EPTbut thats not necessarily a bad thing.
Random guy wins South Carolina Democratic Primary - Page 10
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Zalfor
United States1035 Posts
but thats not necessarily a bad thing. | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
| ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
On June 18 2010 02:27 nam nam wrote: You are an idiot for arguing about whether or not USA is a democracy. Yes you are correct from a "pure" sense, but by popular usage, however, the word "democracy" come to mean a form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. This is what normal people do instead of starting a straw man argument. I thought we were debating democracy from a denotative rather than connotative understanding of the word. In common usage, in the Soviet Union or North Korea, the system of government was called a "democracy." The principle of popular sovereignty was accepted by Hitler as well as by Cromwell. This is sufficient to rebut your argument. "tyranny of the majority" This is also a term which must be clarified. Of course, there is such a thing as a majority oppressing a minority, but Tocqueville meant something different when he applied the concept to the future of the American Republic in his book. He foresaw that the real danger of democracy was not to minorities, but to individuals, because in a democratic society, on every level of thought and feeling, there would be very few examples of a real "minority," not because of popular oppression, but because popular sovereignty is something to which the common man is far more inclined to surrender his own beliefs and thoughts, than the sovereignty of an individual or a minority. Hence a tyranny of "the mild and gentle kind" which "degrades men without oppressing them." I daresay that if there be any popular discontent with the present condition of "democracy" in America and elsewhere, it is not attributable to reversion to older forms of oppression, against which we are too well insinuated, but dangers which are novel and which we consequently misread. The fallacy of this entire thread of arguing is the assumption that popular sovereignty means popular government, which it does not. The people of the United States no more govern than the Queen of England. Furthermore, they do not want to govern. They want government in their name and for their happiness, but they are loathe to partake in the labours or responsibilities. They consequently allow the bureaucratic machinery of government to grow to monstrous proportions, to the extent that they may rightfully excuse themselves from the impossible duty of being an "informed citizen." Thus popular sovereignty is reduced to a farce and a fool, thrashing about blindly, unable to exercise her own authority except in ignorance, incapable of good government except by capitulating her rights. Therein lies the paradox; the supreme power is impotent to secure its own wishes. | ||
|
alexpnd
Canada1857 Posts
| ||
|
Kashmir
New Zealand178 Posts
Keen for a Greene vs. Palin debate :D Edit: The thought these those two could get votes from anyone is actually quite scary. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On June 18 2010 19:25 MoltkeWarding wrote: I thought we were debating democracy from a denotative rather than connotative understanding of the word. In common usage, in the Soviet Union or North Korea, the system of government was called a "democracy." The principle of popular sovereignty was accepted by Hitler as well as by Cromwell. This is sufficient to rebut your argument. This clearly shows you are an idiot because you clearly didn't see my point. You are just making a straw man argument here. And no we are not arguing from the connotative understanding of the word, that was you purposefully flipping out over the use of the word when the meaning of his post was perfectly clear. Now take all your big words and shove them... That is sufficient to rebut your garbage. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
You are just making a straw man argument here. And no we are not arguing from the connotative understanding of the word No, the straw man argument is the circular argument which you are defending: -By custom democracy is defined as the system of government used by the United States and Western Europe -Therefore the United States is a democracy by customary agreement. Were that there was some higher purpose behind the assertion whereby axiomatic assumptions may be indulged to satisfy the final purpose, but here the axiom itself is the final purpose. Is there anything more awfully banal than saying that something is something else because people agree that it is? you purposefully flipping out over the use of the word when the meaning of his post was perfectly clear. Not at all. He asked for views to the contrary, I provided him with some. | ||
|
Lucktar
United States526 Posts
| ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
On June 15 2010 20:09 ggrrg wrote: Well, I couldn't find a reason why the US wouldn't be described as a democracy. Most simply said: The American people elect in a democratic manner their government representatives. As far as I know every senator, every member of the house of representatives and the president are all elected by the people. This alone classifies the US as a form of representative democracy Also your counterargument is not really valid since many other countries that are democracies have officials that are not elected in a democratic manner. For example in Germany the president is not elected by the people and the cabinet is appointed. It's not the manner in which you are elected, it's the manner in which you choose to be governed. Read the first few amendments in the US Constitution and pay close attention to the wording. Note how the Constitution does not grant you any rights but instead limits what the government can do. Individual states may be considered sovereign and have their own constitutions. The federal government only has as much power as the states have delegated to it. This serves to decentralize and shift power back to a more local level. However, this