Political Crossfire Forums

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

The Greeks of long ago once had this debate. Let us continue it.
What is better? In a democracy you have tyranny by majority. In a republic, you have rule by a select few elected by a committee that votes based on the opinion of the people.
I'll Google the opinion of the Greeks to better define both forms of freedom based governing forms.
If you post before that, please forgive my being late.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

Socrates' opinion:

Socrates... did not conceal his contempt for some of the weaknesses of democracy, and this... greatly influenced the political thinking of his disciple Plato. Socrates openly taught that the principal fault of democracy was that it did not require proof of special knowledge in its leaders, that it surrendered the direction of the people’s destinies to men without adequate experience in government, and that on the question of the morality of justice of a policy it treated the opinions of all citizens as equal in value. Not unnaturally, these unorthodox sentiments were viewed with alarm by the democrats, still politically insecure...

Socrates... sought to uncover errors in conventional views, and by the use of inductive argument — the attempt to arrive at general conclusions through striking particular illustrations taken from the life of the common people — to draw a pattern of life consistent with truth and virtue... The apparent harmony of the universe led Socrates to believe that it is ordered by a Divine Spirit and he held... that the soul is immortal. His belief that he himself was inspired by a divine voice... [brought him to his death]. He was a great, good, wise, inspiring... man.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

Plato's "Republic":

A link describing the book from which the term came.

I'll look for a pro-democracy source now.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

A good democracy link.

Now that I'm done backing up my 2 topics, let us debate the issue.

I'm for a democracy. I think that if you were to use a constitution to guarantee the right to vote to all and to limit all debate to social and issue based topics so as to avoid the whole "race" thing, it could work.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 5:53 am Post subject:

The thing with democracy is that a written Constitution is ultimately worthless as a check on the people. If the majority does not like the rules, it can simply change them, which then allows them to "legally" tyrannize others. Universal suffrage only enhances democratic tendencies and is usually the beginning of the end for most republics. The thing that needs to be achieved is a balance, and that does not exist in a democracy; there are a multitude of checks on the government and any minority which may try to come to power, but almost none on the people, in particular a popular majority, which results in an imbalance, and one which favors the worser form of tyranny, as the majority is more difficult to overcome than tyranny imposed by a minority.

Through checks upon the people, to include reasonably limited suffrage, and indirectly elected branch of the legislature, and indirectly elected chief executive and usually an unelected executive, and independent judiciary, as well as a difficult to amend Constitution and no direct popular participation, you achieve the proper balance, preventing wither the minority or the majority from tyrannizing. Republics are ruled by the law, the law being established by the people intially, and hence favoring rights and freedom, and therefore they tend to be the most just and conducive of freedom and liberty. Democracies are ruled by the people and hence make its citizens subject to majority tyranny.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

In the Athens of Socrates, of the Pelopnnesean war, 1/4 of the technical citizens did not own any property in a society that was flooded with wealth from trade and tribute. These people had little to lose in war, frustration to burn, glory, and possibly respect or wealth to gain. Now, a communism like that practiced by the Spartans might have saved them, but it did not save the Spartans from much injury. Yet Socrates was pro Spartan, at least, in envy of their hierarchical division of society. And if the Catholic Church embraced him in a later age it is because he advanced the idea of a meritocracy that the church came to embody. In fact, the Democracy of Socrates was in its dotage. It had already failed in that first of Commonwealths to keep wealth common, and those with wealth, or those like Socrates who s*cked up to wealth, and ate off their tables were inclined to look at the lowest rungs of society as parasites. They were right to feed him poison, though powerless to right the situation that made them seem like pariahs in their own land.
Democracy in its nativity seeks consensus, and in its old age settles for majority rule. The democracy of consensus involves the whole community, and prizes ever thought and all intelligence. It is that form of democracy that has delivered all surviving nations into the modern age. The communism of every man with a vote, and a voice, in Greece was only a remnant of a society where all rights were held in common. The destruction of this, and the consequential division of society made enemies within as dangerous as armies without. A like process was followed in Rome, and we are on the same path. Can we say even a quarter of our population owns property? I own more than most, technically only, since the bank has a share of all. Just as in Greece, the rights of democracy, that come from membership as citizens, and from the support of society, and the defense of society are rapidly being characterized as entitlements with the implication that those who receive them do not deserve them. This is true of social security, veteran's benefits, welfare, and public access to medicine. We are seeing political rights following economic rights, just as in Socrates' Athens.
So let me hand you your dictatorship of the Majority. Is that in any senses better than a dictatorship of the minority, or of a tyrant? The ideal of democracy is one were every interest is served, and where every voice is heard. If two heads are better than one all heads are better than some. Our system of government is the emulation of a democracy in its death throes. The Iroquois confederacy was the continuation of a democracy in its prime. Ours represents the unresolved conflict of two sorts of rights: civil rights resulting from birth, and property rights resulting from and in proportion to possession of property. This struggle if left to itself will only end in the destruction of society. Private property limits democracy and so weakens a society that if it cannot reinvigorate itself with revolution it must fall to invasion. That will be our fate!

