Democracy is not easy

[a2784]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Main Entry: pure democracy

Function: noun

Date: 1656

: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives.

 

Jeikun is correct in that Jefferson (and the other founding father's agreed) was referring to pure democracy.

 

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

 

Food for thought:

Jeffereson also said:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,

it expects what never was and never will be."

Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

[A Mafan]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Main Entry: pure democracy

Function: noun

Date: 1656

: democracy in which the power is exercised directly by the people rather than through representatives.

 

Jeikun is correct in that Jefferson (and the other founding father's agreed) was referring to pure democracy.

 

In a pure democracy 51 beats 49[%]. In a democracy there is no such thing as a significant minority: there are no minority rights except civil rights (privileges) granted by a condescending majority. Simply stated, a democracy is a dictatorship of the majority. Socrates was executed by a democracy: though he harmed no one, the majority found him intolerable.

 

Food for thought:

Jeffereson also said:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization,

it expects what never was and never will be."

Thomas Jefferson, 1816.

+1

We actually have a representative democracy: we elect people who are supposed to be professionals at governance; those people vote for our laws. It tends to smooth out knee-jerk reactions of the populace (although that failed with Prohibition).

[Mick]

It was only a couple of years back that we had a similar brawl down here in Tennerbama. Actually, it was in the Alabama State Senate and blows were thrown....of course, those of us who live north of the state line are far more civilized than those redneck ruffians from "down there."

[a2784]

It was only a couple of years back that we had a similar brawl down here in Tennerbama. Actually, it was in the Alabama State Senate and blows were thrown....of course, those of us who live north of the state line are far more civilized than those redneck ruffians from "down there."

Also around the same time, I think, they had such a long "discussion and fillibuster debate" that one of the senators had to piss in a jar or bucket because he would not leave the floor ....

[Stepbrow]

I started this topic because I like to see countries adopt representative government. This type of government is always a struggle, and a constant battle against corruption and against special interests.

 

I think that for the US, our biggest challenge is how to diminish the power of special interest groups, and thereby re-establishing the people as the sovereign. But also so that it makes our representatives accountable to the people and not to the special interests.

 

Obviously there are some issues about doing this. I think that the big one is how repair the election process so that it reflects the will of the people and not the special interests.

 

Here are some ideas. And, they are just that so feel free to criticize them and or add your own.

 

1. Require that only individual citizens can contribute to political campaigns. Make it illegal for any entity (like a corporation, or union) to make a contribution to a candidate.

 

2. Make funding of political campaigns come from the government

 

3. Require free air time for political candidates as a requirement of broadcast licensing.

 

4. Strengthen the existing laws regarding gifts from special interests.

 

One problem in our election process is special interest advertising which is often, but not always, negative attack adds. They do have the right to free speech. Maybe they could be required to give free equal air time to the candidate who is attacked.

 

What else can we do to fix our system?

Edited January 19, 2010 by Stepbrow (see edit history)

[Jeikun]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Ummm... The English language?

[Yuanyang]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Ummm... The English language?

here it comes ....

 

Don, we need another icon to cover pissing contests ...

 

http://www.crackunit.com/wp-content/image_well/pissing.jpg

[Yuanyang]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Ummm... The English language?

here it comes ....

 

Don, we need another icon to cover pissing contests ...

 

http://www.crackunit.com/wp-content/image_well/pissing.jpg

 

I noticed this is in front of the Franz Kafka Museum

[Jeikun]

Although, if I understand correctly, Thomas Jefferson was referring to direct, or "pure" democracy. Which IS probably one of the worst forms of government.

 

 

 

"pure democracy" defined by whome ?

 

Ummm... The English language?

here it comes ....

 

Don, we need another icon to cover pissing contests ...

 

 

Nah, not necessary I'm not into those so much anymore anyway, but there's always tomorrow. In all seriousness, I just meant exactly what a2784 quoted from Mirriam-Webster. I meant "pure democracy" in the literal sense, as a synonym for "direct democracy".

 

Jefferson's distaste for that kind of governance is one of the reasons we are a representative democracy (elected representatives, electoral college, etc) today.