is all theory as states have given up much of their freedom for federal money. Signs of a republic are visible and the framework still intact. As the government usurps more power from the states, we move away from a republic and more towards a democracy. People in power want you to believe the US is a democracy as it would mean getting an agenda across that much easier. I remember reading somewhere how the founding fathers distinctly did not want a democracy. After the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked what type of government they had been given. To which he replied,"A republic, if you can keep it". | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On June 13 2010 10:46 Melancholia wrote: How'd we fall from the writers of the Federalist Papers to dimwits who assume governance is an impossible conundrum? It's impossible to rule over a man who concedes to it. The very act of coercive rule means that you are forcing others into doing things they would not otherwise do, i.e., paying you tribute (tax), following your rituals (law), etc. And if the slave concedes to be ruled (without duress), then it's not governance but voluntary "exchange". So yes, it's quite impossible. On June 13 2010 11:35 mmp wrote: We don't know this guy's deal yet, but you can be certain that the average incumbent puts himself, his campaign supporters, and the party ahead of his constituents. Polls show that Americans are generally fed up with politics as usual, but they mysteriously refuse to hold incumbents responsible by voting them out of office - thus nodding to the cycle of corruption. The voters have little chance do change anything on their own, so the incentive to vote is almost nil. The ones who have the most incentive to engage in political action are interest groups' organizers, lobbyists, mafia men, etc. Only those who can leverage votes or politicians themselves. Calling people lazy for not voting is analogous to calling hardcore BW players boring for not buying sc2. It speaks more about the product itself being unrewarding than people being "dumb". Not a mystery, people are different, and the one-size-fits-all of democracy can't ever satisfy everyone (or even a majority of people if you consider nonvoters are unsatisfied) | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
This will also really motivate other people to try and put their hat into the ring in other states, which I think will lead to a very interesting next few years of elections. | ||
|
Shauni
4077 Posts
| ||
|
neohero9
United States595 Posts
On June 18 2010 20:49 Kashmir wrote: I think it's hilarious. Keen for a Greene vs. Palin debate :D Edit: The thought these those two could get votes from anyone is actually quite scary. NO NO NO NO NOOOO! That woman needs to have her vocal cords extracted and her fingers removed. I bet Faux News would still put her on TV. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
On June 18 2010 02:19 MoltkeWarding wrote: The United States is not a democracy because strictly speaking, the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy. Democracy in the pure sense means popular rule, and the fact that both the president and congress can rule while unpopular in the United States illustrates the point that she is not a democracy, but a republic by design. Also, the president is not elected by popular vote, but by electoral college. The fact that the democratization of the electoral college makes it necessary that a presidential candidate be also popular in a majority of states doesn't change the principle behind the process. You are a very eloquent and surely a quite knowledgable person, but your whole post makes me feel like you argue just for the sake of arguing. What you say is by no means false, but I also don't see how it contradicts my position. I never argued that the US is a pure democracy. Obviously Athenian democracy wouldn't work in a country with 300 mio citizens... However, the US fits quite well in the definition of a representative democracy, where elected individuals form an independent ruling body charged with the responsibility of acting in the people's interest, but not as their proxy representatives. It is a valid statement to say that "the president is an elected monarch and congress an elected oligarchy", but this is the way representative democracy works all around the world with the difference that in some countries the president holds more power than in others. The utilization of the electoral college system as opposed to popular vote doesn't change anything either. It is still the people that elects its representatives, although one might argue that it is not the fairest way to hold an election. So basically I wonder: do you disagree that the US is a representative democracy or do you dislike the term representative democracy in general? | ||
|
rbkl
772 Posts
Now what do I mean by this? At least in my situation, there seems to be no way ever to keep track of all of these starcraft players. So when I asked to pick between all of these players where I have no idea who they are and how well they play, I simply pick the ones that have a name that I like, ie "light" "sea" etc - those players that I think would win or that I have heard some where before. Alvin Greene is lucky to be named what his name is. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
Really? Seems a bit harsh ^^ <3 Moltke | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2716 Posts
"James Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy as opposed to direct democracy." Yes, he did. He really did. I still don't understand how people can argue that the US isn't a representative democracy... | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
| ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On June 15 2010 05:01 GoodWill wrote: Didn't he spend most of his adult life (since 19 iirc?) in the military? And he was honorably discharged less than one year ago? So he should have some savings. Then why were said savings spent on an unexpected bid for office, and not on a lawyer for his felony charges? It's a very suspicious set of priorities. | ||
| ||
