The Trouble With Too Much Democracy

US_Government_Accountability_Office_sealIs America’s bigger problem the economic decline or it’s political decay? Andrew Potter writes in Axis of Logic:

The most telling moment of the recent standoff over talks to raise the American government’s debt ceiling came on July 22, when President Barack Obama called a press conference to announce that House Speaker John Boehner had backed out of the negotiations. “I’ve been left at the altar twice now,” Obama pouted. In case the image of the President as a jilted lover was not clear to everyone watching, he added that he had spent the previous day waiting for Boehner to return his phone calls.

The whole affair has left a lot of Americans in a state of bipartisan disgust, with citizens from all points on the political compass cursing out their elected representatives. Yet it doesn’t seem to have occurred to many people that there is something structurally flawed with a system that allows the head of just one legislative house to treat the supposed leader of the free world as his last choice for the senior prom. if there’s anything that needs cursing out it isn’t the elected politicians, but the constitution of the United States.

[Continues at Axis of Logic]

102 Comments on "The Trouble With Too Much Democracy"

  1. Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

    democracy has many problems, the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself. democracy requires an informed and educated electorate with at least a little altruism. look at the electorate we have got.

  2. Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

    democracy has many problems, the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself. democracy requires an informed and educated electorate with at least a little altruism. look at the electorate we have got.

  3. Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 5:48 pm |

    democracy has many problems, the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself. democracy requires an informed and educated electorate with at least a little altruism. look at the electorate we have got.

  4. Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

    democracy has many problems, the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself. democracy requires an informed and educated electorate with at least a little altruism. look at the electorate we have got.

    • well said

    • E.B. Wolf | Aug 10, 2011 at 4:55 pm |

      “the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself.”

      The same can be said of virtually every system of government humans have ever devised.

      • Ever heard of the term Benevolent Overlord?

        • Jin The Ninja | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

          just say NO to Platonism.

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:51 am |

            republic is an interesting read but i wouldn’t want to live in that utopia

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:37 am |

            same.

          • Tuna Ghost | Aug 12, 2011 at 9:12 am |

            Shit, I would.  Then again, I’m a philosophy academic who did his thesis on Plato, so I imagine I would be sitting pretty in that situation.  

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 12, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

            i don’t like that plato see’s people only as cogs instruments to be used by the state and to be only allowed to know what the state wants them to know

          • Tuna Ghost | Aug 13, 2011 at 3:28 am |

            That’s not all they are, that’s just their role in terms of government.  I’m fine with some citizens being kept in the dark, with some information having to be earned rather than just given away freely.  

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 13, 2011 at 4:31 pm |

            plato went much further than that in republic, he advocated total censorship of the arts in order to prevent any ideas or sentiments that aren’t turning people into government slaves from entering public thought, he wanted every portion of life to be programming people to be want the state wanted them to be. imagine if if every single creative outlet and media was run like fox news, that was the society plato envisioned

        • E.B. Wolf | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:17 pm |

          As in benevolent dictatorship? Yea. In theory, it would be the ideal form of government. But in practice, the corrupting influence of absolute power renders it impossible to achieve, let alone sustain.

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:53 pm |

            Then how is it “ideal” ?

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:43 am |

            one way is that you essentially eliminate all the struggling for power by subordinates and redirect all that money and effort toward productive ends, you have the ability to make long term plans that don’t get derailed during the next election. special interest lobbies would loose much of their power if leaders didn’t need to spend most of their time chasing campaign finance. The problem would be having the right monarch, for it to work he would need to be a paragon of virtue and honor and even if one such person did rise to power you would probably see his heirs degenerate into hedonism and entitlement

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:48 am |

            i completely agree. many ideologies, many of them non western, exist that outline sage king-rule; however in history where you find 1 example of “good” king/emperor you find 10 bad ones.
            i am heavily influenced by daoism and it’s anachronistic anarchism (as well as it’s pantheism) and one of the leadership qualities it describes is that of the “non-ruler” king. so using that circular logic i think what it really is critiquing is one person rule, without explicitly defining the notion of democracy.
            continuing with my example of chinese history, you will find many rulers outrightly rejected daoism as a political philosophy and embraced confucianism and legalism in it’s stead. that is because they maintain a pacificied obligation to leadership as “righteous.” and many rebellions (yellow turbans) were influenced by daoism as well as early buddhist precepts of social justice. The ruling class seeks to destroy that which opposes it, and does not embrace a hierarchical viewpoint.

            maybe i am overreaching, but interesting regardless.

