Recommended Posts
mnealtx 0
QuoteIt has failed.
Feel free to move to one of those straight democracies (assuming you can find one) so you can see what the difference ACTUALLY is instead of what you THINK it is.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
winsor 187
QuoteQuoteIt has failed.
Feel free to move to one of those straight democracies (assuming you can find one) so you can see what the difference ACTUALLY is instead of what you THINK it is.
Try Switzerland (I think Iceland qualifies, as well).
mnealtx 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteIt has failed.
Feel free to move to one of those straight democracies (assuming you can find one) so you can see what the difference ACTUALLY is instead of what you THINK it is.
Try Switzerland (I think Iceland qualifies, as well).
Switzerland is about as close as it gets for modern times - of course, they have a 'double-dip' process depending on the scope of the issue.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
Quote
Ever see a situation where the legislators voted in something that the majority of the population didn't want?
Bush over Gore. Not quite your question, but in the ballpark.
The various protect the music industry bills probably wouldn't survive a public vote. Many of those actions have limited support outside of the industry.
The TARP bailout would die too, though in this case it could be argued that the legislators are doing what needs to be done for a change, not what's popular.
QuoteQuoteThe quotes of the Founding Fathers prove you wrong.
Really? Quote them. I don't mean a pseudonym, I mean an actual quoteS from Founding FatherS. Clearly Fed 10 isn't it. That's simply one man's opinion and he didn't have the balls to sign his name to it. AND there were dissenting opinions as well.
Go for it. Show me the quotes that prove me wrong and it wasn't done for practical reasons of travel and communications.
You make it sound as if Fed 10 was actually an important piece of how the US Constitution was created. It wasn't. It certainly wasn't considered all that important in its own time. It was simply a minor opinion.
It's silly pretending that the Federalist Papers didn't matter, or that they were anonymous opinions from a single person. That's as truthful as a Michelle Bachmann quote.
He cited very clear arguments that it was certainly a concern about the problems with democracy. A cynic would go on to say that this showed elitism - that they were afraid of the people, didn't trust them. Not a concern about the problems of distance.
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe quotes of the Founding Fathers prove you wrong.
Really? Quote them. I don't mean a pseudonym, I mean an actual quoteS from Founding FatherS. Clearly Fed 10 isn't it. That's simply one man's opinion and he didn't have the balls to sign his name to it. AND there were dissenting opinions as well.
Go for it. Show me the quotes that prove me wrong and it wasn't done for practical reasons of travel and communications.
You make it sound as if Fed 10 was actually an important piece of how the US Constitution was created. It wasn't. It certainly wasn't considered all that important in its own time. It was simply a minor opinion.
It's silly pretending that the Federalist Papers didn't matter, or that they were anonymous opinions from a single person.
I didn't say they collectively didn't matter. I said Fed 10 wasn't the reason we ended up with a representative democracy and it wasn't considered to be among the more important documents of the day. I cited a well known political science book of the day to demonstrate that.
QuoteHe cited very clear arguments that it was certainly a concern about the problems with democracy. A cynic would go on to say that this showed elitism - that they were afraid of the people, didn't trust them. Not a concern about the problems of distance.
Representative democracy is simply more practical. In the mid-1700s there was simply no way the citizenry could have possibly kept up with current events and traveled to polling places with the frequency required to run a government. Impossible.
While Madison may have suggested it for one reason in Fed 10, it was really the only solution if you wanted to decentralize power (as opposed to a Monarchy or Dictatorship) and give everyone some voice in government while still allowing them to make a living in a mostly agricultural society spread across thousands and thousands of square miles.
Let me put it another way . . . how else could it have possibly been done?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
SkyDekker 1,145
QuoteWhen someone resorts to "meh" and "whatever" in the same sentence, one can safely translate that to "I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about."
I think most people with basic reading comprehension skills can figure out my "meh" and "whatever" were in a sentence responding to your off topic comment regarding my supposed hatred of the United States. In that case, you indeed "don't know what the fuck you are talking about".
The rest is an argument you are creating by yourself. Never claimed teh rules were identical, my post above and quoted by you pretty clearly indicates where I see the parallel.
mnealtx 0
QuoteI didn't say they collectively didn't matter. I said Fed 10 wasn't the reason we ended up with a representative democracy and it wasn't considered to be among the more important documents of the day.