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

Good points. Only wrong I find in your post is the fact that you say America is a democracy on it's death bed. America never was a democracy to start. I still support a democracy over a republic as long as a constitution is in place to protect the right of the minority to vote. As for the post before, you could keep the majority from throwing out the constitution by simply making it so that it cannot be amended. As it would only be protecting rights and keeping politics focused on issues, it wouldn't need to change. Rights would be decided by the vote.

J. Reiner · Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 39

David Kelly wrote: Good points. Only wrong I find in your post is the fact that you say America is a democracy on it's death bed. America never was a democracy to start. I still support a democracy over a republic as long as a constitution is in place to protect the right of the minority to vote. As for the post before, you could keep the majority from throwing out the constitution by simply making it so that it cannot be amended. As it would only be protecting rights and keeping politics focused on issues, it wouldn't need to change. Rights would be decided by the vote.

An un-amendable constitution?

This may be one of the worse ideas I've heard. No ability to change, leaves the people feeling helpless. If the first generation of this democracy fully supported this constitution, it might last until they are dead and gone. The chance of future generations having no qualms whatsoever about this constitution is all but none.

The only way I could see this possibly working is if the constitution was worded very loosely, and the body elected to interpret it was very powerful, and routinely overturned previous interpretations when they appeared to be obsolete. Of course, if I look at it that way, it wouldn't be a democracy at all, because there would be a government consisting primarily of a judicial branch.

Anarko-Kapitalizt · Joined: 21 May 2005 Posts: 2517

J. Reiner wrote: David Kelly wrote: Good points. Only wrong I find in your post is the fact that you say America is a democracy on it's death bed. America never was a democracy to start. I still support a democracy over a republic as long as a constitution is in place to protect the right of the minority to vote. As for the post before, you could keep the majority from throwing out the constitution by simply making it so that it cannot be amended. As it would only be protecting rights and keeping politics focused on issues, it wouldn't need to change. Rights would be decided by the vote.

An un-amendable constitution?

This may be one of the worse ideas I've heard. No ability to change, leaves the people feeling helpless. If the first generation of this democracy fully supported this constitution, it might last until they are dead and gone. The chance of future generations having no qualms whatsoever about this constitution is all but none.

The only way I could see this possibly working is if the constitution was worded very loosely, and the body elected to interpret it was very powerful, and routinely overturned previous interpretations when they appeared to be obsolete. Of course, if I look at it that way, it wouldn't be a democracy at all, because there would be a government consisting primarily of a judicial branch.

In order for an unamendable Constitution to work, the Constitution must be very explicit. Having that kind of Constitution is really the only way a limited government can exist.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

J. Reiner wrote: David Kelly wrote: Good points. Only wrong I find in your post is the fact that you say America is a democracy on it's death bed. America never was a democracy to start. I still support a democracy over a republic as long as a constitution is in place to protect the right of the minority to vote. As for the post before, you could keep the majority from throwing out the constitution by simply making it so that it cannot be amended. As it would only be protecting rights and keeping politics focused on issues, it wouldn't need to change. Rights would be decided by the vote.

An un-amendable constitution?

This may be one of the worse ideas I've heard. No ability to change, leaves the people feeling helpless. If the first generation of this democracy fully supported this constitution, it might last until they are dead and gone. The chance of future generations having no qualms whatsoever about this constitution is all but none.

The only way I could see this possibly working is if the constitution was worded very loosely, and the body elected to interpret it was very powerful, and routinely overturned previous interpretations when they appeared to be obsolete. Of course, if I look at it that way, it wouldn't be a democracy at all, because there would be a government consisting primarily of a judicial branch.

An un-amendable constitution is what two blocked the Spartans. The man who gave it to them made them promise to not change it until he returned and then he went away and starved himself to death. In ability to change is what screws us and makes us victims of the constitution. Even the change proposed giving rights to some that many find undeserving is already impossible because rights reflect money. Private property has rights and all rights are political, so civil rights must, to preserve themselves, find justification with those who have the economic power. Government exists apart from the real power in our lives, which is the economy. Where that leads we must follow.

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

As I stated, this constitution would give the right to vote to the minority and will keep all political issues based only on politics. No civil rights or any of that as that creates the idea of a "race". If groups are based on politics rather then skin color, you'll find that a democracy that was truly free would not only work, but flourish.

bigstick61 · Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:14 pm Post subject:

The better option is a Constitution which is very difficult to amend. It allows necessary changes over long periods of time, but prevents loads of stupid and pointless Amendments from being made for the most part, like in California, where the Constitution is very confusing and takes up a couple hundred pages in a book. In the US, the Amendment has to be proposed by the House or Senate, has to be passed in the exact same version by 2/3 of each House, and then by the legislatures in 3/4 of the States for it to ratified. Hence why there are only 27 Amendments so far. The California Constitution, by comparison, has had scores, if not hundreds of amendments, which only serve to make things even more complicated and confusing.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

David Kelly wrote: As I stated, this constitution would give the right to vote to the minority and will keep all political issues based only on politics. No civil rights or any of that as that creates the idea of a "race". If groups are based on politics rather then skin color, you'll find that a democracy that was truly free would not only work, but flourish.

Where are you going to find this constitution? In your ear? People do not want to mess with the constitution we have if only because it protects some civil rights. Not enough by any means, and in conflict with property rights. But is this fantasy land, because if it is let's write a constitution with some measure of perfection, and I mean that as all things perfect, by the hand of God.
Let me disagree with you that the U.S was not a democracy. All societies are more or less democracies. Ours was doomed from the start, and the powerlessness of people in regard to the institution of government by the constitution made our civil war inevitable. Yet, we all must assent or dissent as a measure of our existence. Even slaves must cooperate to survive. They may be lacking the essential input that no society can long survive without, and may suffer inordinately because of their lack of participation; but no less than the society at large that fatally weakens itself as it denies democracy.
What all societies have in common is that they are forms of relationships, and relationships in the ideal nurture and protect all their members. Slaves societies are far from ideal relationships, and yet still relationships that are like many, cooperative in nature. If we are to create a democracy that lasts, we must also create an equality that is enduring. I am not here talking of a perfect equality, but a recognition of a common equality. This is because the inequality of wealth, and power is the destruction of societies. Equality may be blamed for a certain retardation of development, but not for the suicide of any society. It is hard to imagine capital formation in a Muslim country, for instance, where interest is not permitted, and labor cannot be made a slave of capital. This is at once a reason for the technological backwardness of Muslim countries and also for their stability of social structure. Our advancement is built upon exploitation, and the sense of permissible inequality. Just as most of pre- history is like no history, a true socialism would be the end of history since history is the story of class struggle.

Fido · Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 3936

bigstick61 wrote: The better option is a Constitution which is very difficult to amend. It allows necessary changes over long periods of time, but prevents loads of stupid and pointless Amendments from being made for the most part, like in California, where the Constitution is very confusing and takes up a couple hundred pages in a book. In the US, the Amendment has to be proposed by the House or Senate, has to be passed in the exact same version by 2/3 of each House, and then by the legislatures in 3/4 of the States for it to ratified. Hence why there are only 27 Amendments so far. The California Constitution, by comparison, has had scores, if not hundreds of amendments, which only serve to make things even more complicated and confusing.

I think F.D.R. said with ten thousand dollars he could defeat any amendment of the constitution. Still the process of amendment is anti democratic. It does not take into account the fact that legislators, politician, are a class unto themselves, with their own pie to protect, and their own agendas. I think we need as much as any change, to have the number of representatives per citizen that we were first granted in the constitution. This would be not more than one for every thirty thousand of population? Correct me if wrong. This has been changed by the house itself and sanctioned by the supreme court. What do you think the chances would be short of storming the capital to get more representatives per person? Yet with each representative representing fewer citizens there is no doubt that democracy would be better served. One man can represent two men with more fidelity than he can represent ten. With government so evenly divided it is certain nearly fifty percent are not getting the representative they desire nor the votes as they desire them to be made. The House, which was supposed to be the most democratic is only slightly more democratic than the Senate, and not nearly so representative as intended by the constitution. Fix that, and 90% of America's problems and discontent would fade because every change would then be possible, without resort to revolution.

bigstick61 · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:38 am Post subject:

The process is not supposed to be democratic; otherwise it could not serve as a check on the people, although it also serves as a check on the Federal government.

Kindred · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 2:51 am Post subject:

bigstick61 wrote: The process is not supposed to be democratic; otherwise it could not serve as a check on the people, although it also serves as a check on the Federal government.

The elite (i.e. those who write the constitution) are allowed to write the checks on both the people and the government. Sounds kind of authoritarian to me.

bigstick61 · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 3:21 am Post subject:

It's not authoritarian in the least. Having checks against both the people and the government ensures a balance, which is the best thing for everybody. Too much power in the hands of either is a bad thing. The Constitution was written over two centuries ago; I don't see how that has anything to do with a percieved elite. It was written by some of the greatest American political philosphers ever, as well as by delegates from the several States. Having the people directly write it is both stupid and impractical, and often will result in a democratic government; republican government is better, as democracy is part of the path to tyranny.

Kindred · Posted: Mon Sep 25, 2006 4:11 am Post subject:

bigstick61 wrote: It's not authoritarian in the least. Having checks against both the people and the government ensures a balance, which is the best thing for everybody. Too much power in the hands of either is a bad thing. The Constitution was written over two centuries ago; I don't see how that has anything to do with a percieved elite. It was written by some of the greatest American political philosphers ever, as well as by delegates from the several States. Having the people directly write it is both stupid and impractical, and often will result in a democratic government; republican government is better, as democracy is part of the path to tyranny.

It was written by slave owners and land speculators for the most part. Furthermore, it wasn't even signed by all delegates, not even close.

The point is what a constitution decides to 'check' and 'balance' is greatly influenced by the political beliefs of those penning it. Did you notice slavery wasn't outlawed by the constitution? So the rest of the populace are forced to abide by the whims of a few, and are jailed if they fail to comply. In fact if the U.S constitution was not amended several times, America would be the most despotic nation in the first world. The original constitution was quasi-feudal, allowing voting rights only to a certain propertied class, denying woman, blacks, indentured servants, the working poor and the indigenous population such privledge.

I'm not saying direct democracy is any better, I just hope you can view the republic form (I use that term loosely and generically) as critically as you can the more democratic form.

melchizedek22 · Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Posts: 370 Location: Holy Toledo

this is all out dated,in the new Bush order,he is King follows what laws he feels like,all others "forgetaboutit"

David Kelly · Joined: 14 Jun 2006 Posts: 451 Location: Kissimmee, FL

melchizedek22 wrote: this is all out dated,in the new Bush order,he is King follows what laws he feels like,all others "forgetaboutit"

True.
But that's a little off topic. We're debating democracy vs. republic, not freedom vs. Bush.