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:53 am |

            like many systems it might sound good in theory but the difficulty lies in human nature, few people would have the moral character and wisdom to be the benevolent monarch

          • Simiantongue | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:42 am |

            I see what you’re getting at. Wink wink nudge nudge. Oh alright, I’ll give it a try. But I’ll only be benevolent dictator until we get things straightened out and this crisis has passed. Then I’ll give the power back, I promise.

      • Anarchy Pony | Aug 10, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

        The problem is mass society, which no system of governance can appropriately work for, humans have evolved to operate in groups of fairly homogeneous people that generally don’t exceed populations of greater than a few hundred and usually operating in fixed geographic regions occasionally cooperating with other groups within the region and immediately surrounding regions. Institutionalized forms of government don’t work because they aren’t malleable, instead of changing themselves they generally force the populace to fit to them, and the governments are almost impossible to reform without violent revolution or rebellion. 
        The natural form of governance is essentially a form of anarchistic democracy, with sort of natural authority coming from elders that have greater experience and wealth of knowledge. These structures fairly often manifest themselves in unofficial capacities the world over, mostly among neighborhoods and smaller towns and villages.

        • E.B. Wolf | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:13 pm |

          No doubt. But barring a global cataclysm of unprecedented scale, mass society is what we’re stuck with.

          • Anarchy Pony | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:53 am |

            Well one is well on its way. The sustainability problem is rapidly coming back to bite us, and the collapse of the global biosphere is certain to have severe ramifications. And god knows what effects climate change will have in the long run, but they almost certainly will be incredibly disruptive to global industrial civilization, which is very much dependent on fairly static and predictable seasonal climate cycles. 

          • E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 9:36 am |

            I don’t doubt that it will happen eventually. But unless some of the comments here are being posted by really eloquent five-year olds, I don’t think it will happen in any of our prime years.

          • I tend to agree with Wanooski that the problem is going to work itself out due to Malthusian inevitabilities, if nothing else.

            We’ve somehow managed to cram too many people into a space (Earth) designed to accomodate a lot fewer people, which leads to all kinds of problems…particularly when everyone in the space wants to live like a king and doesn’t mind saying “FUCK you!” to anyone who gets in the way of his / her money-grubbing or yacht-buying.

            What’s happening in London is just a preview.

    • While that may be the case, that doesn’t mean we give democracy a free pass. The system is completely fucked. It doesn’t work. Maybe in a Utopian society democracy COULD work…MAYBE…but even still, as it stands, as humans, we cannot use the system of democracy due to the human factor, therefore, instead of blaming the people abused by the system (whether they are currently abusing the system for their gain or not) we could maybe just figure out a new system. One that works for us, right now, in 2011.

      • Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm |

        no matter what system you come up with it, the second it’s in place people will start working it.

        • That may be true. Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try though.

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

            i don’t mean we shouldn’t try only that we take a realistic approach when we do, idealists are fun and everything but any new system has to take into account the realities of human nature and the nuts and bolts of how power is actually wielded

  5. well said

  6. E.B. Wolf | Aug 10, 2011 at 8:55 pm |

    “the major problem lies more with it’s practitioners than with democracy itself.”

    The same can be said of virtually every system of government humans have ever devised.

  7. While that may be the case, that doesn’t mean we give democracy a free pass. The system is completely fucked. It doesn’t work. Maybe in a Utopian society democracy COULD work…MAYBE…but even still, as it stands, as humans, we cannot use the system of democracy due to the human factor, therefore, instead of blaming the people abused by the system (whether they are currently abusing the system for their gain or not) we could maybe just figure out a new system. One that works for us, right now, in 2011.

  8. The Architect | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:59 am |

    It’s not supposed to be a democracy, it’s supposed to be a constitutional republic. By allowing popular elections of the Senate rather than having them appointed as representatives of State governments, the balance of power has been altered towards mob rule, and what you see is the result of that, coupled with an income tax that was also considered unconstitutional.

    The system was fine until people who value democracy over the republic broke it.

  9. The Architect | Aug 10, 2011 at 8:59 pm |

    It’s not supposed to be a democracy, it’s supposed to be a constitutional republic. By allowing popular elections of the Senate rather than having them appointed as representatives of State governments, the balance of power has been altered towards mob rule, and what you see is the result of that, coupled with an income tax that was also considered unconstitutional.

