people to grasp that Democracy is adversarial to Liberty. perhaps we shoulda' put "tyranny of the majority" in quotes, but it is such oft used that we found no need. if you cannot understand how a Democracy necessarily places limits on citizens and their liberty rights, am thinking we is at a place Gromnir will have much difficulty in helping you move forward.  am recognizing that we needs must explains what is "law" and "liberty" and "democracy."  this is perhaps getting too... rudimentary.

 

perhaps you is confused 'cause you think we is suggesting that Democracy is specially adversarial or antagonistic... more so than say theocracy. we never made such a claim. 

 

again, maybe 'cause it would help if you got basics from toqueville, john stuart mill, john adams, james madison or nietzsche, perhaps it would be better to search "tyranny of the majority."  but this shouldn't be a new concept. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, yes, if the only acceptable outcome to in this discussion for you is that I accept everything you say without question, and that if I do not accept this then it must be because I am either indoctrinated or ignorant and cannot be taught "the truth", then I do suppose there is no point in this discussion.

[Orogun01]

I don't get this whole wikipedia dismissal as a reliable source, it seems to me that they go through the same level of revision as what you might find on a published book. I agree that it is not in depth knowledge but is a good starting point and it definitely can help aid a discussion. I guess it's easier to dismiss the source than the argument.

[Gromnir]

 

Why the Wikipedia hate?

 

It isn't reliable enough in general level so that it could be used as source for scientific papers, as most of it's articles can be edited by anybody and more often than not validity of sources that people post in articles aren't checked, which can and have lead in circle references, where Wikipedia article references article that references Wikipedia article. And its article writers have often bad habit to forget to give credit for original writers and studies.

 

is essentially what we said already. however, am gonna disagree with you that wikipedia is an ok source to cite, under any circumstances.  recall our statement, "anybody who cites wikipedia..."  that were how we phrased our condemnation. if you is complete oblivious and need a starting point from which to start, we don't begrudge the use of wiki.  that being said, to cite wiki is... laughable.

 

"some guy on the bio social forum" 

 

"i read it while on craigslist"

 

"it was on a flier i was handed outside a starbucks"

 

if the above were your citations, folks would laugh, but wiki somehow gets a pass even though it is no more valid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am thinking folks is getting lost on liberty more than democracy, but if they can't find it themselves, there won't be no learning.

[Gromnir]

 

is many reasons. first, do you know how wiki entries is created? takes very little effort to create an intentionally fraudulent wiki entry. is even less surprising when an accidental incorrect wiki entry appears. to trust any wiki entry is naive bordering on moronic. second, is the most half-arsed and lazy scholarship possible. you don't read any primary or even secondary sources. some unknown author presents you with... snippets (?) either pulled out o' the air or their arse, or with no thought to context. is a breeding ground for plagiarism. is sloppy, unsophisticated. is cliff's notes o' cliff's notes. and while it has been a Long time since Gromnir were teaching, such nonsense is getting an automatic fail if we discovered one is using wiki as a source.

 

and to jade, your definition should not change anything. am suspecting that the almost inevitable indoctrination o' folks raised in Democratic nations is creating a near insurmountable block.  as we said earlier, is axiomatic, but difficult for people to grasp that Democracy is adversarial to Liberty. perhaps we shoulda' put "tyranny of the majority" in quotes, but it is such oft used that we found no need. if you cannot understand how a Democracy necessarily places limits on citizens and their liberty rights, am thinking we is at a place Gromnir will have much difficulty in helping you move forward.  am recognizing that we needs must explains what is "law" and "liberty" and "democracy."  this is perhaps getting too... rudimentary.

 

perhaps you is confused 'cause you think we is suggesting that Democracy is specially adversarial or antagonistic... more so than say theocracy. we never made such a claim. 

 

again, maybe 'cause it would help if you got basics from toqueville, john stuart mill, john adams, james madison or nietzsche, perhaps it would be better to search "tyranny of the majority."  but this shouldn't be a new concept. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Well, yes, if the only acceptable outcome to in this discussion for you is that I accept everything you say without question, and that if I do not accept this then it must be because I am either indoctrinated or ignorant and cannot be taught "the truth", then I do suppose there is no point in this discussion.

 

is in your best interest not to believe anything without checking for yourself. that were our suggestion btw. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Hurlshort]

Wikipedia is a great place to look for sources.  