Federalist 10 standing by itself? Perhaps not, although the Library of Congress disagrees:
QuoteJames Madison's Federalist no. 10 is one of the most important and enduring statements of American political theory. Its reasoned statement explains what an expanding nation might do if it accepted the basic premise of majority rule, a balanced government of three separate branches, and a commitment to balance all the diverse interests through a system of checks and balances.
The Federalist Papers as a whole? History proves your opinion in error again, as they were reprinted as a bound book in 1788 and have continued to be available since then.
QuoteI cited a well known political science book of the day to demonstrate that.
Really? Please provide a direct quote where he specifically says that, thanks. Lack of cite does not imply lack of importance, only that the specific letter was not germane to the point he was making.
QuoteRepresentative democracy is simply more practical. In the mid-1700s there was simply no way the citizenry could have possibly kept up with current events and traveled to polling places with the frequency required to run a government. Impossible.
The citizenry would have the same knowledge of current events and issues under a republic as under a straight democracy. The same polling places could be used for for either form of government.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
mik 2
QuoteQuoteQuoteI guess some people would call corruption freedom and some of the basic rights we enjoy in the U.S. a hindrance to their peace and harmony.
Well, yes. That would be true.
For example, you may,by law, enjoy the freedom to blast your boom box until some specified hour of the night. That would indeed hinder my peace and harmony.
You may, by law, enjoy the freedom of taking my property to build a Home Depot. That would hinder my peace and harmony.
I needn't go on...
I'm guessing you have never been to Estonia.....
I am guessing you haven't been to Estonia either. It's a country that is hugely influenced by Scandanavia (look at the map to understand why if you don't know already) and if my experiences of visits there are anything to go on, it deserves a high ranking....
Still, never let the facts get in the way of bashing anyone who dares to suggest that the US is not the free-est place in the World
![[:/]](/uploads/emoticons/dry.png "[:/]"){kind=small}
***********************************************
I'm NOT totally useless... I can be used as a bad example
quade 3
QuoteQuoteRepresentative democracy is simply more practical. In the mid-1700s there was simply no way the citizenry could have possibly kept up with current events and traveled to polling places with the frequency required to run a government. Impossible.
The citizenry would have the same knowledge of current events and issues under a republic as under a straight democracy. The same polling places could be used for for either form of government.
Which works fine on election day once a year, but not on a day-to-day basis.
That might work with today's communication as demonstrated by "American Idol," but absolutely would not have worked in the mid-1700s. It would have been for all practical purposes, impossible.
Additionally, even if attempted, you still end up with a representative democracy of some sort because whoever is drafting the legislation are acting as gatekeepers to what people get to vote on. Unless, you're suggesting that everybody votes for every revision of every draft of legislation, but even then who initially came up with the draft, unless you're suggesting legislation be completely crowd sourced, in which case that's just f'in' nuts.
A pure democracy can ONLY work in a very small community where everyone involved can walk into the same town meeting. It doesn't scale up to the size of the state of Rhode Island let alone the 13 colonies.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
mnealtx 0
QuoteWhich works fine on election day once a year, but not on a day-to-day basis.
Then it is equally unworkable for *either* form of government and is invalid as a point of argument.
QuoteThat might work with today's communication as demonstrated by "American Idol," but absolutely would not have worked in the mid-1700s. It would have been for all practical purposes, impossible.
Then it should be very easy for you find quotes from the Founding Fathers supporting your version, right?
We'll wait.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DO the math:
Number of state and national legislators divided by the total population.
Somewhat less than a majority, eh? So few control so many. Me? I’d prefer the 51/49%
Ever see a situation where the legislators voted in something that the majority of the population didn't want?
Cut down on influence peddling? We have failed miserably on that. Yes, Quade has it right. Much easier to influence a few as opposed to the all.
And in that respect, how has a republic proven different? It hasn’t. Not by a long shot.
And here’s the bullshit:
Seeking a “cure” through the development of a republic opened a different prospect, yes, but it hasn’t proven to be the “cure” that was sought. It has failed.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites