Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

...What do you think a democracy is then?  Yes, we have a Representative government, because in the 1780's tallying every vote on every issue in the country wasn't exactly feasible.  Also, bear in mind that when then talking about the Founder's intentions of majority rule, maybe 10% of people were actually eligible to vote.

But yes, I agree that better understanding of not just the letter of American government structure, but the realistic operation of it and the historical process and accident that made it this way is sorely needed in education.  It's amazing how much of American political theory and history goes completely unheeded in our basic education system.  Hell, most college history courses devote maybe a week or two to the causes and effects of the Civil War.

We are a Federalist Republic.

A Democracy has a better chance of being twisted into an Oligarchy over time.  Think of it this way.  You have a nation that is rather weighted toward Christian religious beliefs.  If we had a Democracy, all those Christians could vote to ban collectives of people other than those in Christian churches.  You are not specifically denying someone the ability to follow whatever religion they want, but you are limiting the influence of other religions by making it illegal to gather.  With enough iterations of majority voting you could limit the power in a country to a select group of people who would determine the course of the nation casting everyone else off as insignificant.  You could argue that slavery would have taken far longer to overturn even though it violated the law of The Constitution as they were immigrants with inherent human rights.  Forced immigrants, but immigrants none-the-less.

During the founding, there was eventually going to be a disparity of voting given that only natural born could vote.  Over time, this irons itself out and was deemed appropriate.  It removed the ability of another country sending enough people into the colonies to simply "vote" the country into their control.  (Think of how Microsoft allegedly hired a bunch of people to go vote for ISO standardization of OOXML...)  Without a growing period, England could have sent boatloads of people over to vote for their chairs and cause governmental upheaval.

[mainiac]

I was unaware that "someone who sets policy" is automatically a king.

[Yanlin]

No. But someone who has the power to set a policy without approval from other parties is a king.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Aquizzar Aquizzar

You spelt his name wrong.

I've stopped caring.  I have a funny foreign name, and people are going to mispronounce it.

Sorry about that. Suddenly the text under Ben and in your signature all makes sense.

This all goes back to what Aquizzar was saying about the unprecedented responsibility and influence the President gains in the course of his (or her) extensive contact with the American people throughout the campaign.

This is why ( I assume ) the forefathers didn't draft the Constitution to describe us as a Democracy.  Since in a Democracy, the majority of the people decide who and what happens and who they want to be their figurehead.  It's a rather detrimental government for a minority (not racial, but someone with varying religion, morals, or what have you.)  The Presidential race is the only election race that many people care about.  They assume that this race determines the course of the next four years of the country.  I seriously wish our government was studied more (or taught better) in schools and reinforced to the children.  It kind of depresses me that so many people are ignorant of the law of the land and assume we are a Democracy with a powerful President.  It also depresses me that I was ignorant of these as well until this past year.

I would argue that we are a democracy as you define it. Originally, the Constitution was designed to be very limiting of the President in order to prevent something resembling the centralization of power in a tyrannical monarch, and was developed at a time when the country was an active participant in the slave trade, didn't allow women or non-landholders to vote, and in which many people had no access to quality education.

The form of our government has become much more populist since then, granting voting rights to almost all of society. Our understanding of what is possible has also changed: After more than two hundred years, we now know that it is possible to have a central leader with a great deal of power, and still maintain popular government.

The world has changed as well, and with it, people's expectations of government. In the time the Constitution was written, a weak government suited them, because there was relatively little the government was expected to do. But in the 20th and 21st centuries, the government has increasingly become an extremely powerful force, shaping the future of society and the welfare of its people.

I think that in today's world, a powerful leader elected to carry the hopes and dreams of the people makes sense. Bear in mind that the President is not actually as powerful as he acts in any real sense -- it is only because Congress chooses to cooperate with him that he can make such speeches with any credibility. It is entirely possible for Congress to ignore the policies the President wishes to have implemented. The only reason they don't is because in a sense, he speaks for the people.

We are a Federalist Republic.

I think your interpretation of democracy is too focused on the direct/Athenian democracy. In general, democracy just means that government is controlled by the people by some mechanism, not that the people themselves make the laws, though that's one possibility. While the United States is a federal republic, it is also a representative democracy. The republican aspect of our government is less crucial to its nature than the democractic aspect. For example, Canada and the United Kingdom are monarchies, while the United States is a republic. At the same time, the United States and Canada are federations, while the United Kingdom is not. Despite these differences, I think you'd find any of the countries acceptable, as they are all constitutional representative democracies with strong traditions of political freedom.

A Democracy has a better chance of being twisted into an Oligarchy over time.  Think of it this way.  You have a nation that is rather weighted toward Christian religious beliefs.  If we had a Democracy, all those Christians could vote to ban collectives of people other than those in Christian churches.  You are not specifically denying someone the ability to follow whatever religion they want, but you are limiting the influence of other religions by making it illegal to gather.  With enough iterations of majority voting you could limit the power in a country to a select group of people who would determine the course of the nation casting everyone else off as insignificant.

It is not the representative nature of government that prevents this, but constitutional restrictions; in this case, the assembly right in the first amendment. A districted first-past-the-post system of representative government like the one used in the United States actually gives representatives a very high incentive to favor majorities over minorities. It complicates the dynamic, but American history is rich with examples of majority tyranny through elected representatives, from small (like Congress intervening in the Terri Schiavo case) to large (like slavery, segregation, and gay rights).

[mainiac]

No. But someone who has the power to set a policy without approval from other parties is a king.

That's a pretty big qualifier.  But it's not big enough.  Someone who can always set policy without consent from other parties is a king.

I don't approve of the government taking my money in taxes.  But I consent to taxes because it's done legitimately and for good reasons.