    The system was fine until people who value democracy over the republic broke it.

    • Hadrian999 | Aug 10, 2011 at 9:10 pm |

      the holy beginning people think existed is mythology, it was by the rich for the rich built on slavery and war profiteering , it was pushed towards democracy because very few people had any say in government  and the wealthy used the system to line their own pockets, going back to the old days won’t fix anything

    • The trouble with your theory is the mob rule concept…since we (the filthy mob) not only aren’t getting what we want…but are generally completely left out of the process no matter who we elect…its safe to say that democracy hasn’t done much to stand in the way of the corruption of power by the wealthy…and certainly isn’t the cause…

      …it is safe to say that we have quite the opposite problem…we now dwell in a neo-republic where the very wealthiest retain all real power of any substance and no number of elections, no laws of any kind, seem to be able to unseat any of them for long or alter our national dynamic meaningfully.

      The system was evolving into a workable one…until we slashed all controls that reduced the ability of the wealthy to exert undue influence over our politics…they may have had undue influence before…but now what we face is unrestrained untrammeled domination by a tiny few, none of whom are particularly interested in the well being of their nation. 

      And lastly…stop conveniently cherry picking the founders you like for an interp of American governance…democratic principles dominated the discussion then…and were the intended means to guide our Republic…so discreetly attempting to ignore 99% of our historic origin to rewrite a perverted view for our future…only makes you look as contemptibly ignorant as the Heritage Foundation weenies who regurgitate that crap hourly. 

  10. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:06 am |

    no matter what system you come up with it, the second it’s in place people will start working it.

  11. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:06 am |

    no matter what system you come up with it, the second it’s in place people will start working it.

  12. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:10 am |

    the holy beginning people think existed is mythology, it was by the rich for the rich built on slavery and war profiteering , it was pushed towards democracy because very few people had any say in government  and the wealthy used the system to line their own pockets, going back to the old days won’t fix anything

  13. The trouble with your theory is the mob rule concept…since we (the filthy mob) not only aren’t getting what we want…but are generally completely left out of the process no matter who we elect…its safe to say that democracy hasn’t done much to stand in the way of the corruption of power by the wealthy…and certainly isn’t the cause…

    …it is safe to say that we have quite the opposite problem…we now dwell in a neo-republic where the very wealthiest retain all real power of any substance and no number of elections, no laws of any kind, seem to be able to unseat any of them for long or alter our national dynamic meaningfully.

    The system was evolving into a workable one…until we slashed all controls that reduced the ability of the wealthy to exert undue influence over our politics…they may have had undue influence before…but now what we face is unrestrained untrammeled domination by a tiny few, none of whom are particularly interested in the well being of their nation. 

    And lastly…stop conveniently cherry picking the founders you like for an interp of American governance…democratic principles dominated the discussion then…and were the intended means to guide our Republic…so discreetly attempting to ignore 99% of our historic origin to rewrite a perverted view for our future…only makes you look as contemptibly ignorant as the Heritage Foundation weenies who regurgitate that crap hourly. 

  14. Ever heard of the term Benevolent Overlord?

  15. The problem is mass society, which no system of governance can appropriately work for, humans have evolved to operate in groups of fairly homogeneous people that generally don’t exceed populations of greater than a few hundred and usually operating in fixed geographic regions occasionally cooperating with other groups within the region and immediately surrounding regions. Institutionalized forms of government don’t work because they aren’t malleable, instead of changing themselves they generally force the populace to fit to them, and the governments are almost impossible to reform without violent revolution or rebellion. 
    The natural form of governance is essentially a form of anarchistic democracy, with sort of natural authority coming from elders that have greater experience and wealth of knowledge. These structures fairly often manifest themselves in unofficial capacities the world over, mostly among neighborhoods and smaller towns and villages.

  16. Democracy is mob rule. The majority is rarely right and I have almost never agreed with the majority opinion.

    A democratic republic is a good step in the direction of personal freedom, but it is not the last step.  The US republic was not meant to last forever; it’s already long in the tooth.

    The next step would be to move from government to public service.  Instead of electing leaders and rulers, we could elect servants. 

    We could do away with church laws about sex, drugs and personal choices and allow people the freedom to make their own decisions about what’s important to them.

    Those who wish to opt-out of the system could do so with impunity.

    As to the Obumer-Boner Show: this is theater for the masses who still think they live in the Homeland of the Free.

  17. BuzzCoastin | Aug 10, 2011 at 10:37 pm |

    Democracy is mob rule. The majority is rarely right and I have almost never agreed with the majority opinion.

    A democratic republic is a good step in the direction of personal freedom, but it is not the last step.  The US republic was not meant to last forever; it’s already long in the tooth.

    The next step would be to move from government to public service.  Instead of electing leaders and rulers, we could elect servants. 

    We could do away with church laws about sex, drugs and personal choices and allow people the freedom to make their own decisions about what’s important to them.

    Those who wish to opt-out of the system could do so with impunity.

    As to the Obumer-Boner Show: this is theater for the masses who still think they live in the Homeland of the Free.

    • Jin The Ninja | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

      “Democracy is mob rule”

      Who taught you that? your 2nd grade teacher?

      • BuzzCoastin | Aug 10, 2011 at 11:10 pm |

        I leaned it from the mob.

      • LupusYonderboy | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

        If it’s not mob rule than what is it?

        • Jin The Ninja | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

          A constitutional republic?
           

          basic pol sci 101.

          • LupusYonderboy | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

            Huh? 

            A Democracy is not a Constitutional Republic. That’s what we’re supposed to have (a Constitutional Republic), not a Democracy… Maybe I’m not understanding your point though. Or not, I can’t tell. 

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 11, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

            Oh i thought you were referring to america, so i apologise.

            In terms of democracy, it’s rule of the people. as opposed to rule of the oligarchs. Jefferson preferred a democracy but John Adams preferred a CR to protect wealthy landowning classes from the plebs. I think my reasoning for preferring democracy is quite clear.

          • LupusYonderboy | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

            ok, got it. 

            I agree with Buzz then, it is indeed Mob Rules!

            Democracy is rule of most of the people, not all… and as Buzz said, they (the mob) are not always right, hence the mob rules joke…

            An Oligarchy is also, um, not good and I feel like we’re somewhere between that and a democracy. A CR is not just for protecting the wealthy land owners.

            Face it, this place is a mess and we need to fix the broken bits. Smaller govt. etc…

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:35 pm |

            No No, READ john adams, READ why he directly opposed democracy. He was scared that the servant class would strip him of inheritance and land.

            Uh..the mob rule thing is Platonism and Neo-Platonism and because of Western Societies obsession with greek history- they borrow a lot from it. A lot of what you seem to know about is part of the right wing myths of small gov’t. Calling it “mob rule” is insulting at best.

            Tell EXACTLY what the problem is with not have a technocratic political class, and allowing people to have either a direct or consensus voice in their own governance system?

          • Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 8:32 pm |

            the problem is the people, go hang around walmart and tell me you want those things having a say in how you live your life

          • Jin The Ninja | Aug 12, 2011 at 12:36 am |

            lol i agree. i agree. we only have 1 wal mart within city limits, but i won’t pretend to not understand the implication. Education is the backbone of democracy as you pointed out to another poster, on that you and i are in total agreement. You can’t have one without the other.

  18. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:07 am |

    “Democracy is mob rule”

    Who taught you that? your 2nd grade teacher?

  19. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:10 am |

    just say NO to Platonism.

  20. I leaned it from the mob.

  21. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:10 am |

    Well they better lean back then.

  22. E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:13 am |

    No doubt. But barring a global cataclysm of unprecedented scale, mass society is what we’re stuck with.

  23. E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:17 am |

    As in benevolent dictatorship? Yea. In theory, it would be the ideal form of government. But in practice, the corrupting influence of absolute power renders it impossible to achieve, let alone sustain.

  24. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 3:53 am |

    Then how is it “ideal” ?

  25. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:43 am |

    one way is that you essentially eliminate all the struggling for power by subordinates and redirect all that money and effort toward productive ends, you have the ability to make long term plans that don’t get derailed during the next election. special interest lobbies would loose much of their power if leaders didn’t need to spend most of their time chasing campaign finance. The problem would be having the right monarch, for it to work he would need to be a paragon of virtue and honor and even if one such person did rise to power you would probably see his heirs degenerate into hedonism and entitlement

  26. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:51 am |

    republic is an interesting read but i wouldn’t want to live in that utopia

  27. Well one is well on its way. The sustainability problem is rapidly coming back to bite us, and the collapse of the global biosphere is certain to have severe ramifications. And god knows what effects climate change will have in the long run, but they almost certainly will be incredibly disruptive to global industrial civilization, which is very much dependent on fairly static and predictable seasonal climate cycles. 

  28. I tend to agree with Wanooski that the problem is going to work itself out due to Malthusian inevitabilities, if nothing else.

    We’ve somehow managed to cram too many people into a space (Earth) designed to accomodate a lot fewer people, which leads to all kinds of problems…particularly when everyone in the space wants to live like a king and doesn’t mind saying “FUCK you!” to anyone who gets in the way of his / her money-grubbing or yacht-buying.

    What’s happening in London is just a preview.

  29. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 5:37 am |

    same.

  30. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 5:48 am |

    i completely agree. many ideologies, many of them non western, exist that outline sage king-rule; however in history where you find 1 example of “good” king/emperor you find 10 bad ones.
    i am heavily influenced by daoism and it’s anachronistic anarchism (as well as it’s pantheism) and one of the leadership qualities it describes is that of the “non-ruler” king. so using that circular logic i think what it really is critiquing is one person rule, without explicitly defining the notion of democracy.
    continuing with my example of chinese history, you will find many rulers outrightly rejected daoism as a political philosophy and embraced confucianism and legalism in it’s stead. that is because they maintain a pacificied obligation to leadership as “righteous.” and many rebellions (yellow turbans) were influenced by daoism as well as early buddhist precepts of social justice. The ruling class seeks to destroy that which opposes it, and does not embrace a hierarchical viewpoint.

    maybe i am overreaching, but interesting regardless.

  31. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 5:53 am |

    like many systems it might sound good in theory but the difficulty lies in human nature, few people would have the moral character and wisdom to be the benevolent monarch

  32. Simiantongue | Aug 11, 2011 at 8:42 am |

    I see what you’re getting at. Wink wink nudge nudge. Oh alright, I’ll give it a try. But I’ll only be benevolent dictator until we get things straightened out and this crisis has passed. Then I’ll give the power back, I promise.

  33. That may be true. Doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try though.

  34. E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

    I don’t doubt that it will happen eventually. But unless some of the comments here are being posted by really eloquent five-year olds, I don’t think it will happen in any of our prime years.

  35. end it all. now. 

  36. end it all. now. 

  37. Globalism is our only solution: temporalrelativity.blogspot.com

  38. Globalism is our only solution: temporalrelativity.blogspot.com

    • E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

      it’s a great idea if you happen to be a billionaire oligarch. For the rest of us? Not so much.

  39. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:39 pm |

    If it’s not mob rule than what is it?

  40. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    A constitutional republic?
     

    basic pol sci 101.

  41. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    A constitutional republic?
     

    basic pol sci 101.

  42. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    A constitutional republic?
     

    basic pol sci 101.

  43. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

    A constitutional republic?
     

    basic pol sci 101.

  44. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    Huh? 

    A Democracy is not a Constitutional Republic. That’s what we’re supposed to have (a Constitutional Republic), not a Democracy… Maybe I’m not understanding your point though. Or not, I can’t tell. 

  45. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    Huh? 

    A Democracy is not a Constitutional Republic. That’s what we’re supposed to have (a Constitutional Republic), not a Democracy… Maybe I’m not understanding your point though. Or not, I can’t tell. 

  46. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    Huh? 

    A Democracy is not a Constitutional Republic. That’s what we’re supposed to have (a Constitutional Republic), not a Democracy… Maybe I’m not understanding your point though. Or not, I can’t tell. 

  47. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

    Huh? 

    A Democracy is not a Constitutional Republic. That’s what we’re supposed to have (a Constitutional Republic), not a Democracy… Maybe I’m not understanding your point though. Or not, I can’t tell. 

  48. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

    Oh i thought you were referring to america, so i apologise.

    In terms of democracy, it’s rule of the people. as opposed to rule of the oligarchs. Jefferson preferred a democracy but John Adams preferred a CR to protect wealthy landowning classes from the plebs. I think my reasoning for preferring democracy is quite clear.

  49. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

    Oh i thought you were referring to america, so i apologise.

    In terms of democracy, it’s rule of the people. as opposed to rule of the oligarchs. Jefferson preferred a democracy but John Adams preferred a CR to protect wealthy landowning classes from the plebs. I think my reasoning for preferring democracy is quite clear.