[knloregon]

Just a few house cleaning items here, to tidy this thread up a bit....

 

"...Cheney would have missed because Gore would have dodge the bullet to hug a tree...."

 

Factually not true ~ ! While it is true that Cheney was the only one who got a shot off, it did hit his hunting partner full in the face. (sort of half a duel I guess...) thats a FACT.

 

Whome is a member here, and I haven't seem him express an opinion yet on "pure democracy"

 

ok, back to the discussion !

[weiaijiayou]

Whome is a member here, and I haven't seem him express an opinion yet on "pure democracy"

Wonder where and how whome has been...

[Guest Pommey]

ok...ok... the point being there is not a pure democracy, never has been.

 

Closest ever was the Swiss city states, but please Socrates, Athens a city where only the select/upper class could vote, I think some of you guys should look back at Greek history, a democracy for just some.

 

Also I would just suggest when you throw in the "founding fathers" look at at how many slaves they had or their position of the emancipation all races and genders. I always find this founding fathers position interesting, but I guess from a country with less than 300 years history we have to start somewhere.

 

If you really want a definition of democracy read "rousseau" the social contract

[Stepbrow]

ok...ok... the point being there is not a pure democracy, never has been.

 

Closest ever was the Swiss city states, but please Socrates, Athens a city where only the select/upper class could vote, I think some of you guys should look back at Greek history, a democracy for just some.

 

Also I would just suggest when you throw in the "founding fathers" look at at how many slaves they had or their position of the emancipation all races and genders. I always find this founding fathers position interesting, but I guess from a country with less than 300 years history we have to start somewhere.

 

If you really want a definition of democracy read "rousseau" the social contract

 

Your right Rob, a "pure democracy' is just a theory. Is anything ever pure? Rousseau was one of the sources for the development of the Declaration of Independence, and also the Constitution. As was Voltaire, and the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment such as Hume, and Smith. Also John Locke who was influential upon Rousseau and Voltaire. The founders also were well read on Greek democracy and the Roman Republic.

 

I still think we need election reform.

[Yuanyang]

ok...ok... the point being there is not a pure democracy, never has been.

 

Closest ever was the Swiss city states, but please Socrates, Athens a city where only the select/upper class could vote, I think some of you guys should look back at Greek history, a democracy for just some.

 

Also I would just suggest when you throw in the "founding fathers" look at at how many slaves they had or their position of the emancipation all races and genders. I always find this founding fathers position interesting, but I guess from a country with less than 300 years history we have to start somewhere.

 

If you really want a definition of democracy read "rousseau" the social contract

 

Your right Rob, a "pure democracy' is just a theory. Is anything ever pure? Rousseau was one of the sources for the development of the Declaration of Independence, and also the Constitution. As was Voltaire, and the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment such as Hume, and Smith. Also John Locke who was influential upon Rousseau and Voltaire. The founders also were well read on Greek democracy and the Roman Republic.

 

I still think we need election reform.

 

Was it Churchill that said something like "democracy is a terrible form of government ... except for all the rest." {I really butchered it.}

[a2784]

ok...ok... the point being there is not a pure democracy, never has been.

 

Closest ever was the Swiss city states, but please Socrates, Athens a city where only the select/upper class could vote, I think some of you guys should look back at Greek history, a democracy for just some.

 

Also I would just suggest when you throw in the "founding fathers" look at at how many slaves they had or their position of the emancipation all races and genders. I always find this founding fathers position interesting, but I guess from a country with less than 300 years history we have to start somewhere.

 

If you really want a definition of democracy read "rousseau" the social contract

 

Your right Rob, a "pure democracy' is just a theory. Is anything ever pure? Rousseau was one of the sources for the development of the Declaration of Independence, and also the Constitution. As was Voltaire, and the philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment such as Hume, and Smith. Also John Locke who was influential upon Rousseau and Voltaire. The founders also were well read on Greek democracy and the Roman Republic.

 

I still think we need election reform.

 

Was it Churchill that said something like "democracy is a terrible form of government ... except for all the rest." {I really butchered it.}

He said "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

 

He also said ¡°The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.¡±