The president has very clear limits on his power.  Not even Washington, Lincoln, FDR or Kennedy saw every item they wanted passed.  And the president always has to get what he want's through the congress and the courts.  He himself doesn't have the power to accomplish very much.  He can lead a coalition that can accomplish things.

And above all, the president is bound by law.  His will is not absolute.  We merely entrust him with a degree of authority.  That authority comes with obligations and it comes with restrictions.  Presidents can break these restrictions, but that carries consequences.

[Andir]

I don't approve of the government taking my money in taxes.  But I consent to taxes because it's done legitimately and for good reasons.

The problem arises when you don't agree to the reasons you may think are good... what is someone who doesn't agree supposed to do?

[Granite26]

The problem is (IMHO), the people who are voting don't have the vested interest to learn the full details of the issues they are voting on, leading the way for populist leaders.

So we are a democracy in that sense, but people don't (not because they are dumb, but because they have no incentive to care and research) understand the full details of the things they are voting for.  Most politicians get to decide hundreds of things, but there is only one or two issues their constituencies actually care about.  Short of their official votes on those subjects, few people actually care, and they end up voting on philosophical clubs that may or may not actually represent their interests (or philosophies, for that matter).  We end up paying thousands of .10 cents to the government we don't care about to get that big fifty bucks worth of benefits our politician gets us.

That leads to the representative branch being viewed as politically corrupt and mired in provincial matters.

I don't know where I'm going with this... I'll stop now

[Jonathan S. Fox]

I don't approve of the government taking my money in taxes.  But I consent to taxes because it's done legitimately and for good reasons.

The problem arises when you don't agree to the reasons you may think are good... what is someone who doesn't agree supposed to do?

Most of the world doesn't subscribe to the Libertarian view that society does not have the right to force you to pay taxes or otherwise contribute to the greater good. Even if you disagree, you don't have the power to force the issue, and the destruction you'd inflict on yourself and those around you by trying to force the issue is too high to make it worthwhile. So the honest answer is that you just have to suck it up, pay your taxes anyway, and try to persuade others of your view so you can change government policy. Thankfully, you live in a country that is designed to enable bloodless revolutions when the idea behind the revolution gains enough currency.

[mainiac]

The problem arises when you don't agree to the reasons you may think are good... what is someone who doesn't agree supposed to do?

Ask yourself if you can still have faith in the system.

Seven years ago, I was outraged at the case being made for war with Iraq.  I felt that if I could, as a 14 year old, see that the need for war hadn't been demonstrated, we clearly weren't yet ready for war.

I disagreed with the war.  I didn't want the government to do that.  But I could recognize the overall merits of the way the government worked. 

We made a mistake with this war, but that was the fault of the politicians and the public, not the laws.  The government is not synonymous with it's current policy.  The law still allows protest and male it possible for the policy of the government to be changed.

I may have disagreed with the current actions of the government.  But I could still have faith.

[Yanlin]

Come on. Let's all go play Liberal crime squad. Let's make the world better than this.

[Andir]

The problem arises when you don't agree to the reasons you may think are good... what is someone who doesn't agree supposed to do?

Ask yourself if you can still have faith in the system.

Seven years ago, I was outraged at the case being made for war with Iraq.  I felt that if I could, as a 14 year old, see that the need for war hadn't been demonstrated, we clearly weren't yet ready for war.

I disagreed with the war.  I didn't want the government to do that.  But I could recognize the overall merits of the way the government worked. 

We made a mistake with this war, but that was the fault of the politicians and the public, not the laws.  The government is not synonymous with it's current policy.  The law still allows protest and male it possible for the policy of the government to be changed.

I may have disagreed with the current actions of the government.  But I could still have faith.

That's the problem I have with putting too much faith in one person to make the right decision or direct the idea they have as the "solution."  Bush et. al. had everyone convinced that Iraq was doing wrong.  He was most likely convinced by someone with intentions on going back or supporting their cause.  Since he had the "majority power" or persuasion he was able to force us into a war that frankly wasn't warranted.  (I'm not discussing the social structure or the livelihood of the people there at the time.  I'm talking about original intentions.)

If we follow the rules and get out of this "buddy buddy" President/Congress hole we are in that same person would have to convince quite a few more people in open session.  I think people put too much faith in the President to do the right thing.  That's where I have a problem and why I think the original intent of our government had merit.

[Andir]

Most of the world doesn't subscribe to the Libertarian view

Because most of the world is under a form of Oligarchy or Monarchy system of government and haven't experienced anything different.

[Jonathan S. Fox]

Most of the world doesn't subscribe to the Libertarian view

Because most of the world is under a form of Oligarchy or Monarchy system of government and haven't experienced anything different.

Dismissing the views of anyone who disagrees with you as mere ignorance is a terribly disrespectful way to deal with disagreement. In reality, there is no system of government or structure of society that has ever been loved by everyone exposed to it. It all depends on what your priorities are. It is especially naive to make this assumption since you have not been experienced a large scale Libertarian government either, something I say with confidence since no stable large scale Libertarian government exists -- you may well find that when under a government that lacks the power to tax to fund road maintenance, or maintain and enforce sanitary laws in a crowded city, your views would shift as well. There is no way to be certain until you have actually tried it.

I say no stable Libertarian government, because I once heard someone earnestly suggest Somalia as a Libertarian country. 

[Aqizzar]

I say no stable Libertarian government, because I once heard someone earnestly suggest Somalia as a Libertarian country. 

Well, because it is.  If you want a land where you can live by your own rules, with no taxes, overarching authority, or imposition of rule, you could hardly find a truer place.

[mainiac]

Dismissing the views of anyone who disagrees with you as mere ignorance is a terribly disrespectful way to deal with disagreement.

This.