  50. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 4:58 pm |

    Oh i thought you were referring to america, so i apologise.

    In terms of democracy, it’s rule of the people. as opposed to rule of the oligarchs. Jefferson preferred a democracy but John Adams preferred a CR to protect wealthy landowning classes from the plebs. I think my reasoning for preferring democracy is quite clear.

  51. E.B. Wolf | Aug 11, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

    it’s a great idea if you happen to be a billionaire oligarch. For the rest of us? Not so much.

  52. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

    ok, got it. 

    I agree with Buzz then, it is indeed Mob Rules!

    Democracy is rule of most of the people, not all… and as Buzz said, they (the mob) are not always right, hence the mob rules joke…

    An Oligarchy is also, um, not good and I feel like we’re somewhere between that and a democracy. A CR is not just for protecting the wealthy land owners.

    Face it, this place is a mess and we need to fix the broken bits. Smaller govt. etc…

  53. Hadrian999 | Aug 11, 2011 at 6:39 pm |

    i don’t mean we shouldn’t try only that we take a realistic approach when we do, idealists are fun and everything but any new system has to take into account the realities of human nature and the nuts and bolts of how power is actually wielded

  54. Anonymous | Aug 11, 2011 at 7:35 pm |

    No No, READ john adams, READ why he directly opposed democracy. He was scared that the servant class would strip him of inheritance and land.

    Uh..the mob rule thing is Platonism and Neo-Platonism and because of Western Societies obsession with greek history- they borrow a lot from it. A lot of what you seem to know about is part of the right wing myths of small gov’t.

  55. Hadrian999 | Aug 12, 2011 at 12:32 am |

    the problem is the people, go hang around walmart and tell me you want those things having a say in how you live your life

  56. Anonymous | Aug 12, 2011 at 4:36 am |

    lol i agree. i agree. we only have 1 wal mart within city limits, but i won’t pretend to not understand the implication. Education is the backbone of democracy as you pointed out to another poster, on that you and i are in total agreement. You can’t have one without the other.

  57. Tuna Ghost | Aug 12, 2011 at 1:12 pm |

    Shit, I would.  Then again, I’m a philosophy academic who did his thesis on Plato, so I imagine I would be sitting pretty in that situation.  

  58. Hadrian999 | Aug 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

    i don’t like that plato see’s people only as cogs instruments to be used by the state and to be only allowed to know what the state wants them to know

  59. Hadrian999 | Aug 12, 2011 at 6:03 pm |

    i don’t like that plato see’s people only as cogs instruments to be used by the state and to be only allowed to know what the state wants them to know

  60. Tuna Ghost | Aug 13, 2011 at 7:28 am |

    That’s not all they are, that’s just their role in terms of government.  I’m fine with some citizens being kept in the dark, with some information having to be earned rather than just given away freely.  

  61. Hadrian999 | Aug 13, 2011 at 8:31 pm |

    plato went much further than that in republic, he advocated total censorship of the arts in order to prevent any ideas or sentiments that aren’t turning people into government slaves from entering public thought, he wanted every portion of life to be programming people to be want the state wanted them to be. imagine if if every single creative outlet and media was run like fox news, that was the society plato envisioned

  62. XxpaladinxX1 | Aug 23, 2011 at 3:51 am |

    It’s easy, living in a face paced society where I want instant gratification now! Look at the system in place? The system needs to completely reinvent itself. Trying to stop the bloodlines that run this system is the first step. The government is here to serve me! I tell it what I want, not accept it’s policies and live like a grazing sheep is not what I had in mind when I was born. Fix it or GTFO! Stop circle jerking each other off in the oval office, man up and fix it. Would be sweet if me and my friends were trillions of $$ in debt and still borrow. Sheep we are baaahhh!

  63. XxpaladinxX1 | Aug 22, 2011 at 11:51 pm |

    It’s easy, living in a face paced society where I want instant gratification now! Look at the system in place? The system needs to completely reinvent itself. Trying to stop the bloodlines that run this system is the first step. The government is here to serve me! I tell it what I want, not accept it’s policies and live like a grazing sheep is not what I had in mind when I was born. Fix it or GTFO! Stop circle jerking each other off in the oval office, man up and fix it. Would be sweet if me and my friends were trillions of $$ in debt and still borrow. Sheep we are baaahhh!

Comments are closed.