[Gromnir]

Wikipedia is a great place to look for sources.  

am gonna balk at "great," but that is a quibble. in any event, our issue is with using as a citation. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Elerond]

 

 

Why the Wikipedia hate?

 

It isn't reliable enough in general level so that it could be used as source for scientific papers, as most of it's articles can be edited by anybody and more often than not validity of sources that people post in articles aren't checked, which can and have lead in circle references, where Wikipedia article references article that references Wikipedia article. And its article writers have often bad habit to forget to give credit for original writers and studies.

 

is essentially what we said already. however, am gonna disagree with you that wikipedia is an ok source to cite, under any circumstances.  recall our statement, "anybody who cites wikipedia..."  that were how we phrased our condemnation. if you is complete oblivious and need a starting point from which to start, we don't begrudge the use of wiki.  that being said, to cite wiki is... laughable.

 

"some guy on the bio social forum" 

 

"i read it while on craigslist"

 

"it was on a flier i was handed outside a starbucks"

 

if the above were your citations, folks would laugh, but wiki somehow gets a pass even though it is no more valid.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps am thinking folks is getting lost on liberty more than democracy, but if they can't find it themselves, there won't be no learning.

 

That is true and I would probably not written that post if I haven't already started to write it before you posted your message about the subject.

 

I must disagree with you in using Wikipedia as source for terms, as when you use Wikipedia as source for definition of well known terms, everybody can go and check definition from Wikipedia by themselves and read their definition and their possible explanations. It is not any different than using any other encyclopedia (or actually any other source) as your source for definition of term, but it's more broadly available and easier to access than most other sources you could use and it's mostly neutral.

 

Especially in conversation where people seem to have multiple definitions for term, I definitely think that using Wikipedia as source for definition of term is OK thing to do, as then people at least can use same definition, which everybody can easily check, even if it's insufficient or it differs from definitions of term in other sources, and people can talk subject on hand using with same definition of term instead of fighting with each other how term should be defined, as at the end of the day it don't really matter how term is actually defined if everybody that participates in conversation however have same definition for it.

 

But using Wikipedia as source becomes much trickier and thing that is not generally recommendable thing to do when one uses it as source for subjects which factualness actually matter. 

[ShadySands]

Thanks for the answers, appreciated

[213374U]

 

Wikipedia is a great place to look for sources.  

am gonna balk at "great," but that is a quibble. in any event, our issue is with using as a citation. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Article talk pages are often as informative as the articles themselves, and often illustrate editorial bias in the end product. They also shed light on how fickle, petty and random administrators can be—"anyone can edit Wikipedia", but your edits often can and will be insta-reverted by a recent changes patroller, and if you persist you will be accused of "edit warring" and promptly banned. WP has an... interesting ecology.

[Walsingham]

Thanks for posting the story. I saw it and forgot to post it up.

 

My solution would be to admit the strength of vested interest and put them into a 'House of Lords'. Badge them up. Let the representative from Exxon get up on his wee hind legs and speak directly.

 

On a less panicky note I wonder how many of you have actually gone out and met the great public on the ol' campaign trail, besides GD?

 

One explanation for the data is that normal people - the other group - are half-educated on most issues, and terrifyingly inarticulate.

[Guard Dog]

Thanks for posting the story. I saw it and forgot to post it up.

 

My solution would be to admit the strength of vested interest and put them into a 'House of Lords'. Badge them up. Let the representative from Exxon get up on his wee hind legs and speak directly.

 

On a less panicky note I wonder how many of you have actually gone out and met the great public on the ol' campaign trail, besides GD?

 

One explanation for the data is that normal people - the other group - are half-educated on most issues, and terrifyingly inarticulate.

The quickest way to start hating people is to go out and meet a few hundred of them. Actually in my experience most folks were pretty well educated on national issues but shockingly uninformed on local ones. They also, generally speaking, do not have a clear understanding of what the powers and responsibilities of the various levels of government are. Just my experience which admittedly was limited and 16 years ago.

[Walsingham]

So would you agree that at least part of the problem in the OP is that the 'control group' - normal people don't get what they want because they:

 

1. Don't know what's going on

2. Don't know how they'd change things if they did know what was going on

3. Don't know how to say what they want to change

4. Don't know to reward anyone who gives them what they want, because they don't know when it happens (see point 1)